Alabama suspends its Chief Judge for defying one U.S. Supreme Court precedent - and immediately puts a man to torturous death in violation of another U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The rule of law. Right.

This past Thursday, on December 8, 2016, Alabama executed Ronald Bert Smith, Jr. in a 30-minute (!) procedure during which Ronald Berth Smith, Jr., reportedly, coughed, heaved, clenched his fists, raised his head and opened his eyes, obviously expressing distress.

He was slowly put to death anyway.

Ronald Bert Smith, Jr., was not sentenced to death by a jury.

According to his petition to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the jury sentenced him to life without parole.

But, in Alabama, a judge is allowed to override a jury verdict, and Smith’s sentencing judge did just that – overrode the jury verdict of life in prison without parole, and imposed a death sentence.

The execution was set at December 8, 2016.

In 1988 in a dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall claimed that death sentences by judicial override are unconstitutional.

On January 12, 2016, 11 months BEFORE the execution, that dissent became a majority opinion, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hurst v Florida and struck as unconstitutional  imposition of the death penalty by judicial decision.

And, in that case, the U.S. Supreme Court stated exactly this, in its majority holding:

The holding in Hurst is pretty straightforward - a judge may not make additional findings,  and in Hurst the death sentence was overruled, even though the jury recommended it to the judge - only because the judge made additional finding of aggravating circumstances.

In Ronald B. Smith's case, the jury DID NOT recommend a death sentence - only life without parole, so the death sentence by judicial override in Smith's case was unconstitutional "a fortiori" - even more so than in Hurst.

And that is exactly what Smith's lawyers argued in his habeas petition from the beginning:

until the end:

Yet, Alabama Supreme Court denied the stay, and then, when Smith asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay, the Alabama Attorney General asked the U.S. Supreme Court to disregard Hurst, because it allegedly does not apply (it obviously does), and because Smith allegedly "waited too long to invoke it".

Think about it.

A person has a constitutional right to live, not to die, he is still alive - as of December 6, 2016 - but he, according to Alabama Attorney General, took too long to refer to the law allowing him to live.

Well, I wrote about a federal judge, Richard Kopf of Nebraska, who invented three reasons why he would knowingly allow to execute an innocent person - and "waiting too long" to invoke the condemned person's right to live was one of them.

In Smith's case there was no question of guilt, only that the jury gave him life without parole, and the judge did not have a constitutional right to override that sentence and impose a death penalty.

But, on December 6, 2016, when the Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange

asked the U.S. Supreme Court not to follow its own precedent, Alabama had, 2 months prior, suspended from office its own Chief Judge - for not following another U.S. Supreme Court precedent, declaring same sex marriage constitutional.

Here is some of Alabama AG's claims in his pleadings to the U.S. Supreme Court:

By not being "retroactive", Alabama AG, this man with innocent baby blue eyes, claimed that if a court declared that a criminal death sentence verdict is unconstitutional, it means that only the new death penalties imposed are unconstitutional, but the "old" death penalty verdicts can proceed anyway.

Under the same logic, if a gay couple was denied the right to marry before the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell in June of 2015, it's a done deal, a court of law denied couples their right to marry at the time when it was legal to deny gay couples a right to marry, and the couple is now collaterally estopped from claiming that right anew, since the new precedent, Obergefell, does not have a "retroactive effect", and all old court decisions denying gay couples their right to marry are legal and enforceable after it was declared unconstitutional.

I wonder if Alabama AG wants to try that logic out with LGBT community.

Yet, based on the same logic, a man, this man,

was tortured and killed.

Alabama AG Luther Strange presented to the U.S. Supreme Court also these arguments:

I love the language - the use of the word "eligible" - like "eligibility" for death penalty is an eligibility for some benefit.

Actually, Alabama AG stretched the truth in his pleading - because in Hurst the jury actually recommended the death penalty, and the court still reversed it, because a judge made his own factual findings.

In Smith, the jury did not recommend the death penalty, barring the judge from having a constitutional ability to still recommend it, so claiming that the jury made a finding necessary for a death penalty in a decision where they did not recommend the death penalty was completely inappropriate.

So, the highest-ranking judge in the State of Alabama defied a U.S. Supreme Court precedent on gay marriage - and lost his position.

Just two months after that, the highest-ranking prosecutor in the State of Alabama asks the U.S. Supreme Court to disregard - without overruling - its own precedent on death penalty, and the U.S. Supreme Court obliges - and the Chief Judge denies Smith his "courtesy" vote to stay the execution, which he earlier granted to another condemned prisoner, and granted him life, under the same circumstances.

So, apparently, not all U.S. Supreme Court precedents are binding and must be honored by state public officials, and, what is worse, the U.S. Supreme Court itself participates in instilling disrespect to its own precedents by refusing to follow even the most recent of them - and even to save a person's life.

The gay community gained political clout, and defying it is now dangerous even for a top state judge?

But, a condemned individual has no clout - and thus, a precedent clearly stating that he must be allowed to live, can be disregarded at the very same time?

The U.S. Supreme Court, by refusing to impose the stay, apparently agreed with this logic.

And allowed Alabama to kill Ronald B. Smith, Jr. 

Knowing about the unconstitutional judicial override in how his death sentence was imposed.

Knowing of the long-standing international boycott of American prisons seeking drugs for execution.

Knowing that states try to avoid this boycott and import drugs illegally, or use drugs not meant for execution - thus experimenting on condemned prisoners.

Knowing that several recent executions turned into slow torture - as, Ronald B. Smith Jr.'s execution did.

