Federal magistrate John Primomo taken off citizenship ceremonies and forced into retirement for telling new citizens they should leave the country if they do not like Donald Trump as president

An update on my recent blog about outrageous behavior of federal magistrate John Primomo at a citizenship ceremony where Judge Primomo told the new citizens that, if they do not like Donald J. Trump as the country's new president, they can just as well leave and go to another country.

Well, it is not the new citizens who do not like Trump who now leave the country, but it is judge Primomo who has abruptly left citizenship ceremonies - and is leaving the judgeship as well.

Judge Primomo reportedly turned in a retirement notice, effective September 2017, the next day after his "unusual" lecture to the new citizens.

The judiciary is supposed to be independent and free from influence.

Yet, what happened to Judge Primomo is a direct effect of the outrage in the media and social media coming from his statements.

Is it an encroachment on judicial independence?

I don't think so.

After all, the judiciary has given itself a gift of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench, and the U.S. Congress gave federal judges a gift of being free from discipline for whatever they do on the bench, leaving to victims of judicial misconduct only one remedy - appeal.

Yet, federal appeals in civil rights cases turned into rubber-stamping of what the misbehaving judges in the courts below say - through non-precedential summary opinions, which scholars claim are unconstitutional, without proper review of issues involved, see just 2 footnotes from the law review I just interlinked quoting Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit describing how judges, in their "discretion", decide cases through summary opinions - and nearly 100% of civil rights cases are decided this way by federal appellate courts:

So, there is absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench - and the victim of judicial misconduct is barred from suing a judge.

And, there is a Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. 352, under which the absolute majority of complaints against federal judges - complaints about misconduct on the bench, bias, ex parte communications and fixing court cases - are rejected for "lack of jurisdiction", because the U.S. Congress, in its infinite wisdom (lobbied, no doubt, by the judiciary) decided that the only remedy a victim of judicial misconduct in office can have is to appeal.

And, there are appellate courts that, as a matter of discretion, decide (or, rather, reject) issues of judicial misconduct through summary opinions where

• "facts need not be recited in detail because the parties to the dispute ... already know them" (why would then courts need to recite details of facts in any cases at all - including in the U.S. Supreme Court opinions?);
• it is not important "to be terribly precise in
• phrasing the legal standard announced"; or in
• "providing the rationale for the decision"
• it is not important for the judge to ponder precedential effect of the decision, "how the disposition will be applied and interpreted in future cases presenting slightly different facts and consideration",
• "[t]he time - often a huge amount of time - that judges spend calibrating and polishing opinions need not be spent in cases decided by an unpublished disposition that is intended for the parties alone" - and that applies to the now published, but still non-precedential summary orders, too.

According to Judge Kozinski, "[p]ublished opinions, by contrast, are often of impeccable quality; decisions for publication must be complete on their face and adequately discuss the facts, nature, history and reasoning of the case".

Yet, while the appeal is ONLY REMEDY for victims of judicial misconduct in federal court, federal appellate court, through their alleged "discretion", turned that only remedy into nullity, becase, as a matter of discretion, whenever you raise issues of judicial misconduct on appeal, it is put onto the "summary order" track, decided, most likely, by interns and law clerks and not by judges, where:

• facts,
• nature,
• history, and
• reasoning of the cases do not even have to be stated.

It is futile to make motions to recuse federal judges - despite a prohibition for judges to decide motions directed at themselves which claim bias, they do just that, reject such motions - and appellate courts affirm such rejections through the sloppy summary orders.

With no remedy at law available for victims of judicial misconduct in federal courts, the only way of making the federal judicial misconduct known and trying to obtain some remedy remains exposure of such misconduct in the mainstream media (if it is brave enough to cover such an "sensitive" topic), or/and in the social media.

And, more and more we see judicial discipline imposed because news of such misconduct leaked first into social media, and then picked up by the timid mainstream media.

In this case, this was a court ceremony, but a citizenship ceremony.

