#IStandWithPatriciaBarry. California civil rights attorney #PatriciaBarry disbarred in retaliation for her successful activities as a civil rights attorneys and for her criticism of judicial misconduct

In 1986, California civil rights attorney attorney #PatriciaBarry, now 73 and then 43, won a case in the U.S. Supreme Court - a major accomplishment for an attorney.

It is even more of an accomplishment that it is a rare case of sexual harassment won for an indigent client.

The catch for attorney Barry was what is happening to civil rights attorney across the country - representing indigent parties, even with the promise of 42 U.S.C. 1988, allowing to recover attorney fees from defendants in successful civil rights actions, can make a civil rights attorney broke.

Why?

Patricia Barry reportedly represented her client - successfully, up to the U.S. Supreme Court - for 8 years by the time of remand by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And, 42 U.S.C. 1988 allows recovery from defendants only on resolution of the case.

Resolution of the case in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson required a decision, on remand, by the District Judge John Garrett Penn, the same judge who initially ruled for the defendants denying Patricia Barry's clients credibility and ruling that the sexual advances of her bank supervisor (she was a teller in a bank) were "voluntary" on her behalf.

Judge Penn (now deceased),

obviously abusing his power, and retaliating against Patricia Barry for daring to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and reversing him, delayed resolution of the case for over a year and a half.

Had Judge Penn resolved the case on remand, Patricia Barry would have been paid by the bank a major legal fee for several years of litigation.

In November 1987, a year and a half after the remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, Patricia Barry, who was not paid by her indigent client for 8 years and had to file for bankruptcy, finally filed a complaint against Judge Penn with the District of Columbia Circuit Court, but the complaint was dismissed on the pretext that failure to rule by Judge Penn was insufficient to proof retaliation.

Yet, by that time Patricia Barry committed two unforgivable sins - not only she reversed a federal district court judge through the U.S. Supreme Court and became famous in the legal community, being a "nobody", not a connected attorney", but also she dared to complain about a judge trying to deny her what was her due, a promise of 42 U.S.C. 1988, given to civil rights attorneys by the government as an encouragement to attorneys to take civil rights cases from indigent clients without any advance payment, and litigating the case for years.

Judge Penn, the subject of Patricia Barry's complaint, and the one who ruled that sexual advances in the workplace against the woman were somehow "voluntary", was not only not disciplined - he was promoted to Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit Court in 1992.

In 2011, Patricia Barry suffered imposition of discipline by California State Bar - first, "probation", and then "actual suspension delayed".

In 2011, Patricia Barry, a legal luminary, a pioneer that made the workplace safer for American women, was forced, by threats of being suspended for 2 years or more, and being unable to earn a living, and lured by an otherwise light discipline (60 day suspension as opposed to 2 years), signed a stipulation of facts that she filed frivolous lawsuits, see Patricia Barry's interview starting at 48:24 in this video.

I argued many times in many courts that there is no such thing as a "frivolous" civil rights lawsuit - because what is "frivolous" is determined on mainstream understanding of the law, which necessarily excludes legal pioneers and novel concepts.

In 2015, House Democrat leader Rep. Steny Hoyer appealed to other Representatives to vote "no" against the so-called Litigation Abuse Reduction Act:

It is apparent from introduction of the bill and fight over the bill, that there is a continued onslaught in America upon civil rights attorneys, making their lives difficult in every way - including sanctions for "frivolous" civil rights lawsuits, chilling civil rights litigation and blocking novel arguments of victims of constitutional violations from being raised in court.

Patricia Barry was tricked into signing a stipulation that she was engaged in what is not possible to engage in for a civil rights attorney - frivolous civil rights litigation.

That stipulation, according to her own admission, has hurt her in the future.

She describes in her interview to "Scandal in the State Bar" that she tried to withdraw the stipulation, but her request was denied.

Patricia Barry was also ordered to pay the "costs" of her own disciplinary prosecution - the costs being a matter of profit for California State Bar, a professional corporation that claims that its disciplinary prosecutions are already funded by attorney registration fees.

Maybe, $1,700 in fees are not a hardship for connected attorneys from large law firms - who are never on the radar of California State Bar - but it can definitely be a hardship for a solo civil rights attorney.

Actually, in the 2nd part of "Scandal in the State Bar", evidence is presented that California State bar deliberately uses costs imposed upon solo attorneys who are unable to pay them in order to restore their law licenses and livelihoods to "weed out" "unwanted" people - like Patricia Barry whose unpaid work made all of the America women safer in the workplace from sexual harassment.

In October of 2012, Patricia Barry was restored to the practice of law, but did not start to bow low to those in power.

On the opposite, in 2012 Patricia Barry gave an interview to "Lawless America" indicating that she is representing parents improperly deprived of custody of their children and that she wants to bring about a reform and revolution in Family Court, protecting parents' custodial rights.


