Was Ledell Lee killed off by the U.S. Supreme Court as a punishment for raising the issue of BAD judicial misconduct in his trial, the judge sleeping with a prosecutor? Yet another death for criticizing judges.

This is Ledell Lee.

The person who maintained his innocence until his dying minute.

The person who has had an intellectual disability that was disregarded when he was put to death.

The person who asked for a DNA test which was denied to him despite his claims of innocence.

The person who was convicted and condemned to death when his presiding trial judge was having an affair with the prosecutor - and all lawyers, but the first one (who was drunk) and the last one, were afraid to raise the issue of the judge's affair with the prosecutor, choosing to rather cause their client to be killed by the State of Arkansas than jeopardize their own careers.

And this is the Governor's spokesman who is patiently waiting - outside of the death chamber - until Ledell Lee is killed of and "justice is served", or, rather, until the State of Arkansas uses the last chance to kill Ledell Lee before the drugs the State deceptively bought to kill him, while claiming they are purchased for another purpose, expire.

I wonder why he wouldn't watch "the process".

I saw in reports mentioning that it was the newly appointed judge Neil Gorsuch who delivered the death blow and whose vote broke the tie and resulted in Ledell Lee's death.

That's the same Neil Gorsuch who, citing to St Augustine and Aristotle, preached in his book about right to life, to the point of denying people who want and choose to die the right to die with dignity, of their own free will.

I also saw mentioned that the presiding judge in Ledell Lee's trial and the prosecutor had an affair and later married.

What I did not see were the names and faces of that judge and that prosecutor.

The press was somehow too shy to mention them.

Yet, those names were mentioned in Ledell Lee's request for relief filed with federal courts, the request that was denied by the federal court - and I wonder whether the denial was based on the merit, or based on the increasing backlash in the American courts against criticism and critics of judicial misconduct, no matter how fair and how much it is based on uncontroverted evidence.

The presiding judge over Ledell Lee's trial who had an affair with the prosecutor at that time, but did not disclose it - and neither did the prosecutor - is #JudgeChrisPiazza.

He is still a judge, is still a licensed attorney, and is still called "Honorable".

And, the press is still afraid to mention his name in connection with Ledell Lee's murder.

Of course, Judge Piazza's only "notable ruling" is pronouncement of the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Nobody mentions sending a man to death without a DNA test while sleeping with the prosecutor, preventing appointment of a non-conflicted counsel and instead appointment of a counsel who was drunk at the trial.

And, these are the only two lawyers who, in addition to the drunk lawyer, raised the issue of the affair between the judge and the prosecutor at a capital murder trial:

Other "competent counsel" during the years and years of appeals and habeas petitions, failed to mention it.  I wonder, why.  I actually don't wonder why, because we all know, why.  They threw their client under the bus - no, literally, into the death chamber - in order to save their own hides and licenses.

Because the judge they were duty-bound to criticize was still on the bench, and very much in power.

The prosecutor participating in an affair with the judge presiding over a capital murder trial was #MelodyLaRue who was portrayed in the press as a "confident prosecutor" who claimed she "believes in what she is doing".

I guess, she believed in having an affair with the presiding judge and not disclosing it to the defendant or his attorney.

It took a subpoena of the judge's ex-wife to testify regarding the affair, but only after the conviction and death sentence of Ledell Lee, and after the state death machine was put into motion.

Now the former prosecutor is the judge's wife and a law partner in a private law firm.

No discipline was imposed upon her for having an affair with a judge who was presiding over a capital murder case her office (if not she herself, personally) was handling.

Here is Ms. LaRue's/Mrs. Piazza's work history, from her own attorney advertisement:

Not only Melody Larue/Piazza was not disciplined (as well as her husband-judge) for non-disclosure of their affair during a capital murder trial where Judge Chris Piazza presided and Melody LaRue's employer handled the prosecution and sought the death penalty, but Melody Piazza boasts "pre-eminent" statuses and credentials such as memberships in a vast number of lawyer associations:

I guess, they are all happy to have her, a powerful judge's wife, no matter what kind of misconduct her husband-judge and Melody LaRue committed.