So, those participating in the ceremony were:

1. barred by judicial immunity from suing Judge Primomo;
2. barred by Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act from complaining about judge Primomo's misconduct in office; and
3. barred from appealing - because they were actually granted citizenship by judge Primomo in a court ceremony.

Their only remedy was making Judge Primomo's misconduct public.

They did - and Judge Primomo is going to be removed from the bench, not immediately, but within less than year at least.

So, victims of judicial misconduct should continue exposing that misconduct in the media.

The more we do that, the more changes we have hope of bringing about.

Arizona State Bar's selective approach to discipline against prosecutors and defense attorneys selling their clients' stories

I wrote on this blog about misconduct of an Arizona prosecutor Juan Martinez in publishing a book about the criminal trial of Jodi Arias and using as a sales pitch the materials of his office allegedly never presented to the court.

Prosecutor Juan Martinez was offered a "consent agreement" by disciplinary authorities - for putting him on "probation" because he published a book about a criminal case and sold in that book materials of his office or description of such materials which were not presented in court.

Juan Martinez adamantly refused to enter into the consent agreement, and the trial has not been yet scheduled in his disciplinary case.

On the other hand, the defense attorney in the same case, Laurence "Kirk" Nurmi, was offered, and reportedly accepted, an agreement for a 4-year suspension (not probation, like it was offered to prosecutor Martinez) for the very same conduct - of publishing a book about the very same trial.  The suspension consent agreement is still to be approved by the disciplinary court.

Both books:  Juan Martinez' "Conviction: the untold story of putting Jody Arias behind bars" and Laurence Kirk's "Trapped With Ms. Arias" continue to trade on Amazon.com, I've got the screenshots from Amazon.com for both books today:

And, Amazon.com even encourages buyers to consider buying these books - which are currently both grounds for disciplinary proceedings against their authors - together.

Attorneys have two cast-in-stone disciplinary rules - the rule of confidentiality of client information, and the rule that the attorneys cannot enrich themselves by selling information about the client's case, even if it is public.

Both rules are reasonable and go hand in hand with one another, because, if attorneys get more money for selling a client's story, there is no hope for confidentiality or effective representation - all that attorney will be doing is shaping the story to sell it better, instead of doing their jobs.

Prosecutor Martinez used as a sales pitch that he published in his book what was not presented in court, thus violating both of these rules.

Defense attorney Nurmi, apparently, did the same, describing in his book his interactions with his client

In the suspension agreement, reportedly, attorney Nurmi acknowledged that in his book he revealed evidence ruled inadmissible by the court and contents of confidential conversations with his client and her family members.


It is quite telling though that the disciplinary prosecutors did not make an effort to seek an injunction against the CONTINUED ENRICHMENT by both attorneys by selling the books and deriving a financial benefit from their own misconduct, and the misconduct apparently continues.

If the "consent orders" of discipline do not include prohibition to sell the books, and no preliminary injunctions against sales of the books are sought or entered by disciplinary courts, both attorneys are allowed and, in fact, encouraged, to publish books in sensationalized cases, because such books may bring more profit to attorneys than their legal careers, making suspensions or other forms of discipline ineffective.

Let's see what happens in Juan Martinez' disciplinary proceedings, but I have a funny feeling he will be given, as all prosecutors usually are, a slap on the wrist and will be allowed to practice - and commit misconduct - further.

Suspensions are only for defense counsel.

Prosecutors (the breeding pool of judges), when caught in the very same misconduct, can be offered "probation" and proceed on their merry way.

What else is new.

The California State Supreme Court overrides the State Legislature and orders funding of attorney discipline - the discipline that, according to the same court, has no meaning

I wrote earlier on this blog that the California highest court has ruled that there is no ineffective assistance of counsel when a criminal defendant was represented by a suspended attorney.

That one decision made the entire attorney regulation system in California, the system that exists since 1926 and is mired in controversy since its beginning, completely meaningless.