Patricia Barry spoke in her interview, among other things, about rules of Family Court in California that already exist for protection of parents, but that are not disclosed to parents because of, what Patricia Barry put as "complicity" of California Family bar - so that parents have to subject themselves to mental health "evaluators", while their mental health is not necessarily in issue, as one of the examples.

In 2014, Patricia Barry gave an interview to "Scandal in the State Bar" describing corrupt practices of California State Bar in singling out civil rights attorneys for disciplinary proceedings and relentlessly pursuing them.

In 2016, Patricia Barry filed an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Adkins v Adkins, where she wrote:

Since Patricia Barry did not stop pursuing civil rights violations and protecting women from discrimination - and was a very capable and formidable opponent, with a track record of success in courts of all levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the only way to "deal with her" was to eliminate her law license completely.

And, California State Bar applied to Patricia Barry its "3 strikes and you are out" rule - which applies automatically, no matter how the alleged violations are or were.

In October of 2016, Patricia Barry, who changed the workplace protections for women through a U.S. Supreme Court precedent, was put on an "inactive status" (disbarred).

Of course, the very first claim in her order was that she allegedly "failed to maintain respect due to the court" and disobeyed some court orders.

What was the basis of that discipline, I do not know since that was private reproval, and the October 2016 order of discipline does not reference specific cases.

The order of discipline says that Patricia Barry was offered - as she was in 2011, a lighter discipline - "just" 6 months' suspension until she pays off court sanctions in full, a truly Machiavellian ploy, depriving an elderly woman who served indigent clients for her whole life of means to earn a living, and conditioning her reinstatement by payment of multi-thousand dollar court sanctions.

Patricia Barry, remembering how her stipulation was used against her in 2011-2012, refused and fought all the way.

And, for fighting all the way, was disbarred.

So, as of now, here is Patricia Barry's status on California State Bar's website.

The woman who protected all American women from harassment in the workplace, going, without pay, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and using her expertise for her clients, average Americans, for her entire life.

And it is a shame.  Not for Patricia Barry. It is a shame for the California State Bar.


Because the true reason for her disbarment is because she is who she is - a civil rights attorney, a private attorney general, to the core, without fear, with dignity, expertise and poise. 

And because she criticized several judges - including a complaint against misogynistic, petty retaliative federal judge John Garrett Penn, and her alleged failure to give "respect due to the court" - even if a court deserves of no respect the way it is operating.

California State Bar officials, those who represent the government and rich employers who Patricia Barry has been suing for years, cannot have her continuing to sue them.

So, they used attorney discipline as a tool of eliminating their competition, and their capable opponent in litigation.

#IStandWithPatriciaBarry.

Violations of court orders alleged against her in the order of disbarment is non-payment of court sanctions.  There was no attempt made by the disciplinary authorities to verify whether Patricia Barry, at the age 73 and working for indigent clients all her life as a civil rights attorney, had the ability to pay those sanctions.

This is the true face of the California State Bar.

For shame.

Judge Gary Rosa of Delaware County Family Court, New York, introduces a brand new rule of constitutional analysis - U.S. Supreme Court precedents are now applicable, or inapplicable based on "matters" and "fact patterns", not the unifying legal issues

Imagine somebody suing Judge Gary Rosa, of Delaware County Family Court (New York).

And says in the lawsuit - hypothetically, this:

1. "Judge Gary Rosa solicited and obtained, in his two election campaigns, in 2012 and in 2015, votes of a party in a certain court proceeding, based on Judge Rosa's statements that, if the party gives him her vote and if Judge Rosa is elected as a result, Judge Rosa will clean up the judicial stables in Delaware County Family Court, will not commit misconduct that his predecessor, Judge Carl F. Becker, was in-famous for - and that Judge Rosa specifically condemns sanctions imposed upon the party and her attorney by Judge Becker, for pointing out Judge Becker's misconduct and conflicts of interest;
2. Once Judge Rosa obtained the party's vote in two elections, he then turned around and asserted validity of Judge Becker's misconduct in the very cases, when the party's attorney made a motion to vacate those same 2011 sanctions based on later-decided (2015 and 2016) U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the very case which Judge Rosa discussed with the party, ex parte, out of court, making an election campaign pledge that those sanctions are judicial misconduct and that Judge Rosa will come to the bench to prevent such behavior and to prevent people from suffering like the party and her attorney suffered from Judge Becker's sanctions;
3. Judge Rosa was not supposed to be assigned to that case because of his ex parte communications with the party and because of his pledges in his election campaign based specifically on discussion of that case and sanctions imposed by Judge Becker in that case that Judge Rosa characterized as judicial misconduct and the reason whey he was running for judicial office - to clean the bench;
4. Judge Rosa failed to disclose his self-assignment to the case (which he did because the attorney, since then, criticized Judge Rosa for misconduct and appearance of corruption) - and made it so that the attorney who moved to vacate her sanctions on submitted basis learnt about the change of judge only when Judge Rosa already made his decision - denying her motion despite a clearly applicable U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and while refusing to conduct analysis of legal issues required by the U.S. Supreme Court;
5. Judge Rosa's failed to disclose he even talked with the party ex parte about the case, and proceeded without disclosure, which is a gross ethical violation and fraud upon me as a person whose constitutional rights were hurt through fraud upon voters by Judge Rosa;
6. I want Judge Rosa to be held accountable for his fraud and violations of my constitutional rights."