Alabama AG Luther Strange made this announcement after the illegal torturous execution of Ronald B. Smith, Jr.:

What was important for AG Luther Strange was that "justice was finally served".

It was not important that the way it was served was unconstitutional.

Once again - Chief Judge Roy Moore of the same blessed State of Alabama, was suspended in September 2016 from his high position for the remaining part of his term for "defiance" of a U.S. Supreme Court precedent on gay marriage - which, once decided, the Alabama Judicial Council claimed was instantly applicable, without any retroactive bar nonsense, to all gay couples in all states.

Yet, a later-decided U.S. Supreme Court precedent on death penalty did not prevent the same blessed State of Alabama from torturing a man to death, even though his death sentence was illegal under a U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

By the way, in the suspension order of Roy Moore, on page 37 at the bottom of the page, the Alabama Judicial Council said the following:

So, after the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in January of 2016, Hurst v Florida, declaring unconstitutional judicial imposition of death penalty, that decision became binding on Alabama Supreme Court.

Equality under the law and a nation under the rule of law is a very easy notion.

Either all laws equally apply to all citizens, or there is no rule of law in this country.

The torturous death of Ronald Bert Smith, Jr., where all state actors involved - from the Attorney General to the executioners - collectively defied one U.S. Supreme Court, after the Chief State judge was suspended for defying another U.S. Supreme Court precedent - is proof that there is no rule of law, or equal protection of laws, in this country, and that laws in this country are imposed on a whim.

Or - "courtesy" - given or withheld at whim - of various public officials.

And that is not the rule of law.

That is the rule of men.

At its worst.

Delaware County paid off the second victim of its former Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie - at taxpayer's expense - and Derek Bowie is "unreachable", and may be armed and looking for more victims. Beware.

I wrote on this blog about the federal lawsuit against Delaware County police officer Derek Bowie who was continuously involved in violent acts, but was never charged with a crime - because he is the nephew of the long-time Delaware County District Attorney's investigator Jeff Bowie.

You can read all the blogs I posted about Derek Bowie, his misconduct in that lawsuit and depositions of Derek Bowie, by word-searching for "Derek Bowie" or "Kylie Smith" in the word-search window on the right of this blog.

Derek Bowie was sued for, allegedly, assaulting and causing injuries, including broken ribs, of Kylie Smith.

Derek Bowie was also sued by Barbara O'Sullivan for an assault later the same year, in September of 2014, with a police vehicle. Barbara O'Sullivan looks, interestingly, as a lookalike of Kylie Smith - which would have presented a great comparison for the federal jury, had Kylie Smith gone to trial, if Barbara O'Sullivan would come to that trial and sit in the front row.

Barbara's lawsuit was dismissed recently by Judge John F. Lambert because Barbara allegedly "contumaciously" (Judge Lambert's words) did not comply with discovery that came from Derek Bowie's taxpayer-paid attorneys to whom Judge Lambert illegally reopened Derek Bowie's default, and thus taking Barbara's victory out of her hands, after she already had it.

The discovery that sought evidence from a criminal case that Judge Lambert himself sealed, and that was destroyed by the fire of Barbara's house that nobody investigates because one of the most likely arson suspects is the same Derek Bowie.

So - Barbara "contumaciously" and wilfully did not comply with discovery and should be punished with dismissal of her lawsuit against Derek Bowie for vehicular assault because she did not reveal contents of proceedings sealed by the same judge who punished her for contumacious non-disclosure, and because her house was burnt down, together with the documents that she was supposed to provide in disclosure.  And that is all her fault - according to Judge Lambert.

There was no investigation of the house fire - but Judge Lambert already ruled that it was all her fault, by punishing her with dismissal of a lawsuit because of "contumacious nondisclosure" of documents that perished in that house fire.

Now that Judge Lambert's clerk Mark Oursler was pushing to have Barbara stipulate to discontinuance of the embarrassingly frivolous counter-claim by Derek Bowie against her, written by his attorneys without consultation with Derek Bowie (according to Derek Bowie's testimony at Barbara's daughter's trial that resulted in her acquittal by jury), Derek Bowie's free lawyers (free to him, not to Delaware County taxpayers) asked Judge Lambert to delay a conference because - guess what? - they allegedly could not find Derek Bowie.

Despite their "efforts" to find him, as revealed in their letter to the court.

The conference of December 2, 2016 was adjourned.

On December 12, 2016 a trial in Kylie Smith's case was scheduled in Syracuse, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Delaware County, as supervisor of Derek Bowie, was stipulated out of the lawsuit, after it claimed that Derek Bowie did not act in his official capacity when he allegedly beat up Kylie Smith, broke her bones, and sat on her broken ribs, which, had a rib pierced her lung, could have resulted in her death.

Delaware County claimed in the federal lawsuit that Derek Bowie's infliction of injuries upon Kylie Smith was out of personal reasons.

And, Delaware County got rid of Derek Bowie.

But, Derek Bowie was never criminally charged with assault on Kylie Smith, or on Barbara O'Sullivan.

Not by the Delaware County District Attorney, for assault on Barbara O'Sullivan, not by the Broome County District Attorney - where the assault happened on Kylie Smith.

After all, his uncle is a long-time investigator for Delaware County DA's office, how can they possibly enforce the law and hurt his nephew?

While Frank Miller's law firm claimed to Judge Lambert that they could not find Derek Bowie

who reportedly is employed as a police officer in Deposit and is very much find-able there, it was interesting who he will be located for the federal jury trial scheduled for December 12, 2016?