Yet, it continued.

And, of course, California State Bar - regulating lawyers by lawyers, for reasons that have obviously nothing to do with protection of consumers of legal services (since suspended attorneys could provide as good a representation as licensed attorneys) - continued to operate like nothing happened.

In 2012, the annual dues of the State Bar were set by the State Legislature at $410.00 from every attorney licensed in California - which was necessarily put into the fees of California lawyers, as a cost of doing business.

 Then there were a series of "controversies" with California State Bar, including a disciplinary action against its own former leader turned whistleblower - that has eventually led to the State Legislature refusing to allow the California State Bar to collect its membership dues at this time.

 The State of California Legislature stopped short though from enacting a law that would demand the State Bar of California to split its regulation and its professional advocacy functions - which should be a requirement for an "arm of the government".

 Nevertheless, the funding bill that would allow the State of California to collect membership dues, did not pass this year.

 So, what did California State Bar do when it was stripped of ability to collect member dues for purposes of attorney regulation?

 Did it stop collect membership dues - because there was no law allowing California State Bar to do that?

No way.  The California State Bar bypassed the lack of Legislative bill authorizing it to collect annual fees and applied to the California State Supreme Court for an override of the Legislature.

The California Supreme Court stepped in and allowed the California State Bar - in the absence of the required bill allowing to charge annual membership fees - to charge every attorney a "regulatory assessment", without indicating an amount - so, the amount can be unlimited, to fund the disciplinary system, whether that particular attorney is subject to disciplinary proceedings at the time the fee is charged, or not.

So, the California Supreme Court is now defying the Legislature in order to allow its own "administrative arm", the California State Bar, to do exactly what the Legislature did not allow it to do - to collect membership dues, albeit in a somewhat reduced amount.

That is the same California Supreme Court, remember, that claimed that representation by a non-attorney (an attorney whose license was suspended for non-payment of those same membership dues) is effective representation - even though it is also unauthorized practice of law.

Let's recall that regulation of attorneys - by attorneys and judges - must be slam-dunk and free of any conceptual problems.  Because judges and attorneys are legal experts, right?  That was the underlying reasoning for allowing regulation of attorneys by attorneys and judges, and not by lay members of the public, right?

Yet, it is an ongoing mess.

Because the top state court of the State of California:

1.      makes prosecutors of attorney disciplinary proceedings its own "arm", creating an unconstitutional accuser-adjudicator problem;

2.      legislates (illegally) for funding for disciplinary proceedings from attorney-members of the State Bar; and

3.      makes attorney disciplinary proceedings meaningless because representation by a suspended attorney, in the opinion of that same court, is as good and effective as representation by a licensed attorney - so WHY LICENSE ATTORNEYS THEN?

And, you know how the State Supreme Court of the State of California got out of the quagmire that it is overruling the State Legislature and instead legislates on the issue of funding of California State Bar?

By disingenuously claiming that "the court has no view on arguments it received urging it use its authority to fund the agency’s non-disciplinary functions, and that the court will not stop the bar from seeking donations to fund those activities".

That's it - when every attorney licensed to practice in the State of California receives a demand for a "charitable donation" to fund a government agency's investigative and prosecutorial activities, that is called "voluntary" and not mandatory.

Of course, if a donation is voluntary, it cannot be of a pre-set amount from each licensed lawyer of the State of California.

Because, if a donation is voluntary, it may be given or not given, and, if given, it can be given in any amount at all, or "in kind", not of a set amount of $297.00 from every "donee".

Nevertheless, the "donation" ruse was immediately blown by the press, where the court's pretended non-interference with the State Bar's solicitations of charitable donations of $297 from every licensed attorney in the State of California in order to fund the State Bar's disciplinary proceedings (or, most likely, salary and benefits of disciplinary investigators and prosecutors) was presented as a direct order allowing the State Bar to do what the Legislature did not allow them to do - to CHARGE California lawyers an annual fee of $297.