And imagine that, once a lawsuit is filed and served, Judge Rosa, engages an attorney - at yours, the taxpayer's, expense.

Judge Rosa's attorney in such a lawsuit will be the New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman who claims he is protector of civil rights while he is, on the opposite, fights to keep civil rights complaints dismissed and the filers, victims of constitutional violations, sanctioned and persecuted.

And,  the self-proclaimed fighter for civil rights Eric Schneiderman, on Judge Rosa's behalf, will immediately file a motion to dismiss on behalf of Judge Rosa - claiming absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench, based on the U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1978 Stump v Sparkman.

And that you, as a plaintiff in that civil action, oppose that motion and say in that opposition the following:

The U.S. Supreme Court precedent Stump v Sparkman that Defendant Rosa cites in his defense is entirely inapplicable because that decision was made by the U.S. Supreme Court

There, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the judge was immune from liability where he 

• conspired with the mother of a minor child, 
• without proper court proceedings, 
• without jurisdiction, 
• without notifying the mother's minor daughter, and 
• without appointing an attorney for that minor daughter;
• agreed with the mother that her minor teenage daughter was "promiscuous" and that the "cure" for the child's supposed "promiscuity" lies in persuading the child to undergo a false surgery that the child did not medically need, after persuading the surgeon to agree to such a surgery, too - supposedly for appendicitis, while it will be in reality to sterilize her.

And that was done, in conspiracy with doctors, also involved in deceiving the child.  And, when the child grew up and married and tried for children and could not get them - and the mother still did not tell her why that is so - and got her medical records and learned of the real reasons for "appendicitis" surgery, the woman sued the participants, including Judge Sparkman.

And, your Honor, says the plaintiff suing Judge Gary Rosa (hypothetically): unlike Stump v Sparkman, the present lawsuit against Judge Rosa does not involve a minor being unlawfully sterilized outside of a court proceeding, in conspiracy with the mother, without notice to the child or an attorney assigned to the child.

It involves a decision 

And Judge Rosa, through his attorney Eric Shchneiderman, files a reply to that opposition and pleads to the court that your arguments are frivolous, and that you lack the very basic understanding as to how precedential law works, and how U.S. Supreme Court precedents apply.

And, Judge Rosa argues to the federal court that it is not "fact patterns" or "matters" that are uniting cases and makes them precedents applicable to a certain case, but unifying legal issues.

And the legal issue in his case supporting applicability of immunity defense from Stump v Sparkman is not the issue of unlawful sterilization of a minor by a judge in conspiracy with the mother in order to prevent fruits of the child's supposed "promiscuity", but whether Judge Sparkman's act in issuing a court order (an unlawful court order) was a "judicial act" at all.  If it is - the analysis stops there, and absolute judicial immunity applies.

But you say to the judge - but, your Honor, I have just cited to you what Judge Gary Rosa himself said about how U.S. Supreme Court precedents apply or do not apply, in the very case I am suing him for.

He said that later-decided U.S. Supreme Court precedents on point, with a unifying issue of content-based regulation of speech and accuser-adjudicator prohibition, are inapplicable because they are decided

- one dealt with contents of a commercial sign, and another - with a prosecutor in a criminal case assigning himself as an appellate judge to a civil habeas corpus petition of the same defendant, now a prisoner condemned to death.

And that those "matters" and "fact patterns" are not the same as in my case, your Honor, because my case is not of a commercial sign and is not - thank God - of a death penalty.

And, because of it, Judge Rosa said that U.S. Supreme Court precedents prohibiting content-based regulation of speech and prohibition on accuser-adjudicator decisions of court cases, do not apply.

Since it did not matter to Judge Rosa that the unifying issue in my case was, 

• in the first precedent,  content-based regulation of speech without strict scrutiny (whether regulation of content of speech was of a commercial sign or of a pleading), and,
• in the second, precedent, that a judge acted in the same proceeding as an accuser (brought proceedings for sanctions, acted there as an investigator, prosecutor and unsworn witness on his own behalf, alleged harm to himself personally from my pleadings), and as an adjudicator, imposing sanctions upon me - 

please, your Honor, apply to Judge Rosa's immunity defense his own principle of applicability of U.S. Supreme Court precedents - and deny it to him, after all, that is his own principle, it will not be an undue burden to have your own law applied to you.