Let's compare the dates in Melody Piazza's autobiography in her attorney advertisement and in Ledell Lee's final petition for relief - which was denied.

Ledell Lee:

So, Ledell Lee was not convicted, sentenced or executed after his first trial.

In his first trial, he presented an alibi defense enough to have a hung jury even on the issue of conviction, without even reaching the issue of sentencing.

Melody LaRue/Piazza:

So, in 1993 and 1994, at the time of Ledell Lee's first trial, Melody LaRue was already employed as a prosecutor in the District Attorney's Office of the Pulaski County.

And, of course, the Circuit Court of that same county denied Mr. Ledell's application for DNA testing.

See argument in opposition of DNA testing by John F. Johnson, Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the 6th Judicial District, an argument arguing to kill off a person who once won a hung jury on an alibi defense and who was only asking to check, before he is killed, if the state has got the right guy.

This is the perverse prosecutorial logic:

So, the alibi defense that has caused a hung jury did not matter.

The assertion of innocence does not matter.

Presence of some other blood on the shoe of Mr. Ledell does not matter - while it should matter, because if the crime scene was full of blood, if Mr. Ledell had blood on his shoe, but that blood was not the victim's, that clearly means that his alibi defense is solid and there is a reasonable doubt whether he was at the crime scene at all.

Mr. Johnson did not mention in his opposition that his office made an ultimate "argument", unbeknownst to Mr. Lee or his counsel, to win his 2nd trial after the 1st one resulted in a hung jury - had a prosecutor from their office sleep with the presiding judge.

Actually, in "Relevant Procedural History" Mr. Johnson did not even mention the hung jury on the issue of alibi defense.

He only mentioned a conviction - on October 12, 1995.

Guess what happened to Melody LaRue after that conviction in 1995 (obtained because she was sleeping with the presiding judge Chris Piazza)?

She got promoted!  To the position of Chief Deputy Prosecutor "from 1996 until her departure in 2001".

Good girl!  Won such a victory for the office! Deserves a promotion, of course!

Look what else Mr. Johnson is arguing:

"Yes, we destroyed the evidence which could have been exculpatory for Mr. Lee - but we did it not in bad faith", and somehow that makes it right to kill Mr. Lee, an indigent criminal defendant, without doing any additional investigation or DNA testing.

Moreover, repeating one of the reasons why an innocent may be executed that a federal judge recently asserted in his blog, untimeliness, Mr. Johnson pushes that untimeliness as No. 1 reason why a potentially innocent person should be executed, immediately.

So, it was Ledell Lee's fault that his attorneys deprived him of effective representation and did not ask for additional DNA testing after new DNA-testing technologies became available.

And, it was Ledell Lee's fault that attorneys who the same state that killed him, assigned to him, knew nothing about DNA testing:

But, that was exactly what his attorney was arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court - ineffective assistance of counsel - which the same Mr. Johnson was opposing, too.

And, by the way, the Arkansas Supreme Court refused to review the issue of Judge Piazza sleeping with prosecutor Melody LaRue during the capital murder case which Melody LaRue's office was prosecuting and where Judge Piazza was presiding - without disclosure of the relationship to the defense or the jury - because allegedly it was not raised in the petition by the defense counsel who did not think it prudent (for his own personal reasons) to raise issues of judicial misconduct of a still-sitting judge.

So, Ledell Lee was killed off.

Because, the state of Arkansas absolutely had to exercise the death warrant before it expired, and use the killing drugs before they expired, too, and all judges, with little exception - only judge Breyer dissented, and judges Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan and Breyer dissented in a related case - raised their voices against the horrible injustice of killing of an intellectually disabled man asserting his innocence, who:

• once had a hung jury on an alibi issue;
• who never received effective assistance of counsel at trial or in post-trial proceedings;
• who never had an impartial prosecutor, as he was entitled by law;
• who never had an impartial judge, as he was entitled by law - where the judge actually slept with the prosecutor instead, without disclosing it to Mr. Ledell.