Yet, at the same time as claiming that the court will not interfere with solicitations of "donations", the court also did two things:

In September of 2016, it issued a "letter" announcing that it has "inherent authority" to arrange for funding of attorney regulation if the Legislature does not provide for such funding.

And, on November 17, 2016, the California State Court issued a direct order allowing the State Bar to collect a "special regulatory assessment" from California attorneys, without indicating HOW MUCH IS TO BE COLLECTED.  So, since the order only speaks of a "regulatory assessment", but does not provide for the amount, supposedly that gives authority to the California State Bar to set that "assessment" at any amount, at its whim.

When a court orders financing of investigations and prosecutions of its own "arm" dealing with such investigations and prosecutions, at the time when the State Legislature, charged with that duty, specifically refuses to so do - because of controversies and unethical behavior within the State Bar - that legislative act makes the court so much an advocate for the prosecution that disciplinary activities that the court felt it has an "inherent constitutional authority" to fund became completely and irreversibly tainted.

I do not know about authority of the California Supreme Court to fund disciplinary prosecutions of attorneys.

But I know that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and that the California State Constitution may not provide to California attorneys subject to discipline LESS protection than the federal Constitution does.

And, under the federal Constitution, when a Court acts as a legislator and an advocate, financing activities of a disciplinary prosecutor, and when the disciplinary prosecutor is considered an "administrative arm" of the disciplinary court, such a situation is intolerable under federal constitutional law as an "accuser-adjudicator" problem, invalidating all orders on discipline of California attorneys.

Not that the judiciary would care for doing anything unlawful.  They are the law in this country. 

Correct?

A judge who refused to perform same sex marriages was indicted in Oregon - because he committed a crime or because his indictment is a come-uppance for refusing to perform same sex marriages?

I wrote on this blog about judges targeted for refusing to obey some, but not all, of the U.S. Supreme Court precedents.

For example, the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court about due process and free speech can be violated with impunity, with nobody bothering - as evidenced by the statistics of persecutions against attorney whistleblowers of judicial misconduct.

Yet, judges in Alabama, Wyoming and Oregon were sought out for discipline for disregarding the particular U.S. Supreme Court precedent about legalizing same sex marriage (while the State Bar of the State of Texas refused to discipline the Attorney General for the State of Texas on the same grounds).

I wrote specifically about the fate of the Oregon Judge Vance Day who was targeted for discipline because he refused to perform same sex marriages.

Now, one of the judges targeted for refusal to obey the same-sex marriage precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court has been reportedly indicted for allegedly providing a gun to a felon, and for using his position to obtain a benefit in 2013 or 2014.

Now, judges use their positions to obtain benefits all the time, and I've been writing about it on this blog since 2014.  I wrote about conflicts of interests of U.S. Supreme Court justices just yesterday - none of those justices were ever indicted for "obtaining benefits" for themselves using their judicial positions, such as book deals, speaking engagements, teaching engagements overseas, trips paid by associations, attorneys and law firms appearing in front of the court etc.

And, state judges are usually - if indicted at all, which happens in extremely rare cases - are indicted only in federal court, because, first, state prosecutors are afraid to touch them, and, second, State Attorneys General are actually the judge's own attorneys advising them and representing them if judges are sued.  Judge Day is the fist sitting judge in the State of Oregon who was indicted, according, reportedly, to the official statement of representative of Oregon Judicial Department.

So, when the Oregon Attorney General presented the case to the grand jury, he was certainly disqualified from doing it by an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

And, since a decision was made that a state judge would be turned into a state criminal grand jury, the judge was really marked for destruction.

Interestingly enough, after indictment and arraignment, Judge Vance Day was reportedly ordered to "work from home" - whatever that means for a judge.

The whole point of "benefit" and "giving a gun to a felon" was because Judge Day took a litigant, a former Navy Seal, appearing in his "Veteran's Treatment Court", to Judge Day's son-in-law's home to do some work there, and allowed the former Navy Seal, a convicted felon, to remove a clip on the gun in order to make sure the gun is loaded.