Now, that is a moot question - because, Delaware County taxpayers, rejoice, Derek Bowie has settled the case with Kylie Smith (or, rather, Delaware County's insurance carrier, that has a 1 million dollar liability limit, settled for him), on December 7, 2016, and the federal case is dismissed.

So, Delaware County taxpayers paid for free lawyers for a dirty cop who assaulted two women - and escaped with no liability, and was "deposited" (pun intended) from the Delaware County Sheriff's Department back to the Deposit police department, from where he initially came from in the first place - without any credentials other than being the nephew of the Delaware County DA's investigator Jeff Bowie.

Derek Bowie's victims had to either hire their own attorney (Kylie Smith) or proceed pro se (Barbara O'Sullivan), with predictable results - that the represented Kylie Smith got something in the settlement, and unrepresented Barbara O'Sullivan got nothing, other than an insult of a punishment for not being able to produce documents that are either sealed by court order or perished in her house fire that she barely escaped with her life.

Great job, Judge Lambert.

Great job, Delaware County.

Great justice for victims of dirty cops.

One keeps wondering - why respect to police is at its lowest in this country.

Yet, the question remains - that a man who was sued by two look-alike women for violent acts, who escaped civil liability because his taxpayer-paid attorneys either paid off the victim, or used their connection with the judge to have the second lawsuit disappear - a man who, according to testimony at depositions, may have been involved in violence against women and animals (there were allegations that he killed a dog of a tenant in the residential complex where he lived), remains armed, vested with power of a police officer, having possession of a gun, taser, police vehicle - and a German Shepherd dog,

is out there on the dark roads of rural Delaware and Broome Counties, likely looking for more victims.

And that, residents of Delaware and Broome Counties, is an issue of great public concern.

One thing is the well-known corruption of Delaware County and its law enforcement and judiciary system from top to bottom - that recently culminated in a lavish party for a felony suspect/court employee held in the courthouse, and endorsed by the very Sheriff who was supposed to investigate the suspect, and the very judges who were supposed to preside over the court proceedings prosecuting her.

People are either not aware of that corruption, or feel helpless to change anything.

Well, they tried - they elected Judge Gary Rosa, but he turned into a twin of the previous corrupt Judge Carl F. Becker as soon as he donned the black robe.

Quite another thing is when corruption is causing actual people to be hurt, physically hurt, violently hurt, and when such corruption leaves a man who has committed violent crimes against two women, on the streets, vested with power, armed and dangerous, and having authority to stop YOU, in the middle of the night, on a lonely country road.

And THAT is a very big problem.

If Derek Bowie tried to ram a police vehicle into a woman videotaping him on a tablet, simply because the woman looked like his girlfriend who sued him for violent assault, who knows how many more people Derek Bowie has a grudge against, and how many more "lookalikes" should be very afraid of his presence.

Petition the Broome and Delaware County DAs, demanding to prosecute Derek Bowie for his criminal conduct.

Demand a special, out of the area, neutral investigator and prosecutor of Derek Bowie.

That may save more people from future injury - and may save lives.

  

California did to attorney Henry James Koehler IV what New York did to attorney Joel Brandes - and California and New York did a disservice to litigants in Family Court deprived of services of two legal trailblazers

Attorney Jim Koehler of California, who is 82 now (born in 1934)

is a skilled and famous family court attorney fighting for father's custodial rights - a movement that is picking up force in this country.

Attorney Koehler has been at the outset of the father's movement for joint custody of their children, and, according to his own statement, is behind enacting laws that introduced the concept of joint custody in 37 states, see video at 1:00:00.

What happened to attorney Jim Koehler at the hands of California State Bar, in his own words and words of reporters, is described in this video, starting at 59:00.

In 1980, at the age of 46, 9 years before his admission to California State Bar, when Jim Koehler was an attorney in federal court and in other states, he has reportedly won custody of his own son, and, reportedly, the publicity of the case brought him clients, fathers fighting for custody of their children.

When Jim Koehler became famous and started to attract more and more clients, fathers who wanted to pursue custody of their children, Jim Koehler experienced a backlash - he says, from a feminist movement who claimed that "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle".

This position expressed by NOW (National Organization of Women) in 2000 did not change much by 2006 when NOW argued against a joint custody with fathers by default - while, obviously, presuming that only a mother can get the child's custody by default. 

Attorney Jim Koehler was in the way of that anti-father feminist movement.

Attorney Koehler believes that the anti-father, feminist culture "seeped right into the State Bar", and attorney Koehler began to be targeted by the California State Bar, to the point that his own attorney had to go to the California State Bar's trial counsel with a demand to stop targeting Jim Koehler - because women prosecutors were, according to Jim Koehler taking his clients to lunch, trying to get complaints against Jim Koehler out of them.

In 1992 California State Bar punished Koehler with a 6-months' suspension for not performing in "client matters" in a timely manner where Koehler, according to his version of events (video at 1:01:00 to 1:03:34, acted in supervisory capacity, and his subordinates failed to do their jobs - one of the subordinates in question later became, according to Jim Koehler, a Family Commissioner.

He was also disciplined at that time for "commingling funds" in his escrow account - by his own version of events, for helping his clients by putting his own funds into the escrow account to help out to defray client costs.

In 1999, California State Bar punished Jim Koehler with a 60-day suspension for "improperly withdrawing" from a client's case.  Jim Koehler says though that he did withdraw from the case legally, that he has signed, as well as his client, a substitution of attorneys, but the mistake that Jim Koehler has made is that he entrusted the filing of the substitution to his client, a doctor with a brain tumor who at times acted erratically, and his non-appearance in court was qualified as improper withdrawing from the case.