What happened to the judge?

He is still on the bench.

What happened to the prosecutor?

She was promoted, married the judge, left the prosecutor's office to pursue private practice, and is still a rich and successful private attorney.

What happened to their victim, Mr. Ledell?

He was killed by the state, and the state insisted on killing him.

So, why was Mr. Ledell killed?  Because the killing drugs were closes to expiration, or because his attorneys dared to point out, truthfully, based on testimony of the judge's ex-wife, that the judge was sleeping with a prosecutor from the office prosecuting Mr. Ledell during Mr. Ledell's SECOND capital murder trial, after the first one was lost to a hung jury?

Punishing people for criticizing judges has become a favorite target practice for courts in America.

Yet, killing people for criticizing judges is brand spanking new.

Let's remember this face.

Ledell Lee, a person killed for criticizing a judge for sleeping with a prosecutor during a capital murder trial.

And, let's remember these faces.

Judge Chris Piazza - still on the bench.

Attorney Melody Piazza



- still has her license, is now married to judge Chris Piazza, and uses in her attorney advertisement the career promotion she received after sleeping with the presiding judge during a capital murder trial and thus helping her office "win" the trial.

The tie-breaking vote on the U.S. Supreme Court - Neil Gorsuch

whose only credentials to get him on the SCOTUS bench were that:

• he was a son of a powerful Arkansas state legislator and a son and grandson of lawyers;
• he was a law clerk to two SCOTUS justices (White and Kennedy, where Kennedy is still on the court and whom Gorsuch now joined in a majority to kill Mr. Ledell); and, OF COURSE,
• Gorsuch fished with Scalia - that's his main credential

And this is, again, their victim - Gorsuch's, and Scalia's (who denied certiorari review to Lee Ledell in 1999), and Judge Piazza's, and attorney Melody LaRue/Piazza's:

Ledell Lee was just a stepping stone in these people's careers.

I wonder, whether DNA testing that Ledell Lee asked for, and was denied, will be conducted after his death, or will the State of Arkansas continue to be as cowardly after killing him as it was while seeking to kill him off before finding out the truth.

Since there is a big question whether Ledell Lee is the person who murdered the victim, there is a big question whether the perpetrator continues to be out there, jeopardizing lives of the residents of the state of Arkansas.

Not that the Governor of the State of Arkansas, and other public officials who sought to kill of Ledell Lee, care about such trifles, obviously.

They DESTROYED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE - remember?  And claimed that it is ok to still kill Ledell Lee because the destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence was not in bad faith, allegedly.

Nothing wrong that the government does is usually deemed, by the government (the courts) to be in bad faith, no matter how wrong it is.

But - you know what is one of the most important aspects of this gruesome story?

DISCRETION.

Judicial discretion.

Discretion of the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear appeal of Mr. Ledell.

Not from the criminal conviction.

Not from denial of his habeas corpus petitions.

Not from denial of his requests for DNA testing.

Not from denial of stay of execution.

Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court did not always have such "discretion".  The court obtained it only in 1925, at the request of its own Chief Justice, when the Chief Justice decided that the court has too many cases on its docket for the elderly justices' comfort.

Since then, nearly 100 years passed, the population and number of cases, including civil rights cases, have grown exponentially, yet, the "discretion" remains.

So, I am asking a question - WHY DO WE HAVE the U.S. Supreme Court?

For what reason do we have these 9 people who receive enormous salaries, sit in a marble palace, and have no obligation to do anything?  At all?

They can refuse, at their "discretion", to hear ANY cases coming their way - and still receive their salary.

And, nobody can hold them accountable, they are there for life.

WHY?

Why do we have jobs in the government that are discretionary for the government officials to do or not to do?

Why do we have jobs where enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, including, literally, life or death decisions, lies within the whim of 9 people.