This country has just witnessed on live TV crowds of people crying in the streets because a criminal  who exposed the national security was not elected president.

We have judges, like Judge Sotomayor, accepting "books and pieces of art not exceeding $350.00 in value".

We have other judges accepting all-expenses-paid trips from attorneys, bar associations and parties appearing in front of the court.

Those are huge "benefits".

Nobody gets indicted.  Instead, these judges are celebrated as "outstanding jurists".

What Judge Day allegedly did - if he did it - is undoubtedly improper.

It is unquestioningly improper for a judge to hire a litigant appearing in front of him to do work in the judge's son-in-law's house.

Yet, it is no less improper for a judge to accept wining-and-dining from attorneys sponsoring the American Inns of Court on a monthly basis, behind closed doors and without the litigants even knowing that judges are accepting benefits from attorneys, likely, attorneys appearing in front of them.

And, it is clear that judges would not have been wined and dined but for their position and judges.

For example, here is an interesting article about the "challenges" that the Clinton Foundation may face now that the "goodwill" of Hillary Clinton as a future president of the United States disappeared - and big donors, like the governments of Norway, Australia or Kuwait being disappointed.

"Goodwill" is a code word nowadays for the ability of a public servant to use his or her official position to enhance business opportunities for himself/herself and their families.

Half the country said it is good for Hillary Clinton, with such shady money received by her Foundation, to become president and continue to trade her influence for money for her family that is running and using the Foundation's money.

If it is good for Senators, if it is good for Hillary Clinton, if it is good for the U.S. Supreme Court justices to receive "benefits" in exchange for their influence as public servants - why Judge Day was targeted, as the very first and only judge so far in the State of Oregon who was ever indicted.

We are talking selective enforcement of laws here.

The judge himself did not receive a benefit from the former Navy Seal's work - his son-in-law did.  And, there is no indication that the judge traded the former Navy Seal's work for the judge's son for a beneficial treatment in court.

Moreover, there is a real question that allowing a trained former Navy Seal to DISABLE a gun qualifies as allowing possession of a gun by a felon.  Such an indictment puts the law prohibiting possession of guns to felons on its head, because the reason why the former Navy Seal was allegedly allowed to disable the gun was to enhance safety, not threaten it.

Judge Day is not a very likeable person.

He reportedly included the portrait of Adolf Hitler in the "Hall of Heroes" artwork display at the courthouse, and refused to take it down, reportedly stating that "some influential people in town" want that portrait there.

But, Judge Day was not indicted for that.

Judge Day was indicted for conduct that, likely, every other judge in the country can be accused of, but no judges are indicted for.

The only other things that judges in Oregon were ever charged for criminally was driving while intoxicated and bigamy/forgery of documents to commit bigamy.

With the general permissive attitude with judges committing crimes in office under protection of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts, I believe that, had Judge Vance Day not been targeted as a judge who refused to perform same sex marriages, defying ONE U.S. Supreme Court precedent (while every other judge continues to defy any other U.S. Supreme Court precedents with impunity and immunity), he would never have been indicted.

And that is a big problem with the "rule of law" and "equal protection of law" in this country.

Loyalty over the law and reason: Magistrate John Primomo, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, teaches new citizens that love of the government is the pre-requisite for staying in the country

A Texas federal magistrate judge, Judge John Primomo, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a licensed attorney and sworn officer of the court since 1977 (for 39 years)

a public official sworn to protect the U.S. Constitution, including its 1st Amendment, reportedly told the new citizens - at a citizenship ceremony that if they don't like Trump, they should just leave the country, because "Trump is [their] President".

The statement was improper and misleading on many levels.

First, Trump is not YET their president, President Obama is their president now.

Second, a pledge of citizenship is not a pledge of loyalty to the government.

