DGAF as a doctrine of judicial non-recusal - yet another secretly demented judge has surfaced?

Do you know this brand spanking new abbreviation?

DGAF?

This is what it is:

And this is what it means in the "legal world".

This judge, Robert W. Sweet, appointed for life to "serve" on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (on the right) who is just 6 years away from turning 100, is, apparently, a DGAF judge.  He is a senior judge, too, who assumed "senior status" on March 1, 1991, but did not stop judging cases.

He allows himself to make comments that surely would require any self-respecting jurist to recuse.

But, self-respect does not equal mandate to recuse.

Of course, there is a statute mandating recusal, 28 U.S.C. 455, and there are court precedents mandating recusal as a constitutional point, a lot of them, but, see above, who gives a F... , yes, that word?

We have judges with wet-brain eating diseases, hallucinations, demented judges who still do not resign - they just disappear when there is no longer a possibility to hide the fact that they are demented or wet-brained delirious alcoholics.

And, we have judges whose dementia shows up in other ways - by DGAF arrogance.

Apparently, Judge Sweet is such a judge.

And, of course, attorneys are deathly afraid to make motions to recuse judges, and thus sent just a letter seeking to "discuss" potential bias of the judge against the Plaintiff

- which the judge who was challenged with the letter, "deemed" a motion, ordered to be fully briefed, and denied.

Imagine what he will do next to the Plaintiff in this litigation.

With amazing frankness, the legal blog Above the Law states:

A translation for non-lawyers:  "do not criticize a judge, he will retaliate".

Imagine that you are given the power over the critics of your own potential bias or misconduct.  Will you be just exercising such a power?  Do you think it is appropriate to even give such power to you over your own critics?  Or, maybe, somebody else should handle such motions to recuse?  Because, remember, at the age of 94, the judge is a DGAF judge,



and, if he DGAF, he may also DGAF whether he is biased or not.

But, as to the claim that "few things antagonize judges more than an unjustified motion to recuse", isn't retaliation by a judge, or the fact that judges are even antagonized by "unjustified" motions to recuse them actually point at the fact that the motion to recuse WAS justified, that the judge DID have bias, and that the judge MUST recuse, as not being impartial?

Let's see what this Sweet - pun intended - judge will do to the Plaintiff later in litigation, as a consequence of the Plaintiff's "unjustified" motion to recuse.

And it is especially interesting that the lawsuit was by a whistleblower (critic) for firing her after she blew that whistle (criticized).

To have a 94-year-old, possibly demented, "sweet" judge presiding who himself views retaliation by a person in power against a person with less power as "humor" is, in my view, a denial of judicial review altogether.

Of course, we will never know whether the judge was "snarky" because he was demented until he either starts leaving home and wandering around on the highway in a daze, like federal judge Edwin Kosik did, or become delirious like federal judge in Louisiana Patricia Minaldi did, to such a degree that another judge of her court sued her claiming Judge Minaldi cannot even "safely" take care of her own affairs - much less of the court affairs in front of her.

Let's remember that these "humorous", "snarky", nearly-centennial, wet-brained and demented judges may potentially preside (or are actually presiding) over death penalty cases.

Maybe, it's enough?

Let's introduce terms for federal judges.  Short terms, too.  Not more than 2 years.  With a strict age cut-off of 70.  Not enough to "build a business" out of their appointment.  And, not enough to develop a dementia.

And, by the way, after judge Sweet refused to recuse - he was taken off the case anyway.

The docket report features another judge as assigned to the case now:

Such reassignment, and especially after denying of a motion to recuse, does not usually happen unless something is wrong with the previous judge.

The docket also shows that Judge Sweet's refusal to recuse, Dkt. 228 of April 14, 2017, was followed by a motion to reconsider that decision on April 18, 2017, a "sealed document placed into vault" on April 19, 2017, and a "Notice of reassignment" of Judge Cote on April 20, 2017.

So, we have another undisclosed demented judge now?

And, the judicial administration is hiding traces of that dementia?

I will not be surprised if Judge Sweet will be finally forced into retirement after his DGAF behavior and comments - but, unfortunately, the court will seek to do that secretly, without admitting any problem in his mental state or ability to perform, and without vacating any of his decisions, instead, keeping them as precedents and law of the case.

We cannot expect honorable behavior from judges, right? 

Because, with a lifetime tenure of federal judges, they all DGAF.

Win a criminal case that was lost in the court of public opinion - face attorney discipline?

In a bizarre turn of events, the criminal defense attorney who obtained an acquittal of Casey Anthony in her murder trial, is now facing disciplinary complaints.

The press coverage of the complaints is quite frank - that the complaints are seeking to take away from Mr. Jose Baez the gains for his reputation as an attorney that he earned by winning a murder trial for his client.

At least one complaint was in the form of an online petition endorsed by 584 people and signed

Apparently, the biggest reason for the complaint was that the criminal defense attorney vigorously did his job for his client, and that the client was acquitted - by a jury of her peers, after a long trial.

Had Casey Anthony been convicted, there would have been no complaints.

The Florida Bar that, I am sure, tosses such complaints against powerful and connected attorneys left and right, took this complaint for investigation.

Because "a nobody" took a case nobody else wanted, won it and became famous.

Politically connected attorneys in the Florida Bar could not have that.

I wonder if Florida Bar actually inspired, instigated or encouraged these complaints to be filed against attorney Baez.

It all boils down to one big question - why do we have attorney discipline?

To provide the public with competent counsel, including criminal defense counsel - or to destroy such competent counsel because he did his job too well and now more clients want his services?

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.