Why do we have jobs where these "discretionary" public servants may decide to punish a person with DEATH, this person,

simply for breaking the ultimate taboo - criticizing a judge for an obvious misconduct?

I wrote recently about yet another death of a critic of a judge - attorney Patrick Massud in California.  That death was claimed to be a suicide.  In state custody, awaiting trial where he was likely going to testify about judicial misconduct.  To kill him off was the most "efficient" way to shut him up.

And about other whistleblowers who were given the ultimate gag.

Now Ledell Lee joins their ranks.

Russian lawyer bureaucracy, inspired by the American Bar Association, pushes to strip Russian consumers of legal services of diversity in servives and prices - and to create a justice gap. Just like we have in America

Today there was an interesting day for consumers of legal services in Russia.

A "congress" of the Federal Chamber of Advocates (the elite of attorney bureaucracy) was concluded today, adopting various changes as to regulation of attorneys.

The Congress did not introduce attorney monopoly - yet.

But Russian legal elite is vigorously pushing for it, claiming that attorney monopoly "justified itself" in "civilized countries" like Europe and America, and thus, should be introduced in Russia.

So - how justified attorney monopoly is in the U.S., as compared to the market of legal services in Russia?


I put together a comparative table as to how the market of legal services is regulated in Russia and in the United States.

Features of attorney regulation	Russia	U.S.A.
Lay representation in court allowed? Yes/No	Yes	No
Is there a general licensing requirement as a condition to provide legal services?	No	Yes
Is the country a federation?	Yes	Yes
What is the area of the country?	6.602 million square miles	3.797 million square miles (nearly twice less)
Must a licensed attorney draft deeds?	No, a notary does that	Yes
Must a licensed attorney draft any contracts?	No, an in-house unlicensed lawyer does that	Yes – there is, only of late, some leniency to in-house attorneys, but still some sort of certification and checking is required, it is not in Russia
Must a licensed attorney provide any consultations?	No, usually an unlicensed lawyer-consultant does it	Yes
Must a licensed attorney provide court representation?	No, your next door neighbor can represent you in court based on a power of attorney	Yes
Does the government regulated attorneys?	No	Yes
What branch of the government regulates attorneys?	N/A	Judiciary
Is the branch of the government regulating attorneys the same as the branch of the government regulating other regulated professions?	N/A	No, all other professions are regulated by the executive branch
Do the regulators themselves have to have a law license in order to do their jobs?	N/A	Yes, judges regulating attorney licensing are themselves licensed attorneys, as a condition of becoming a judge
Are their criminal laws against unauthorized practice of law?	No	Yes
Are criminal laws for unauthorized practice of law specific for each subject of the federation?	N/A	Yes
Do criminal sentences for unauthorized practice of law involve incarceration? Yes/No	N/A	Yes, from 1 year for misdemeanors to 5 years where UPL is a felony
Is a law graduate, after passing a graduation exam and receiving his law degree, provide legal services?	Yes	No
Can a law graduate, based on his diploma alone, provide legal services in the entire country?	Yes	No
Is an attorney allowed by law, once licensed in one state, provide legal services in the entire country? Yes/No?	N/A	No
Can an attorney licensed in one state, but not licensed in another, be charged with UPL? Yes/No	N/A	Yes
Do regulators regulate personal behavior of licensed attorneys?  Yes/No	N/A	Yes, attorneys in New York and California are prohibited to have an intimate relationship with their clients
Do regulators regulate political behavior of licensed attorneys? Yes/No	N/A	Yes, attorneys are suspended/disbarred for out-of-court criticism of each other, the government and especially the judiciary, attorneys’ own regulators

It is very obvious that in the U.S., as compared to Russia, both consumers and lawyers have a worse business climate.

While both countries are federations in their political structure, in Russia, a law graduate, once receiving his/her law degree, can work without any licenses as a notary, as a law consultant for the public, as an in-house transactional counsel, or as a trial lawyer.