Last time I checked, We the People is the collective popular sovereign of this country, and the president of the United States is an elected public servant, subject to removal from office for unfitness or misconduct.

So, whoever is the president of the United States, nobody has an obligation to like him in order to remain a citizen of the United States or to live in the United States.

For a federal judge who deals, on a daily basis with civil rights lawsuits directly related with interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, such a public statement of a federal magistrate is downright scary - and, in my opinion, constitutes evidence of unfitness of Magistrate John Primomo to be a judge, or a licensed attorney, because he does not understand the oath of office he has made

• 39 years ago, when he was licensed to practice law in Texas;
• 38 years ago, when he was licensed to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas;
• and 28 years ago, when he became a magistrate judge.

I understand what Judge Primomo was doing - he was publicly announcing his loyalty to the new president.  Yet, the pledge of allegiance is a little bit premature - since President Trump is not in office yet - and does not involve misleading other people into believing that their citizenship depends upon liking the current president-elect.

If for a judge who decides civil rights cases against the government, loyalty to the government is a pre-requisite of citizenship and even being within the United States, such a judge should be immediately disqualified from all civil rights lawsuits.

Which, of course, will never happen.

Jesse Jackson joined Chris Cuomo as Hillary Clinton's friend who is worse than an enemy

In October of 2016, CNN journalist Christ Cuomo, brother of New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo, during the presidential elections of 2016, drew attention to Hillary Clinton's e-mails that helped Donald Trump's election campaign, and claimed that anybody who reads the alleged e-mails of Hillary Clinton published by WikiLeaks, may be in possession of stolen property

and should instead listen to interpretations of those e-mails by CNN and Chris Cuomo, supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Of course, asserting that e-mails are stolen property of Hillary Clinton or the government is asserting that the e-mails in question are authentic emails of Hillary Clinton - and an admission that Hillary Clinton exposed national security and is unfit as a presidential candidate or president.

Hillary Clinton lost the election, but now that Donald Trump is going to take the White House in January, speculation is abound whether Donald Trump's U.S. Attorney General will investigate and/or prosecute Hillary Clinton in connection with the e-mail scandal.

And, a new friend of Hillary Clinton, who is no better than Chris Cuomo, emerged - the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Speaking to Michigan University students and administration, Rev. Jesse Jackson claimed that President Obama should issue a blanket pardon for Hillary Clinton before he leaves office, as President Ford did for former President Nixon.

There are several problems with such a statement of the Reverend, though.

First, there is the little problem of a Reverend making political speeches and engaging in political activities and the IRS tax-free status of his organizations, if he has any.  If the Reverend presides over any church or non-profit organization - I am not sure whether he is - his church or non-profit may lose its IRS tax-free status because of the Reverend's political speeches.

Second, President Nixon's pardon was given illegally - and so asking President Obama to follow example of President Ford in relation to pardon unconstitutionally given to President Nixon does not portray the Reverend, a civil rights activist, in a good light.

Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that the President of the United States "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

"Offenses" of President Nixon for which President Ford pardoned him were impeachable offenses, and, in fact, the House voted in July of 1974 to open impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, so President Ford lacked constitutional power to pardon President Nixon - which, obviously, did not stop him from doing that.

Of course, the pardon was given by President Ford in September of 1974, after President Nixon resigned in August of 1974, and, thus, was arguably outside of the reach of impeachment proceedings.

The next thing is the term "offenses".  The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give the U.S. President the power to pardon people who have never been charged with a criminal offense against the United States, and the text of the U.S. Constitution cannot be interpreted to give the President the powers that are not explicitly given in the text.

That President Ford did for President Nixon exactly what Reverent Jesse Jackson asks President Obama to do for Hillary Clinton - pardon her where criminal charges were never filed - does not confirm, by an illegal precedent, that such powers actually exist under the U.S. Constitution.

President Nixon dodged impeachment by his resignation and was never formally criminally charged.