During the 2 months of suspension, Jim Koehler worked as a paralegal (which is allowed in California) on a certain case, and after his suspension ended (automatically) and Jim Koehler was reinstated, Jim Koehler reportedly continued to work on the same case as an attorney of record for that client, a military father seeking visitation with his children.

According to Jim Koehler, when Jim Koehler won the case, the client and his mother did not want to pay the bill.  That actually happens often in the practice of law.

Jim Koehler had to sue for his fee.

The attorney in the lawsuit went through documents going back years, took one document to the bar, and, according to Jim Koehler, "lobbied the bar ferociously" for the period of 2 years to file charges against Jim Koehler.

In 2009, a disciplinary court ruled that Jim Koehler engaged in unauthorized practice of law (UPL) 10 years prior based on what he wrote in one letter and one note.  

All of taxpayers money expended upon that disciplinary proceeding was spent, and the proceeding was commenced because of one letter and one note written by a paralegal, because his wealthy client (the mother of the client who reportedly promised to pay the bill reportedly had a fortune of over 25 million dollars) refused to pay the bill.

The judge recommended disbarment of Jim Koehler even though he has stated that he had a "serious difficulty believing" Koehler's clients who obviously turned Koehler into disciplinary proceedings for a mickey-mouse claim dating back 10 years, in order not to pay a current bill for successful representation in a custody case.

At that background, the decision to order Koehler inactive was,, according to Jim Koehler himself, "a complete disconnect from the evidence - as if the trial has never occurred".

Jim Koehler believes that there is an "incredible pressure upon every of the Hearing Department Judges to find culpable every lawyer that comes before them".

Jim Koehler also believes that the judge's decision - which was a "disconnect" from the evidence is a result of the fact that Hearing Judges in the Bar Court are not elected, they are appointed, and the judge's salary is paid by the prosecutors, the State Bar, and the judge makes money for the State Bar by every culpable case where he finds against an attorney and orders the attorney to pay the costs of litigation.

Judge Honn who made the decision that was a "disconnect with the evidence", was reappointed - again - to the State Bar Court in 2014, and here is his official history of appointments, reported at that time:

So, here is the history of appointments of Judge Honn, as a timeline

• 2003 - appointed as a hearing officer for the California State Bar;
• 2004 - reappointed for a 6-year term;
• 2010 - after the "disconnected" decision against Jim Koehler, reappointed for another 6-year term;
• 2014 - before the expiration of his 6-year term, Judge Honn was promoted, appointed as a Review Judge of the State Bar Court.

Apparently, making decisions which are "disconnected from the record" despite serious doubts in veracity of witnesses pays off up the career ladder.

The three appellate review judges of Jim Koehler's discipline in 2009 were women feminists (one of them became presiding judge of State Bar Court in 2014).

Jim Koehler describes the attitude of three appellate judges as: "how dare you appeal that because you are guilty, and all that is left is a hanging"?

I recognize the attitude.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review.

That the alleged violations that led to disbarment (inactive status) is an understatement of the century.

Not only Jim Koehler worked under the supervision of an attorney at the time, but, one of his transgressions was to tell the client to call him one week before the expiration of his suspension, which was clearly meant to help, not hurt the client, and was clearly projected into the time when Koehler lawfully resumed the practice of law.

The official version of events, according to the disciplinary order, was that Attorney Henry James Koehler IV (Jim Koehler) was suspended for 60 days in 1999, and, despite suspension, allegedly continued to give legal advice to client and even signed a retainer agreement with one client - even though the retainer agreement provided for services of another attorney, and for services of suspended attorney Koehler only as a paralegal.

Yet, even if Jim Koehler's actions qualified as unauthorized practice of law (UPL) in California, the statute of limitation in 2010, when he was brought in for attorney discipline based on that episode, would not have applied.

Jim Koehler was never criminally prosecuted UPL, and no self-respecting criminal prosecutor would have charged him for the nonsense the State Bar charged him with.

Yet, attorney Koehler was disbarred for allegedly giving legal advice during his 60-day suspension - in reality, Jim Koehler was guilty for providing good lawful legal representation to, as Jim Koehler indicates, a wealthy client who thought that it is cheaper to pay for an attorney to oppose a fee lawsuit and turn Koehler into the bar than to pay his bill.

Attorney Koehler actually said that his communication with his former clients (parents in a custody battle) were "tea and sympathy" comments and not legal advice.

Yet, in the order of disbarment, despite "serious doubts" about credibility of the accusers, appointed judges paid by the prosecutors (the State Bar), and prosecutors who were Jim Koehler's competitors, applied the so-called Rule 1.7(b)  - the "3 strikes" rule.

This was the 4th disciplinary action against Jim Koehler - and it resulted in an automatic disbarment.

The State Bar decided to end the "career of a legal maverick who blazed a path towards greater gender equality in family courts of the State of California and the nation" (video at 1:09:52).

A similar story - where work as a paralegal is used to discipline an attorney, has recently developed in New York.

Same as in California, paralegal work in New York is not licensed and is not considered the practice of law.

Moreover, in 2014, a judge, Chenango County Supreme Court Justice Kevin Dowd, has ruled that an unlicensed paralegal can draft legal pleadings, and an attorney for whom he worked may charge a legal fee for those pleadings, drafted by an unlicensed paralegal without any attorney supervision.  