And, absolute judicial immunity, your Honor, covers "malicious and corrupt" acts, not stupid and incompetent acts.

As Judge Rosa said in his own (hypothetical) pleadings, referencing "matters" and "fact patterns" instead of the unifying legal issue in Stump v Sparkman and claiming that Judge Rosa is not entitled to immunity because the lawsuit does not involve unlawful sterilization of a minor, demonstrates my fundamental misunderstanding of how precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court apply.

So, since Judge Rosa just said that he lacks a fundamental understanding of how U.S. Supreme Court precedents apply, and that only "facts" and "matters" matter - and, apparently, not unifying legal issues, so, please, please, your Honor, apply Judge Rosa's legal principle to Judge Rosa.

Nope, the judge will tell me.  That will create too dangerous of a precedent for all of us judges.  Unlawful sterilizations of minors are freak things nowadays, and never happen.  If I apply precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court the way you suggest, I will never be able to give any judges absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench, and they will not be happy.

But, your Honor - I will say, that is exactly the same thing that will happen to any litigant appearing in Judge Rosa's courtroom and invoking constitutional precedent!  Judge Rosa will apply the principle that content-based regulation of speech in a commercial sign proceedings can only be applied in commercial sign proceedings, and we are in Family Court where contents commercial signs are never litigated.

It is the same, your Honor, as Judge Rosa - and other judges sued for misconduct on the bench - not receiving immunity because the case did not deal with unlawful sterilization of a minor.

It is equal protection of law, Your Honor.

It is fair, Your Honor.

Nope, the judge will say.

Nice try, but no.

What Judge Rosa argued may have been stupid and incompetent - but it was a "judicial act", thus he is immune.

This is how U.S. Supreme Court precedent applies.

"Matters" and "fact patterns" don't matter.

Unifying legal issues do.

As to what Judge Rosa did in the court proceedings - stupid and incompetent as it is, that is subject to an appeal and a new motion to vacate.

So, I say, taxpayers must fund Judge Rosa's stupidity and incompetence, more court time for more motions, and more time for more appeals - where the precedents were on point and could have been decided in 2 seconds by a competent and unbiased judge?

That is, of course, a hypothetical lawsuit, and a rhethorical question - but a very real case and "fact pattern". 

Judge Rosa's newly invented principle of applicability of U.S. Supreme Court precedent is to be applied, there is nothing that unifies these 1st Amendment content-based regulation of expression and speech cases:

1)     Flag burning, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989);

2)     Cross burning, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003),

3)     a Nazi march through a city of Holocaust survivors, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977);

4)     a protest with nasty slogans in front of a fallen soldier’s funeral, Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011);

5)     false claims of valor in battle, United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ___ (2012);

6)     regulation of content of commercial signs – Reed v Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. ___ (2015),

and the U.S. Supreme Court sits in vain in their marble palace, because their precedents are useless and can be applicable only in the narrowest of circumstances - a funeral case to a funeral case, a flag burning case to a flag burning case, a fallen soldier funeral case to a fallen soldier funeral case - ONLY.

With one exception to this precedential rule - absolute judicial immunity will still cover stupidity and incompetence of judges, and not only malicious and corrupt acts, even in cases where unlawful sterilization of minors to prevent their "promiscuity" is not involved.

Because judges will never hurt their own.

Like Judge Rosa did.

He first duped very real voters into voting for him based on his claims that Judge Becker's sanctions in a particular case are inappropriate, constitute judicial misconduct, and that the reason why Judge Rosa is running for judicial office is to change that.

Then, Judge Rosa, without disclosure to other parties that that discussion of the case and solicitation of votes took place, assigned himself to the case and ruled that Judge Becker's sanctions that he condemned in order to fraudulently obtain votes, are perfectly OK, and even invented a new rule of how precedents apply or do not apply.

But, no hope for me suing Judge Rosa - even though the case did not involve unlawful sterilization of a minor, like in Stump v Sparkman.

Because Eric Schneiderman and the federal judge will hold a different view on precedential application - not the one created on the spot by Judge Rosa to protect the very Judge Becker whom he ardently criticized to the voters claiming that he, Judge Rosa is going to be different.

Federal judges will view Stump v Sparkman from the point of its legal issue, viewed in the broadest and most liberal way possible, in a way that will continue to protect judges from lawsuits for malicious and corrupt, and for stupid and incompetent, conduct on the bench, giving their victims no recourse and no true legal remedy (because an appeal to a similarly-minded judge who has a policy of "constitutional avoidance" is a waste of time, money and effort).

Remember - the lawsuit described was hypothetical, but Judge Gary's misconduct - real.