Moreover, even a never-licensed individual may represent people, simply on the basis of a power of attorney.

In Russia, as opposed to the U.S., no licensing authority (as yet) controls, as a condition of being allowed to earn a living by practicing his trade, personal and political freedom of a lawyer as to who to be with romantically, and whether and how to criticize the government.

As for consumers, in Russia a consumer is free to hire:

• a next door neighbor, an unlicensed attorney, an attorney - member of the "Chamber of Advocates" - to represent him in court;
• a notary - to draft a deed or a will.

Such diversity of choice and of a variety of educational levels of providers necessarily tells on prices.

The more credentials - the higher the price, but the customer in Russia (as yet) is allowed to choose a highly credentialed (Chamber of Advocates) and, thus, highly priced lawyer, or a less credentialed provider with a lower fee.

Moreover, in Russia, a federation, same as the U.S., with a territory nearly twice that of the U.S., a law school graduate, once he/she got her law degree, can practice from Moscow to Vladivostok without any restrictions.

Not so in the U.S.

In the U.S. a New York attorney can be criminally prosecuted for practicing, let's say, in Florida without a Florida law license.

Some states have "reciprocity agreements" with other states, allowing attorneys licensed in certain enumerated states to practice in their state without passing an additional state bar examination.

Yet, coastal states like Florida and South Carolina, where attorneys usually retire, do not allow admission on reciprocity, obviously protecting not the consumers, because retired attorneys are obviously skillful, but the local lawyers from incoming competition.

It is very obvious that it is a very expensive feat to hire a licensed attorney for every sneeze, for doing a will, for drafting a deed or a contract, for representing you in every matter, small or large, in court.

For that reason, Russians can hire non-attorneys or non-advocates (not members of the Chamber of Advocates, but still law graduates, even though not credentialed) - at a range of lower prices.

In the same situation, Americans simply go without a lawyer, which results in massive loss of rights, the so-called "justice gap".

Now the American Bar Association, through its Rule of Law pet project, apparently bribed enough people in the Russian lawyer bureaucracy, or showed enough people in that bureaucracy the beauty of instilling attorney monopoly to implode the existing system of provision of legal services in Russia from within.

We will see very shortly whether the elite of Russian "Federal Chamber of Advocates" (and American law firms that came into the Russian market and want to be as comfortable their, without competition, as they are in the U.S.) will get their way.

To protect the consumers, no less.

No prosecution without a legitimate prosecutor - rules judge Breslin of Albany, NY

When I just started my career as an attorney, I had a case in town court in the town of Margaretville, NY, before Judge Gary Rosa - who at that point still pretended to be a decent judge, see how he had changed (or, rather, revealed himself) now, here.

The case was a zoning case, and private attorney Carey Wagner, a real estate lawyer (and that's certainly not my rating of him, I never was his client)

 pretended to prosecute that zoning case, as a criminal prosecutor.

Of course, he had no right to do that, as he was never even sworn as a criminal prosecutor, and was never hired as an Assistant District Attorney.

Not only that, Carey Wagner, according to my client, represented both the complainant in a certain dispute among neighbors, and consulted my client about that same dispute, which still resulted in formation of an attorney-client relationship for purposes of the privilege.  Wagner, thus, was completely disqualified from prosecuting the matter from which he was conflicted out.

Nevertheless, he did proceed, was exceptionally rude with me (as the review of his own client states, too) and was trying to run me over, claiming that I am fresh out of law school, do not know anything, obviously heavily hinting at my immigrant status and at the fact that English was not my native language.

What stirred Wagner's ire most of all is that I obtained, through a FOIL request, from Delaware County Clerk's office (and that office refused to satisfy the request at first, demanding me to tell them my reasons and purposes to ask for public documents, I had to complain to the New York State Committee for Open Government in order to have the Committee talk sense into the Delaware County Clerk), a document showing that they have no oath of office for Mr. Wagner as a criminal prosecutor.

On those grounds, I moved to dismiss criminal charges brought by Mr. Wagner against my client.