Of course, the paralegal in question worked for Richard Harlem of Oneonta, NY, son of a retired late State Supreme Court Justice and Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District (who was involved in his own improprieties, but escaped unscathed due to his connections).  

Richard Harlem "coincidentally" was at the time of the decision and long prior, and, reportedly, still is, also a landlord for the influential New York State Senator James Seward, and friends of Senator Seward cannot do wrong - as shown by the history of ascension of Senator Seward's former "legislative counsel" Robert Mulvey, an anti-gay judge who was promoted to the Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District, the seat occupied in the past by Richard Harlem's father, then required from assigned judges to rule in cases as he wanted them to rule and demoted them for disobedience, like he did with Judge Biaggio DiStefano of Madison County, and who received a quick promotion to the Appellate Division to preside over the same case in which he was assigning judges in the trial court, a complete disqualification - and toss an appeal on a forged technicality - Senator Seward's former counsel Robert Mulvey helping out Senator Seward's landlord Richard Harlem.  Nothing too corrupt.

In 2016, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that a disbarred attorney, an expert in Family Law, should not be reinstated because he was providing paralegal services - which the court deemed unauthorized practice of law for Joel Brandes, but not the practice of law for anybody else.

So, New York and California are brother states in corrupt use of attorney discipline against experts who influential attorneys in the state want out of the picture.

Both in the case of attorney Joel Brandes in New York and attorney James Koehler in California, skilled family court attorneys are prevented by contrived disciplinary decisions from practicing and helping people, while the whole justification for existence of attorney regulation and licensing is protection of consumers.

Who is being protected when trailblazers like Joel Brandes and Jim Koehler are kept away from protecting people's rights in court?

D.C. Bar does not "like" attorneys' Facebook "likes" - and comments

The D.C. bar - the very one that refused to pursue Hillary Clinton and her attorneys for destroying evidence in defiance of a court order and that instead targeted for discipline a whistleblower attorney Ty Clevenger for forcing into retirement a federal judge based on his sexual misconduct - issued an "ethical opinion" "cautioning" lawyers against fully expressing themselves publicly in social media.

The opinion suggests that:

1) law firms are "encouraged" to monitor their attorneys' posts on social media to verify whether their employees comply with disciplinary rules:

Since law firms are "encouraged" to monitor postings of lawyers in social media regarding compliance with any and all disciplinary rules, the claim that it is done to verify that the particular attorney does not disclose confidential information in social posts is just a pretext for a larger spying on attorneys' private out-of-the-job lives on the Internet.

2) attorneys are threatened not to lie in their social media posts, because that exposes them to the disciplinary rule regarding the attorney's "duty of candor":

Of course, the duty of candor is to the clients and to the tribunal, and not whether you look 70 or 30 in the photo you post online.

3) Attorneys are encouraged to post bold-lettered disclaimers that their communications on social media are not legal advice and do not lead to attorney-client relationships - with a warning that even a disclaimer may not help, if attorney's "subsequent conduct is inconsistent with the disclaimer".

Think how many friends you may have on social media who will not think you are a freak, if you put a bold-lettered disclaimer on your Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, or what-not accounts.

Or - are you supposed to add that bold-lettered disclaimer to all your messages? 

Like:  "hey, how are you today? - but, please, be warned, that anything I tell you today in my messages is not and is not intended to be legal advice, and my messaging with you does not and will not lead to an attorney-client relationship."

Just think how many replies you will get to this one, and what kind of replies.


4) The ethical rule warns against "inadvertent acquisition of information", forming a "relationship" with unknown people (think accepting friend requests from people you never saw), or expressing your own views through comments, likes or tweets, if your views are contrary to the "interests" of your clients:

Apparently, the ethical opinion hints that

• when clients hire an attorney, clients literary own him, even in his private life, and control his private life and his public political life as a citizen;
• that an attorney should only represent people who he sides with on all issues and who have uniform interests - as in: an attorney should not represent clients with views and interests contrary to one another, and
• that the prohibition is not on holding views contrary to those of the client, but against publicly expressing them - so this rule is a manual of hypocrisy for lawyers.

Of course, all of that is pure nonsense.

Imagine that an attorney is a child of a divorced couple, where the attorney's one parent was abusive against the other, or prevented the attorney, as a child, to communicate with the other parent.

Now, should this attorney be ethically bar by "personal interests" from representing a parent who would like to bar the other parent from communicating with the child for legitimate reasons.

Should the attorney be barred from communicating a child in such a setting.

Should the attorney lay bare all of his childhood to his clients, or turn them down?

Or, should the attorney still proceed in representing the client (despite contrary "personal interests"), yet, not post about his or her childhood experience on the social media - and not express his or her opinion regarding parental abuse or misconduct in preventing children from communicating with the other parent on social media?

Or, if an attorney is representing a mother alleging sexual abuse of a child by the father, should the attorney abstain from also representing, in a separate case, a father claiming that the wife hurts children by falsely claiming sexual abuse of children by the father and subjects them to endless sex abuse evaluations by OB/GYNs? 

Or, should the attorney simply not make known his opinions as to sexual abuse of children by their parents (when it really happens, and it does happen), and as to false allegations of sexual abuse of children by parents in order to win a court custody or divorce battle (and that happens, too)?

So, keeping your opinion mum is now the ethical obligation of an attorney?

So, it is expressing your opinion - not having it - that creates a conflict of interest and an unethical situation?