California State Bar does not do its job in investigating and disciplining rogue prosecutors - so the feds have to

I wrote yesterday about a petition for a writ of certiorari by a disciplined California attorney Charles Kinney pending in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, featuring constitutional inconsistencies in attorney discipline in California, selective enforcement of attorney discipline, corruption in the California State Bar and its "supervisor", the judiciary.

In the same blog article yesterday, also wrote or referenced by links to my prior blogs, systemic problems in California regulation of attorneys.

What I did not mention yesterday is selective non-enforcement of attorney discipline in California not only as to attorneys from rich firms connected to the judiciary who fund judicial elections and benefits and serenade (literally) judges, but also as to criminal prosecutors.

In New York, the non-discipline of prosecutors has so far led to a legislative bill - fairly toothless - that proposes creation of a special Commission for Prosecutorial Misconduct, fashioned after the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct.  I say "fairly toothless" because the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct never investigates anything and shreds most of complaints against judges without any investigation.  

I have been filing complaints against judges for 7 years (some reflected in the 11th Cause of Action in Neroni v Zayas, pp. 50 to 69, some reflected in Bracci v Becker, another basis for an anti-filing injunction in federal court against my husband), based on documentary evidence of misconduct, and in all those years, the New York State Commission of Judicial Conducts has NEVER contacted me to investigate the claims - it just tosses it claiming that complaints do not warrant discipline, even if that is blatantly untrue, and contradicts applicable precedents.

New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct is also populated by people with conflicts of interest to discipline judges - judges themselves, or licensed attorneys practicing before judges whose discipline they are handling, and who can derive a benefit from non-prosecution, and whose own livelihood is in the hands of the judiciary, making their reluctance to investigate complaints a point of personal professional survival.

By the way, New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct only recently proposed a change of internal policy and prohibited members of law firms of Commission's members and staff to appear in front of the Commission representing clients - before that, the Commission did that, but refuses to disclose to the public how many cases were tainted this way.

If that is the way that the Commission for Prosecutorial Misconduct is to be fashioned in New York, it is a waste of taxpayer money and yet another "smoke and mirror" scheme, designed to create an illusion of discipline for taxpayers.

In New York, the bill for creation of even a toothless Commission for Prosecutorial Misconduct is vigorously lobbied against by the state prosecutor organizations who claim that the current status of discipline of prosecutors is just fine as it is now.

Of course, the whole idea that such a bill became necessary is proof to the contrary, and statistics show that prosecutors - even those involved in reversals of cases on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct, or in vacatur of wrongful convictions years after sentencing based on prosecutorial misconduct - were never disciplined, and instead advanced in their careers, showing that the system of attorney discipline designed, allegedly, to protect the public from wrongful prosecutions, does not work.

Attorney Kinney pointed selective enforcement of attorney discipline in California in his writ of certiorari pending in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I raised the same issues, that rules of attorney discipline are not enforceable to vast numbers of attorneys working for the government in the State of New York.

In my case, a federal judge, Lawrence E. Kahn, himself an attorney licensed in New York and thus dependent on favorable attitude of New York State judiciary for his own livelihood, has dismissed that lawsuit for "failure to state a claim", the 2nd Circuit (also with presiding judges licensed to practice in New York by New York judiciary) affirmed without a full opinion, and yet another judge, Gary Sharpe, also an attorney licensed by the New York State Judiciary, imposed an anti-filing injunction upon my husband for even daring to file such a lawsuit.

Here are some of my claims on behalf of my husband, made in January (initial complaint) and February of 2013 in Neroni v Zayas, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, 11th Cause of Action,  pages 50 to 69, on the issue of selective non-enforcement of attorney discipline in New York against attorneys working for the government, including criminal prosecutors, making the whole idea of attorney regulation as a pretense of protecting the public senseless and unconstitutional:

In the 11th Cause of Action, I pointed out that:

1) attorney discipline against governmental attorneys and relatives of judges and of high-standing governmental officials (like Governor Andrew Cuomo) is non-existent, and
2) that as a result, thousands of the most influential attorneys, and attorneys having the most power and the most ability to harm the public are put outside of the reach of attorney discipline, thus making attorney regulation in New York non-sensical and unlawful.

 In Neroni v Zayas I pointed out, as one of examples of attorney discipline, at attorney Bruce McKeegan who was involved in defrauding local schools of taxpayer money by claiming he is an employee of the school and enrolling into the school's benefits - he was allowed to unenroll and suffered no discipline (likely because he was a law school roommate of Governor Andrew Cuomo).  I also mentioned Bruce McKeegan in my opposition to discipline, indicating that my disciplinary proceedings are politically motivated.  