Judge Rosa dismissed the case on other grounds, but he obviously tried to stay as far away as possible from any "controversy".

In 2015, when disciplinary prosecutor Mary Gasparini tried to put me in jail when materials from my own disciplinary proceedings (where I was disciplined for criticizing a corrupt judge Carl F. Becker in a motion to recuse), specifically, audio recordings showing that transcripts of two conferences with the referee were cooked, were published online. 

Mary Gasparini also, like Carey Wagner before her, tried to purport that she had authority to bring criminal proceedings against me.

I opposed criminal charges on the law, as a jurisdictional matter, and raised the issue that Mary Gasparini is not a criminal prosecutor and is not authorized to bring criminal charges in New York - among other jurisdictional defects.  Criminal charges were dismissed without an explanation.

An explanation did come, from State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Breslin, of Albany, NY, who dismissed a criminal case because it was brought and prosecuted by a "Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs".  

New York State Attorney General, surprisingly, intervened and sided with the criminal defendant, which, possibly, decided the fate of the case.

In his decision, Justice Breslin agreed with the defendant's argument that only elected prosecutors may bring and prosecute criminal charges in New York.

That is the clear restriction of statutory law, County Law 700.

Yet, several questions now arise in connection with Judge Breslin's decision:

1)  Can now courts continue assign "special prosecutors" who are not elected prosecutors in such counties?  And, are prosecutions commenced and concluded by such special prosecutors legitimate or are they now void?

2) Can town attorneys continue to prosecute zoning cases, without being sworn in as Assistant District Attorneys, and while the Town is a completely different entity from the County, and where such representation is nearly always fraught with conflicts of interest?

3) Can police officers prosecute traffic tickets - as they often do in New York, and especially because procedure for prosecution of traffic tickets in New York is the same as for criminal charges - Criminal Procedure Law?

To bribe a judge in Wisconsin - easy

I wrote on this blog recently regarding the petition of retired judges in Wisconsin asking to set upper limits of bribes to judges, on a sliding scale, depending on the level of the judge.




That petition was, reportedly, just rejected by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.




It is good that the sliding scale of bribes was not legitimized.




But, it is bad that unlimited bribery of judges through campaign donations is still permitted.

Public opinion: victims of (various) abuse, shut up, or your medical, mental, licensing and criminal history will be dragged through dirt

A discussion flared yesterday on Facebook claiming that the outcome of the United Airlines "incident", or rather, assault by security guards on an elderly passenger, a Vietnamese immigrant, a father of five and a grandfather, causing grievous injuries (a concussion, a broken nose and knocked out two front teeth) that, reportedly required a hospitalization and reconstructive surgery, would have been different, but for the passenger's reported "mental health issues".

The report of mental health problems in the background of the passenger, information usually protected by HIPAA laws, information that the commentator used in the derogatory comment, was made available by LA Times.

The same LA Times provided information that the pummeled passenger was allegedly a convicted felon, that his medical license was allegedly suspended in the past for trading prescriptions for sex, that he had psychological evaluations listing anxiety, anger management problems and post traumatic stress disorder, and that his medical license, though restored, required supervision of Dr. Dao's activities as a physician by another doctor.

The pummeling happened on April 9, 2017.  The spokesperson for the airline made false claims against Dr. Dao that could operate to revoke his medical license and claimed he "stood behind" the actions of the employees.



The airline changed course and issued apologies only on April 13, 2017, promising to take "immediate action", only after an "international outrage", after its stocks took a dive and after people started to boycott its services and post this kind of anti-PR for United:

This video Twitter message shows slapping of a person with the following inscription:

And a video message of an Asian guy who dons a disguise of a white guy not to be dragged off a United flight:

Then, and only as damage control and not as any kind of expression of sincere remorse about what happened,

on April 16, 2017 United changed its policy, now prohibiting the crew from forcibly taking passengers off the plane after boarding.