5) The opinion also "encourages" attorneys

• not to allow social media to collect his contact list from his e-mail (which happens anyway if the attorney opens a web-based free e-mail address, which most of attorneys do for convenience and cost-control);
• to monitor reviews about themselves and ask to remove incorrect posts - good luck with that; and
• restrict privacy, communicating with only the people the lawyer knows well and trusts - which is, in our day and age, a requirement for a lawyer to go back to the stone age and live a life of a hermit.

Of course, the government, as a condition of allowing a person to earn a living in a certain government-regulated trade or profession, may not impose restriction on the person's personal and political life - and especially of the extent the D.C. bar tries to.

And, of course, where the "rules" are so sweeping, and so contrary to the realities of everyday life, and so vague and overbroad, that it can be fairly predicted that the rules will not be followed.

Which provides, in itself, a rife ground for selective enforcement and corruption.

After all, the legal profession "regulates itself", or, is engaged in unlawful regulation of its own competitors.  Consider that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in 2015 in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v Federal Trade Commission, that regulation of attorneys by super-majorities of attorneys is an antitrust violation, unless there is a statutory approval or an oversight by a neutral government body.

The current D.C. bar Board of Professional Responsibility issuing these opinions is comprised of 100% of attorneys:

Robert C. Bernius is an attorney from Nixon Peabody, a "Global 100" law firm, and a competitor to attorneys Bernius strips of law licenses and the right to earn a living.

Attorney Bernius is double-Ivy-League-educated (Brown University and Yale Law School),

self-reports on his law firm's webpage that he is admitted in 17 jurisdictions, including the U.S. Supreme Court,

and reports of his total recognition by the various "peers" (not customers) and being a member of the D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility as part of his business advertising -

like, "come hire me and my law firm, we are that good, and fully protected, and whatever we do, I will make sure we will never be sanctioned - after all, I am the law".   

Oh, and while issuing opions that are in direct violation of attorneys 1st Amendment and making the information that he is part of Board of Professional Responsibility part of his attorney advertising, Bernius has the audacity of claiming the highest rating and recognition on "ethics", "legal competency" - and the 1st Amendment:

The Vice-Chair of the D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility, Patricia G. Butler is an attorney and a highly-paid federal employee, and is thus also regulating her own competitors - apparently, in violation of federal antitrust laws.

I also wonder when does attorney Butler work in her job as the member and even the Vice-Chair of the Board of Professional Responsibility of the D.C. Bar - after hours or during the hours when us the taxpayers pay her over $226,000 per year to do something entirely different than regulating attorneys admitted by the D.C. bar?

Jason E. Carter, the Board's former Vice-Chair and present member, is an attorney and a high-ranking federal employee: he reportedly is an Associate Director for Europe and Central Asia of the U.S. Attorney's Office's Criminal Division, Office of International Affairs.  He is both a competitor to attorneys he disciplines, and a very busy man, on the payroll of us the taxpayers, and there is a question - where does he get time for the regulation of the D.C. bar, when his Associate Director job for the U.S. Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Office of International Affairs, for Europe and Central Asia must be taking all his waking hours?

Mary Lou Soller is a civil and criminal defense attorney in a D.C. law firm Miller & Chevalier dealing with tax law and white collar crime.  Ms. Soller is also a competitor of attorneys she is "regulating" through the D.C. Bar's Board of Professional Responsibility.


The next member of the D.C. Bar's Board of Professional Responsibility, Billie LaVerne Smith, is not an attorney, but is reportedly a federal employee, a dietitian employed in the Office of the Aging:

Thomas R. Bundy, III is an attorney and partner in a D.C. law firm Lawrence & Bundy.

Thomas Bundy is a competitor of attorneys he is "regulating".

John C. Peirce is an attorney in Washington, D.C., according to his own LinkedIn profile, and a competitor to attorneys he "regulates".


David Bernstein - if I've got the correct David Bernstein - is, according to his LinkedIn profile, an attorney for the Jewish Council for Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., and a competitor to attorneys he regulates.

Matthew G. Kaiser is a founding partner at Kaiser Dillon PLLC, a law firm in Washington, D.C., "a small litigation boutique firm", according to attorney Kaiser's biography on the site of George Washington Law School, where attorney Kaiser is listed as an adjunct professor.

Imagine - a partner in a law firm, an adjunct professor and a member of the Board regulating attorneys in D.C. - when does attorney Kaiser get the time for all of that?

Not to mention that attorney Kaiser is a competitor to attorneys he "regulates".

So, out of 9 members of the Board of Professional Responsibility, 8 - a super-majority - are attorneys "regulating" their competitors, or, rather, deciding how to squeeze out their competitors.

That's exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court - and the Federal Trade Commission - meant in stating that such anti-competitive regulation either has to have the approval of the Legislature or supervision of a neutral governmental body.

Upon my information and belief, D.C. bar has neither and operates in violation of federal antitrust laws.

And that is exactly what a former federal antitrust attorneys warned State Bars against - competitors disciplining competitors not for the benefit of consumers, but to quash competition.

The D.C. Bar's latest "opinion" as to how an attorney should behave during attorney's personal time on social media, is, apparently, one of the efforts of the "regulators" to create a net of vague and grossly over-reaching rules that would be violated anyway, so the "regulators" will decide who they would let live - as a favor that can be called in the future, or whom, of their competitors, they will sink.

By the way - I put a "like" on the Facebook page of D.C. Bar - not because I like the D.C. Bar, but because a "like" is sometimes just a bookmark to follow certain pages and events.

And the D.C. Bar, with its own presence on Facebook, cannot be unaware of such use.

Or - are they on Facebook to follow their own opinion - to spy on attorneys?