Now Bruce McKeegan is part of New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division 3rd Department "Independent Judicial Election Qualifications Committee", and Cuomo's other controversial friend, Westchester District Attorney #JanetDiFiore, who also had a trail of allegations of criminal conduct and prosecutorial misconduct supported by documents and witness accounts, was elevated to the position of New York State Chief Judge and retaliated against me for raising issues of improriety against her, her friend and benefactor #AndrewCuomo, and Cuomo's other friend whose misconduct I mentioned in the pleadings, #BruceMcKeegan of Delhi, NY.

I also wrote about another law school roommate of a high-standing public official, the Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick who attempted to extort money out of Judge Bryan Hedges, and had an agreement to split the proceeds of extortion with the alleged victim of Judge Hedges from 40+ years back.

"Coincidentally", Judge Hedges was the one upon whose disclosure to a victim of William Fitzpatrick's law school roommate's (Chief Administrative Judge of the 5th Judicial District James Tormey's) corruption, Judge Tormey's court employee not only sued him for retaliative discrimination in the workplace, but was able to obtain a $600,000 settlement - albeit not from Tormey's pocket, but from New York State taxpayers'.

Fitzpatrick was not only not prosecuted for extortion, not only not disciplined as an attorney, but was rewarded by having Judge Hedges taken off the bench (but not disbarred), and then proceeding to be a member of State Commission for Public Ethics and even the president of the National District Attorney's Association.

With such a figure as William Fitzpatrick leading our country's criminal prosecutors, it is not a surprise that prosecutors have become a jeopardy to proper enforcement of law rather than its tool.

For example, in the same blessed state of California that is involved in corrupt and selective enforcement of attorney discipline against solo and small firm civil rights, family court and criminal defense attorneys, a scandal has been raging for over 1.5 years about massive prosecutorial misconduct of prosecutors in Orange County illegally using jailhouse snitches to elicit incriminating statements from represented criminal defendants detained in the local County Jail, in violation of their 6th Amendment right to counsel.

Upon publicly available information, the California State Bar, too busy collecting attorney fees and disciplining sole and small-firm attorneys working for the poor and exposing judicial corruption in California and whitewashing big-fish attorneys, did not yet publicly discipline the Orange County prosecutors for repeated and systematic constitutional violations of criminal defendants' rights - and, likely, never will.

Of course, prosecutors in Orange County - as everywhere else in the country - are the breeding pool of the judiciary, and, naturally, many judges in California are direct off-springs of the Orange County District Attorney's office.

Since it is the judiciary that "regulates" attorney licenses in California, and all "regulators" of attorney licenses are themselves attorney license holders, regulators would be afraid to touch with investigation or discipline anybody from a judge's "alma mater" - prosecutors from the Orange County District Attorney's Office.

And, who will prosecute the prosecutors?  Themselves?  A "special prosecutor"?  Who will appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute criminal prosecutors for misconduct?  A judge, likely a former prosecutor him- or herself?

Especially after Pennsylvania criminally prosecuted its own elected official, Attorney General Kathleen Kane for doing her job and investigating the "ol' boys' club" of judges and prosecutors misusing their offices and disbarred her, with starking conflicts of interest involved in the disciplinary process (a judge "outed" by Kathleen Kane, before resigning from office during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding, retaliated against Kathleen Kane by suspending her law license) - no state-employed attorney would dare to "do the right thing". 

Especially where defense attorneys in California are not only the target of unfair disciplinary proceedings, but are literally beaten up for winning against prosecution in criminal cases, and baten up in the courthouse, under cameras, by employees of the District Attorney's office - and nothing is done about that.

So, since the California State Bar cannot - or, rather, would not - do its job and discipline criminal prosecutors involved in egregious, deliberate and systematic violation of constitutional rights of criminal defendants, the feds had to step in.

The U.S. Justice Department announced on December 15, 2016 in a public press release, that it is now investigating misconduct of California prosecutors.

I wonder how far the investigation will go though against the "honorable" prosecutors of the Orange County - or if the high-standing friends of Orange County prosecutors will force the U.S. Department of Justice to sweep the investigation under the rug, as the feds were forced to sweep under the rug criminal and disciplinary investigations against Hillary Clinton for exposing government secrets to the immediate world, and her attorneys for shredding evidence of her misconduct despite a court order of disclosure.

After all, this country is founded upon "history and tradition".

Including a strong tradition of corruption of prosecutors and judges.

I will continue to follow the story of federal investigation of the Orange County police and prosecutors.

Stay tuned.

Junk science in the courtroom and retaliation against experts who denounce it: the case of Dr. Squire, the denouncer of the Shaken Baby Syndrome, continued

Science in the courtroom has always been the issue of controversy.

Many famous and useful books were published denouncing the use of "junk" science in the courtroom, with resulting violations of people's constitutional rights - from life to liberty to custody of children to property.