Of course, customers remain outraged at the incompleteness of the policy - since United apparently continues to bump passengers not because of overbooking, but because it wants to save money by using its own planes for last-minute relocation of its own crews.

Yet, here is the comment on Facebook that "had Dr. Dao cooperated with authorities" "and raised his objections later", everything could have been "different".

The author of this post also added this:

It is not clear what "way" "Mr" (the commentator refused to give him his title "Dr") acted that the commentator's friends don't.

It is also not clear why Dr Dao should not have asserted his rights - which was his choice, and only his choice, to do.

But, what is extremely interesting is the airline's curious targeting of an elderly Asian (by race) passenger from the economy class who was flying with his wife to accommodate its crew that was needed to fly a plane from Louisville, KY the following morning (of which the airline somehow was unaware until Dr Dao was allowed to board the flight and take the seat that he paid for).

Why did the airline not choose for "bumping" a passenger who was flying solo, not with his spouse?

Why did the airline choose for "bumping" an Asian passenger - because Asians are known for compliance with authorities?

Why did the airline choose this particular passenger, with the alleged criminal history, a history of suspension of a medical license (which is easily, and instantly, verifiable online), and a current medical license being conditional on supervision - because he would keep his head low and, if he "objects", he can be turned into licensing authorities as a retaliation?

I have a funny feeling that that was exactly the plan of the airline for this passenger - and especially so because the airline waited for 4 days, until

• an international outrage in the media and social media;
• until the dive in stocks;
• until customers started to boycott the airline; 

• until Dr Dao hired a lawyer to contemplate a lawsuit against the airline;
• until customers started to advertise United's competitors using the incident:

• until the airline's conduct caused the interest of lawmakers regulators, and

• until PR experts called the incident a "brand suicide"

that the airline changed course, apologized to Dr Dao and promised "immediate action".

The first reaction of the airline was:

• to blame Dr. Dao for his behavior; and
• to not-so-subtly intimidate him - by checking out his licensing history and claiming that he was "irate and belligerent".

I am sure that, if not for the video and Twitter messages by Dr. Dao's fellow co-passengers, the airline would have turned him in to medical authorities and would have sought to have his medical license yanked as a line of defense and retaliation for the PR disaster.

The only reason it was not done, obviously, is because of the international outrage in the media and social media because the pummeling was documented on cell phones and immediately posted in social networks,

blocking the airline from further pursuing such false claims.

Apparently, the airline offered to Dr Dao a $1000 voucher to get off the plane, leaving his wife behind, which he declined to accept.

Yet, reportedly, the rules require the airline to offer a $1,340 voucher for "bumping", and, for the 1-hour flight from Chicago to Louisville, KY, United has been offered a free-trial private jet service that the airline declined.

And, in this situation, there was a glaring violation of Dr. Dao's ticket contract with the airline, because, by contract, Dr. Dao could only be bumped if the airline was OVERBOOKED.

It wasn't overbooked though, and the United's spokesman acknowledged that - after an uproar about the assault on Dr. Dao.

It simply wanted to fly one of its own crew members instead of Dr. Dao - after declining a FREE offer to fly its crews in such situations on a private jet.

Of course, this is an extraordinary PR blunder.  The airline must have a policy as to how to handle situations when passengers refuse to be "bumped", and the airline must recognize that, once it allowed a passenger to board the plane and take his seat within it, it can no longer bump the passenger, it is just common sense and common fairness.  Such things must be decided before boarding.

If such situations arise after boarding, they must be treated by the airline as extraordinary, and extraordinary apologies, as well as extraordinary amounts of money, should be offered the inconvenienced passenger, and never the use of force.  That is also common sense.

But, what floored me is the continued claims - and the commentator I quoted at the beginning is not the only one - that "had he complied and voiced his objections later", "nothing would have happened", and that his alleged "mental health issues" "contributed" to the "situation".

It has been common to blame the victims of misconduct of powerful people, private or public.