By the way, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has ruled back in 2013 that a Facebook "like" (which D.C. Bar opinion also "cautions" about) is a form of protected speech - in a case where an employee of a Sheriff's Department was fired for a Facebook "like" of his boss's opponent in a re-election campaign...

I wonder if the D.C. Bar is aware of such a development of constitutional law - or if they do not "like" it?

#IStandWithMartinBarnettReiner. Yet another attorney is punished for claiming judicial misconduct and refusing to comply with unconstitutional court orders

In 2014, a California attorney Martin Barnett Reiner was suspended from the practice of law for 6 months for "disobeying 3 court orders".

The order of discipline describing the "disobedience" actually describes criticism of judges and claims of judicial bad faith, misconduct and corruption resulting in 2 out of 3 orders of sanctions:

So, in one case, Attorney Reiner called a panel who ruled against him "imbeciles" in a letter - which means outside of court proceedings.

Attorney Reiner was sanctioned for that conduct $2,500.

The second order imposed a $2,500 sanction for accusing a judge of "being corrupt, incompetent, and a liar".

I will try to obtain the actual orders of sanctions, for I believe that the sanctions were imposed by the objects of attorney Reiner's criticism.

So, in 2014, attorney Reinder was suspended from the practice of law for criticism of judges.

And, a federal court reciprocally suspended him in the same 2014, against his opposition claiming that he was suspended unconstitutionally, and reciprocal discipline by federal court during legal challenges to such a suspension is inappropriate.

By the way, in New York, the New York Court of Appeals claimed that calling judges "whores who want to become madams" is not subject to any attorney discipline whatsoever.  Not only that attorney, Martin Erdmann, was not disciplined, but he went on to become a judge himself.

Anyway, in 2014, attorney Reiner called three judges "imbeciles" in a letter outside of court proceedings - and was sanctioned $2,500, and called a judge "corrupt, incompetent, and a liar" - and was sanctioned another $2,500 - and was suspended for those sanctions (plus one other sanctions that the disciplinary court claims to be unrelated to criticism of the judiciary, and attorney Reiner claims is so related).

In at least one of the three workers compensation actions, attorney Reiner sought to recuse/disqualify a judge for bias and incompetence:

The blessed California State Bar that is subject of a huge controversy now, to the point that the State Legislature denied to it authority to collect member dues - which the California State Supreme Court gave to the State Bar right back, illegally (and that is the same court that ruled that representation of a criminal defendant by a suspension attorney is not a violation of the defendant's right to effective representation of counsel, making attorney discipline in California for "one of the primary missions", protecting consumers (I wonder what other missions for occupational regulations of attorneys are for the State Bar of California) -

meaningless.

So, in March of 2014, attorney Martin Barnett Reiner was suspended by California State Bar for 6 months for criticizing judges.


In February of 2015, attorney Reiner was reciprocally suspended from the bar of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, despite his vigorous opposition claiming that reciprocal discipline against him in federal court is inappropriate where the state discipline was imposed for whistleblowing about judicial misconduct.

Discipline of an attorney for criticism of judiciary is, undoubtedly, content-based regulation of speech - I doubt that strict scrutiny was used in imposition of sanctions upon attorney Reiner.  Strict scrutiny is never used in such cases. 

In June of 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Reed v Town of Gilbert, where the Court declared content-based regulation of any speech, even commercial speech, without strict scrutiny, unconstitutional.

In June of 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Williams v Pennsylvania, where the U.S. Supreme Court, in a majority holding, in very broad general terms, declared court decisions where deciding judges act as both accusers and adjudicators, void on due process grounds.

At least under Reed v Town of Gilbert, discipline against attorney Reiner is unconstitutional - and thus void - since at least June of 2015.

One of the judges challenged by attorney Reiner's criticism, did impose sanctions upon him - supposedly not for criticism, but apparently because the judge was disgruntled by an "attack on integrity" in attorney Reiner's request for disqualification of that judge based on ethical violations.

In view of unconstitutionality of sanctions, attorney Reiner refused to pay the fines and comply with the order of suspension.

What is the position on this subject of the California State Bar that has as "one of its primary missions" protection of the consumer?  Where making motions to recuse and criticizing judges is one of the duties of an attorney in order to secure for their clients the clients' constitutional right to impartial judicial review?

California State Bar obtained a disbarment of attorney Reiner for "disobeying the order of suspension".

In the order of disbarment of November 22, 2016, the State Bar Court has ruled that "disobedience is
not the proper mechanism for challenging a final, binding, and enforceable court order".

Where an order is unconstitutional, as provided by at least one, and likely two, U.S. Supreme Court precedents decided after the order of suspension, and the order of sanctions, were issued, such orders are neither final, nor binding or enforceable.

But, yet, the California State Bar Court has ruled that attorney Reiner's continuing insistence that sanctions and discipline based on sanctions against him is unconstitutional

- and sanctions against him for criticizing judges, and discipline based on those sanctions is unconstitutional, based on at least one U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Reed), decided after the sanctions and the discipline is imposed and de facto overruling both the sanctions and the discipline - are "aggravating factors" that justify his disbarment.

For the State Bar of California, invoking unconstitutionality of a court order is an "aggravating factor" to impose further discipline upon an attorney and to permanently deprive him of his law license and right to earn a living.

Please, note that attorney Reiner was sanctioned in worker's compensation proceedings.  Rich people do not go to worker's comp proceedings.  Attorney Reiner is an attorney for the poor - and injured - people.

And, California State Bar recognizes the existence of the so-called "justice gap" in California - inability of Californians to afford services of a licensed attorney - but in its own way.