Some of these books that I can truly recommend are

• Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, 2nd Edition - the book explains principles of scientific validity, methodology of analysis of validity of various psychological tests used by court experts, psychologists and psychiatrists - the book is extremely useful in cross-examination of experts in family court, they usually have no clue as to methods of proving scientific validity of tests they use in their evaluations and do not read scientific literature at all (disclosure: I used the 1st edition of this book in my work);

•  Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children's Testimony - an insight from forensic psychologists into suggestibility of children, with examples of how memories in children can be created, or how children, following suggestive, leading questions from adults, can seek to predict what the adults want from them and provide testimony adults seek, with examples of people's lives ruined by such testimony;

• Sanctified Snake Oil: The Effect of Junk Science on Public Policy;

Even though the book comes with a hefty price-tag, it is cheaper to buy it and familiarize yourself with the types and ways junk science used in the courtroom, in order to be able to fight that junk science than to suffer a conviction or civil adjudication with loss of rights as a result of not being prepared to confront junk science in the courtroom.  I've read this book, successfully used it in my work opposing experts testifying for prosecution and social services and highly recommend it.

• Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice

The book exposes the lack of neutrality and scientific basis in testimony of psychiatrists in court proceedings.  It is also very useful in cross-examination of such "experts":

I would also highly recommend, as a reference - and to run that reference against the "Science and Pseudoscience in Psychology" methodology these two books that I consider "antiheroes" and anti-scientific:

Handbook of Clinical Intervention in Sexual Child Abuse 

- a book of collection of "syndromes" and "factors" and "signs" of sexual abuse of a child that can "diagnose" and put into jail any parent of any child - and is actually very widely used by courtroom experts, it is considered the Bible of courtroom experts in psychology testifying for prosecution in child sexual abuse proceedings.  While I am mindful that child sexual abuse does occur and is a heinous crime, I am also well aware, as a matter of experience as an attorney representing parents accused of such conduct, that such accusations can be easily made up - and Dr. Sgroi's "Handbook of Clinical Intervention" makes it possible to make a sex offender out of any parent with her "behavioral indicators" of sexual abuse located at pages 40-41 of the book, running from "overly compliant child" (the child listens to her parents "too much") to "acting out", arriving early at school, arriving late to school, good behavior at school, bad behavior at school, good grades, bad grades, inability to concentrate, not wanting to participate in certain school activities, inability to make friends, "pseudomature" behavior - whatever that is.

The other "anti-hero" book is DSM-V:

DSM-V "diagnoses" mental illnesses as a never-lose lottery - if "3 out of 5" or "4 out of 9" "indicators" fit - then you are sick.

Such "diagnostics" thus provide thousands, often millions or even a billion (as it is for bipolar disorder) symptom combinations - and it is very clear that those combination of symptoms were never subjected to rigorous scientific validity testing.

When people voluntarily come to a "doctor", a clinical psychologist and willingly believe the junk science diagnosing based on DSM-V, it is their own business. 

When such junk-science diagnosis is used to ruin people's lives through court proceedings, that is an entirely different matter.

How good and "scientific" "diagnoses" in DSM-V are is demonstrated by one example: pedophilia.

Pedophilia was initially included into DSM-V as a mental illness.  I have that book copy that lists it as a mental illness.

I bet it is no longer available and is a bibliographical rarity.

After pedophilia was listed in DMS-V as a mental illness, protests arose against such a diagnosis.

Imagine protests in the street against any other supposedly medical diagnosis - I protest against doctors diagnosing diabetes as a medical illness!

No, that is unimaginable.

Similarly, it should not be imaginable to protest against any mental illness - if diagnoses of it is based on scientific data.  And certainly, what constitutes a scientifically diagnosed illness should not be subject to amendments based on protests.

Well, pedophilia was taken out of DSM-V after protests - because, if that is an illness, how would you criminally prosecute a pedophile?

A medical diagnosis is not scientific when it is made - or not made - out of expedience to suit the needs of criminal prosecution or "public policy" needing to hold anybody accountable in any way, civil or criminal.

And that is applicable not only to the diagnosis of pedophilia - I just provided it as the strongest example that mental illnesses, diagnosed as a "never lose lottery" for treating psychologists and psychiatrists (4 out of 9, 3 out of 7 vague and over-broad "indicators" subjectively interpreted by the treating doctor to get you enrolled in expensive "therapy" sessions or put you on no less expensive drugs that a pharmaceutical company wines and dines the doctor to prescribe for you - and bingo! you are diagnosed and labeled for life).

Court testimony of experts is a big business, and, even though testifying expert are supposed to be neutral for purposes of giving testimony, and so claim under oath, they are usually hired and paid for their testimony by a party - and, even if they are court-appointed, they have a financial interest to testify the way the court wants them to testify (that is often very predictable, in child neglect and abuse proceedings, for example, courts are very pro-social services, and often judges in such courts are former social services prosecutors).

Often, experts testifying in criminal or family court, testify predominantly for prosecution - as the client with unlimited funds.