• She wouldn't have been raped if she did not wear provocative clothing.
• He wouldn't have been charged if he opened the door and allowed a warrantless search of his house.
• He wouldn't have been arrested, roughed up, searched, killed by the police if he "complied with the authorities and objected later" - if he did not act the way he did and "ran while black", "'causing" the police to chase and shoot him.
• She would not have lost her professional license had she shut up, looked the other way and not dared to criticize her own regulator.
• A 69-year-old Vietnamese immigrant physician would not have been pummeled to the point of having a concussion, broken nose and knocked out teeth, in front of his wife, had he "complied" and walked out of the plane after having been allowed to board it and take his seat.

The tendency to blame the victim is still strong in this country.

Yet, the overall outrage in the world that forced the airline to change course and at least apologize (I did not find any news that any compensation for injuries was so far offered to Dr. Dao and his wife for pain and emotional suffering) shows that the world is moving away from this tendency.

I hope that the airline should suffer such severe repercussions from its own regulator so that it would train its employees to not dare do to any other passenger what it did to Dr. Dao.

I also hope that those who gave Dr. Dao a head concussion, broke his nose and knocked out his teeth, would be charged, as they should, with felonies, as well as those who directed them to remove Dr. Dao by use of force.  That would be the rule of law.

And let's remember - our "mental issues", real or insinuated, are not relevant when we are asserting our rights.

Because, if the law will somehow operate differently if the person asserting his rights is:

• white, black, Asian, or Native American;
• does or does not have a criminal history;
• is or is not a good professional;
• does or does not have a history of professional license suspensions;
• does or does not have a history of engaging in behavior involving moral turpitude;

that is IRRELEVANT to what happened to him as a victim of abuse or a crime (of assault, as here).

Because, to deem otherwise means to deem that this nation is not based on the rule of law, but on the rule of men - and that law should apply differently based on the background of people it is supposed to protect.

And, the airline should also better settle with Dr. Dao, for a lot of money, and quick.

The verdict of a jury to Dr. Dao and his wife by the jury in punitive damages - and it is as cut-and-dry case for Dr. Dao and his wife as it can be - can bankrupt United.

And, while CEO Munoz apologized and changed policy, the airline's pilots (and they control what happens when the plane is boarded) "are not buying it" and stand by the actions of the pummeling crew as correct.

Pilots said that:

1) it is the airport's security personnel that handled it wrong and not the airline that ordered the removal of a passenger; and

2) that what mattered is that one person held "safe transportation" of 70 other people to Kentucky - again, let's blame the victim for "non-compliance"

I would once again note that - same as the Facebook commentator who blamed Dr Dao for the way he acted when being taken off airline not because it was overbooked, but because the airline, at the time the flight was fully boarded and waiting for a take-off permission, suddenly expressed a desire to separate him from his wife to give his already boarded seat to their crew member - pilots and the Forbes commentator obviously siding with them, drop the appropriate way of address for the victim, Dr Dao, and describe him either as "David Dao" or as simply "Dao".

And, of course, Dr Dao is blamed for hiring a personal injury lawyer - who wouldn't under the circumstances?

And, of course, Dr Dao is blamed for his lawyer's televised interview.

And of course, pilots are, according to the Forbes' commentator, rightfully infuriated because the United will now "likely have to compensate a belligerent passenger whose attorney will make a case against every weather-caused delay that ever happened".

So, we are now back to double-falsification of facts:

• that the Dr Dao was injured because he was belligerent; and
• that he is suing for a frivolous cause - like "a weather-caused delay".

That's, of course, a situation when with such commentators as Ted Reed of Forbes, United does not need enemies.

Blaming the victim continues, but disrespect to the victim will add more millions to the jury verdict against the airline - if the airline will be brain-dead enough to not settle.

And - we the potential customers of airlines are waiting for the news that those who assaulted Dr Dao and who ordered that assault are charged with felonies.

That will be the rule of law.

And, by the way - I haven't heard anything from ACLU on the subject.  It was an immigrant whose rights were affected, wasn't it?