On the one hand, California State Bar removes attorneys who actually provide services, and vigorous and fearless services, for the poor.

On the other hand, California State Bar uses the poor to collect money - see California State Bar effort to establish a "fund" to close the "justice gap".

Actually, the justice gap is closeable in two steps: deregulation of the legal profession and allowing consumers who cannot afford a licensed attorney, to hire anybody their trust to represent their interests.  After all, it is their choice of who they think may represent their interests best - and the government may not prohibit competent adults to make their own choices of who will serve them best in a private representation, right?

The second step is to stop removing from the reach of poor consumers attorneys who are actually work for those poor consumers, and especially for doing their job - in the case of attorney Reiner, sanctions rained upon him after he made a motion to disqualify a judge and accused several judges of incompetence and corruption.

Having practiced for nearly 30 years, since 1989, attorney Reiner cannot be accused of not knowing what he is saying.  And, after 30 years of practice, attorney Reiner may have ran out of patience tolerating the nonsense that an attorney may not criticize a judge, even when a judge commits misconduct or acts incompetently in front of that attorney's very nose.

Look at the "depth" of analysis of the order of disbarment - because the sanctioning court, in 2014, rejected attorney Reiner's constitutional arguments as made "in bad faith" (figure that all breakthroughs in constitutional law could be considered "in bad faith" when made at the time when the public thought contraception, interracial marriage, homosexual sex, homosexual marriage illegal and even criminal), the sanctioning court now should reject attorney Reiner's NEW constitutional arguments in 2016, even if between sanctions in 2014 and disciplinary proceedings in 2016 two more constitutional precedents in favor of attorney Reiner, in 2015 and in 2016, were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2016, the California Bar Court acted the same way as in 2014 - where it found as an aggravating factor attorney Reiner's federal lawsuit challenging constitutionality of disciplinary proceedings against him:

Attorney Reiner is, in fact, correct - sanctions against him, and discipline against him is illegal and unconstitutional.

And, disobeying illegal and unconstitutional law may not be subject to new sanctions by the government - although it is.

Let's remember Rosa Parks.

Her actions were illegal.

After all, there was a law telling her that her place was in the back of the bus.

And she disobeyed.

And, there is an unspoken taboo keeping the legal profession in a fear paralysis - that an attorney may criticize a judge only at the cost of his license and livelihood, no matter what the judge is doing.

That unspoken taboo is clearly unconstitutional, precedents are decided as to unconstitutionality of content-based regulation of speech - but competent, professional, skilled attorneys working for the poor are consistently, systematically, repeatedly punished for doing their job - criticizing judges where attorneys, as experts, see misconduct of such judges.

136 years after a Pennsylvania has ruled regarding attorney discipline for criticism of judges:

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

Yet, 136 years after that ruling, such discipline, such position that is "too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system", is "entertained" across the country.

Attorney Reiner is one of its latest victims.

And, you know what I do NOT see in California?

I do not see the people of the state of California protesting in the streets against the government widening the "justice gap" and consistently removing attorneys working for the poor from their reach, for doing their jobs too well.

Even after the State Bar of California demonstrated its corruptness to the point of going against its own former head of disciplinary board, after he "turned coat" and became a whistleblower of corruption and misconduct within the California State Bar.

What attorney Reiner did is an act of civil disobedience - refusing to comply with orders that he correctly considers unconstitutional.

Sanctions against attorneys and parties for making constitutional arguments were recently addressed by Democratic "minority whip" in the U.S. Senate, Steny Hoyer, who called upon the Senators to vote "no" as to the passing of "Lawsuit Abuse Act" that could chill civil rights litigation.

Acts of civil disobedience, while often resulting in harsh punishment by the government at the time they occur, are often hailed in history as acts of heroism.

Let's remember that this entire country has been founded on civil disobedience.

Had our predecessors obeyed the King's orders, we would still have had the King or Queen other than a President.

We have just seen the result of a courageous act of civil disobedience on North Dakota.  The protestors have won so far, despite tremendous odds and after having been subjected to deprivation of water, attacks by vicious dogs and being doused by freezing water.

People are waking up to the realization that courts in this country are permeated by corruption and need to be cleaned up.

People are waking up to the realization that whistleblowers who report court corruption, who were so far repeatedly punished and sanctioned and marginalized into a status of unemployed and unemployable individuals.

And, a result similar to North Dakota's result may be possible if people finally unite in a concerted action to fight punishment of court corruption - and demand from their representative in legislature that laws against punishment of whistleblowers criticizing governmental and especially judicial, misconduct, be passed.

If the current legislators would not do that, they need to be voted out of office and replaced with those who will.

We the people can do it.

The fate of Martin Barnett Reiner - and other people like him, deprived of their right to earn a living for doing their job and for criticizing the government - should not be repeated.

#IStandWithMartinBarnettReiner.

Judge Labuda, who is under a criminal investigation for assault, has been re-elected as Sullivan County County and Surrogate Court Judge

An update on the earlier story that Judge Frank Labuda, of Sullivan County, New York, was investigated for allegations of vehicular assault upon his brother.

While the criminal investigation is pending, Judge Labuda reportedly ran for re-election without opposition, and was re-elected to the position of Sullivan County and Surrogate Court judge.

And, Judge LaBuda, reportedly, is cooperating with the criminal investigation by the New York State Attorney General (judge LaBuda own attorney under Public Officers Law 17), has an order of protection issued against him by the Delaware County Family Court, and was ordered to surrender his firearms.