Naturally, such experts are interested to be hired and re-hired for such paid testimony - and testify the way prosecution wants them to testify, promoting claims that have no scientific validity, or the so-called "junk science"'.

"Junk science" "expert" testimony is a big problem in courts throughout the country.

On the one hand, prosecution often ask the court to give the jury a "TV show instruction" - and specifically weed out jurors who watch forensic science TV shows and expect a higher level of proof from prosecution's experts.  I was a witness how it was done in several criminal trials in Delaware County, New York, at the request of the then-District Attorney (and now the County Judge presiding over felony trials) Richard Northrup.

On the other hand, prosecution use their advantage in having unlimited funds, as opposed to the usually indigent defendants in criminal proceedings or civil child neglect and abuse proceedings - where state laws, out of expediency and fiscal considerations, restrict indigent defendants' funds and ability to apply for such funds to hire experts in opposition to prosecution's experts.

All of these tricks allow the prosecution to drum up convictions.

Yet, as the above books, and especially the "Science and Pseudoscience in Psychology" explains, a "syndrome", a term very often used by "junk science" experts in courtroom testimony, is not the same as a "differential diagnosis" excluding other causes of the injury, such as causes unrelated to fault of the defendant in the court proceedings.

And, not all experts are "whores" of the court or the party who hired them for money.

Some experts are honest and do testify based on scientific validity - or, in their expert opinion, lack of scientific validity of a certain syndrome.

One of such honest experts is Dr. Squire from Great Britain who recently lost her medical license because she did not accept as scientific the so-called Shaken Baby Syndrome, a junk science term that already resulted in many convictions and child abuse adjudications.

Fortunately for Dr. Squire, her license was revoked not for long, it was restored due to solidarity of Dr. Squire's colleagues who expressed indignation against such a retaliation for scientific opinion and in support of her.

Yet, recently Dr. Squire spoke at a gathering where she disclosed that she was actually reported by to licensing authorities by police officials who went to a Shaken Baby Syndrome convention and claimed there that the "syndrome" helped them maintain a high rate of convictions.

So, Dr. Squire's license revocation was to prevent the conviction rate for a certain police agency from dropping and had nothing to do with the actual science validity or invalidity of the Shaken Baby Syndrome, or guilt or innocence of those accused of harming children.

Actually, the junk science, also termed "voodoo science", was condemned in September of this year by the U.S. Department of Justice Report where the famous 9th Circuit judge Alex Kozinski participated in preparation of the report.


We live in interesting times.  I already wrote about Dr. Squire's case on my blog back in October and indicated that Dr. Squire's case demonstrates how a democracy can be turned into a theocracy - where a scientist is being persecuted by the government for "wrong beliefs".

Yet, being prosecuted for "wrong beliefs" because the police wants to maintain a certain level of wrongful convictions is a new low.

In the Middle Ages, it was the church that prevented the science from enlightening the masses - it was deemed heresy, and scientists were burnt at the stake for contradicting the church doctrine.

It was beneficial for the state to keep masses ignorant and illiterate - it is easier to rule over them this way.

Quite a different approach is needed when the majority of population of civilized countries have at least some formal education.

Blunt force in blocking people from information or prohibiting access to certain information of public concern (and validity of claims upon which people are criminally convicted is a matter of grave public concern) - is not an effective way of dealing with the public.

During the times of church domination, church law, overwhelming ignorance of the population, when burning people at the stake was a kind of a feast for the eye for the townsfolk at the town square, people were expected to hold and express blind faith in what can be subjected to experimentation and research and proven wrong.

And, of course, fighting heresies was positioned in Middle Ages by law enforcement as an important way to enforce church law.

Nowadays, the church's role in eradicating heresies is shifted and gladly undertaken by state secular licensing authorities - who are acting, supposedly, in order to protect the public.

Dr. Squire's license was taken because, as a scientist, she disagreed with and denounced with a theory that is not, in her view, supported by evidence.

And, the taking of Dr Squire's license was sought by police to keep their conviction rates high, bonuses paid, prison guards and prosecution receiving salary and bonuses, everybody happy - but the convicted innocents and children separated from families for no fault of parents.

Protecting the public from the truth, or at least from doubts in the truthfulness of what is considered "settled truths" - or a dogma - in any field of knowledge or human activity - is not the lawful person or justification of occupational licensing.

Not to mention that such persecution of a scientist based on the contents of her opinion violates internationally accepted freedom of speech principles.

Or, are we really turning into theocracies where we are supposed to believe certain dogmas and where any doubter, and especially a doubter whose voice has more weight because of the doubter's training and intellect - like in Dr Squire's case - are viciously beaten down by authorities?

Because if we do, we must prepare for a possibility of being thrown in jail on some or other "voodoo science" claim of a prosecution-paid "whore of the court".  Yes, I said the word.