Hillary Clinton dodged criminal charges by apparently being cozy with Loretta Lynch and James Comey, and escaped impeachment by not being elected president, but is still not out of the hot water as to future criminal charges - with Donald Trump coming to office and a hard-core U.S. Attorney General likely to be appointed.

Now, the Reverend Jesse Jackson publicly appeals to President Obama to do "the same" for Hillary Clinton as President Ford did for the then-former President Nixon.

Yet, the very text of the presidential pardon power implies that the pardon is for an offense committed against the United States.

And, asking to pardon Hillary Clinton will taint her even more as a pardoned criminal.

As I said, with friends like Chris Cuomo and Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton does not really need enemies.

On the necessity of blind trusts for assets of elected and appointed public officials - and their family members

There are a lot of discussions in the media that the current president elect Donald J Trump should put his assets in a blind trust for the duration of his presidency, to be overseen by an independent overseer, such as this one.

First of all, a question, if this is all about government transparency and honesty and nothing about politics of the source arguing that government transparency and honesty - had Hillary Clinton been elected, would she be as vigorously required, by the press and non-profits seeking government transparency, to sever all ties with her Foundation and transfer management of the Foundation to an independent overseer, out of the hands of her family members?

This blog is dedicated to ensure government transparency and honesty, and exposure and, possibly, eradication of conflicts of interest in the government, and for me, the idea of blind trust for this particular president elect - and for all other public officials - is an excellent idea in terms of eliminating even a potential for the conflict of interest.

And, I am glad that somebody finally came up with that idea and is vigorously promoting it - albeit in application to just one public official, the current president elect.

Of course, putting the assets of a public official in a "blind trust" raises some legal issues, one of which is, for example, the issue of potential co-ownership by family members.

Should family members of a public official be required to put their assets into blind trusts with independent overseers over those blind trusts, to eliminate potential for conflicts of interest?

As much as I tried to get even financial reports, for example, of New York State judges - who are required by law to file such reports every half a year - I was not only consistently stonewalled, but my FOIL requests were reported to the particular judges who were the subjects of the FOIL requests, and one of them felt so irate about my "nosing" FOIL requests that he sanctioned me for them, and my law license and livelihood was pulled because of those sanctions - without a hearing, because it was too risky for New York State government to allow such a hearing.

Talking about blind trusts - in New York, instead, the public is required to blindly trust that judges have integrity, without seeing even their filed and supposedly open-to-the-public financial reports.

And, in New York, and in other states of the United States, and in the United States House and Senate, and in federal courts, up to the U.S. Supreme Court, there are no requirements, as far as I know, for public officials or their relatives to put their assets into any "blind trusts" - although it would have been a superb idea.


And I do not see the media in a frenzy to impose those "blind trusts" upon all public officials.

It is a good idea to ask the president elect - and his relatives - to do such a thing voluntarily, although, I am sure, the president elect will refuse to do that because no other public official is required to do that, and there is no reason to discriminate against the president elect.

But it is a good idea to at least voice such a concern in public.

And then to push for a federal legislature requiring "blind trusts" of ALL elected or appointed public officials, state or federal, and prohibiting family members of all public officials to work as lobbyists for the legislatures that can bring benefits to those same public officials.

For example, in New York, there is no prohibition for members of New York Legislature who are licensed attorneys to (1) sponsor and votes for legislation pertaining to court practice or practice of law; or (2) privately practice law in addition to their job as a Senator or House Representative.

Imagine if Donald Trump continued to run his businesses themselves while being a president.

Well, if his children are running his businesses, but communicating with their father, there is no way of ascertaining that it is not, in fact, Mr. President who would be running the Trump empire after the inauguration, and that is a big concern.

But, those same concerns have been present for decades for state Governors, Senators, Representatives, prosecutors and judges - with, once again, no media frenzy over it whatsoever.

I do not see any bills for "blind trusts" being even offered by the federal or state legislatures - for the obvious reasons that they will hurt the income of too many families of high-standing public officials with connections.

There are many scandals pertaining to such conflicts of interest reported in the press, but no general conclusions are drawn, and no push is made for general "blind trusts" on assets of public officials or their family members or ban on lobbying by family members in legislatures that can provide benefits to certain public officials.

Here are at least some of those reported scandals.

Missouri Senator Roy Blunt, who was recently chosen for a "leadership role" of the Republican party in the U.S. Senate, has, reportedly, his spouse and adult children lobbying for the U.S. Congress where Senator Blunt is legislating.

So, will the "family business" be eliminated any time soon for Senator Blunt? Not really - he was re-elected, and the candidate who exposed the "family business", was not elected, possibly, not enough money for the campaign to get out the message.

A blind trust for Senator Blunt and his children and a prohibition on lobbying for his family?

California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein "for at least 15 years, ... has appeared to support government contracts that push federal funds toward companies co-owned or governed by her powerful, billionaire husband, Richard C. Blum."   Of course, Richard C. Blum and Dianne Feinstein denied any wrongdoing claiming that the Senator's husband uses his connections only for the good of his beloved California university.

But, Trump and his children can claim the same, can't they?

A "blind trust" for Senator Feinstein and her husband Richard C. Blum?  Does anyone really believes this is going to happen?

How about family interests of the current Secretary of State John Kerry whose multi-millionaire wife owns the Heintz conglomerate of corporations? The conflict of interest has been reported since at least 2007, but John Kerry or his wife were never required to put their assets into a "blind trust".

In fact, reportedly, it is "legal" for congressmen and women to sponsor bills benefiting them and their families financially, and 73 federal legislators has used that loophole so far - according to a press report of 4 years ago!

Blind trusts for all of the Kerry family?  Does anyone believe that is going to happen?

Imagine the probability of introduction of a bill for such a "blind trust" for all public officials, appointed or elected, local, state or federal - the federal legislators who run for election specifically to enrich themselves and their families through connections, lobbying and sponsoring "the right bills" will not shoot themselves in the foot, will they?

Conflicts of interest of U.S. Supreme Court justices were also widely reported - disqualifying and irreconcilable conflicts of interest.

Reportedly, sons of U.S. Supreme Court justices Scalia (now deceased) and Alito (still in office) work or worked at the time of the report in 2014, at a law firm that bragged that the law firm has 30% of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court heard (as opposed to 0.1% on the average - 70 cases out of 8000 petitions).

Should employers of relatives of U.S. Supreme Court justices put their assets and operations under the scrutiny of "independent overseers"?

Looks like a good idea - considering how much business is derived from employing a relative of a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court set a "recusal policy" reportedly back in 1992 by which no recusal is required if a relative of a U.S. Supreme Court justice "simply works" for a law firm appearing before the court in a case (there are 9, now 8 of justices, remember, so the consider the probability of that "working for a law firm" for a relative in a country with 240 million people and hundreds of thousands of lawyers and law firms).

Conflicts of interest regarding Judge Alito's brother, Judge Kagan's brother and Judge Breyer's son were also reported, as well as conflicts of interest with Scalia's wife, Thomas's wife and Ginsburg herself.

Yet, we see no legislative bills attempting to police conflicts of interest in federal courts and in the U.S. Supreme Court - on the opposite, the bill that the U.S. Congress did introduce, blocks complaints against judges for any misconduct in office, leaving only one avenue for victims of judicial misconduct - appeal, while the majority of civil rights appeals in federal courts in the United States are rubber-stamped "affirmed" by non-precedential summary orders without proper review of the issues.

So, no bills to control rampant conflicts of interest in federal and state legislatures and judiciary.

And, had such bills been introduced, even for show, they would have died very quickly.

So, the "blind trust" idea (with an "independent overseer") is a very, very good idea, is long overdue, and it is great that the media has vigorously put this idea on the public agenda - even if only in application to one public official.

But, it should be equally applied to all elected and appointed public officials.

That will be great, right and fair.