Indiana rocks: when a judge commits a VIOLENT felony, only a reprimand is due

I regularly write on this blog how practically in all jurisdictions across the country judges committing crimes, including violent crimes, are given extreme leniency.

For example, in New York, when an administrative law judge (and an attorney) committed an assault upon a lawyer, knocked him to the ground in a drunken rage under the security cameras, causing him grievous injuries, and left him for dead - he was only charged with a misdemeanor and not put in jail, because charging him with a felony would require automatic disbarment on conviction, and we cannot have that with a judge.  There are no reports as to what happened to Administrative Law Judge and attorney Robert Beltrani's case, and no indication attorney Beltrani was disciplined in any way from his attorney registration information.  In fact, his attorney registration information lists, as of today, "no record of public discipline".

More than likely, Beltrani will be (if he was not yet) plead down to some kind of a "violation, not a crime", or given probation.  Coincidentally, he is an Administrative Law Judge presiding over parole violations, and there is no indication he was yanked from his job.

Yet, what Beltrani did, undoubtedly qualified as a violent felony.

Judge who are not attorneys, and where there is no need to spare a judge's law license from automatic disbarment, can be charged with felonies, apparently - as it was done in Indiana with Judge Tom Phillips who punched his own nephew (a police officer) at an official town meeting.

Judge Phillips was charged and convicted of a felony battery, and was sentenced to 1 year in jail, all commuted to probation and 100 hours of community service.

And you know what kind of discipline judge Phillips was meted out?

A public reprimand.

He resigned, thankfully, but the message that the Judicial Qualifications Commission in Indiana is sending to the public is that a judge who is a CONVICTED VIOLENT FELON could have continued on the bench but for his voluntary resignation.

Great job, Indiana.

And, when we talk about the rule of law and equal protection of laws in this country, as the first step, we need to look how laws are applied to those who apply them - judges.  If judges give themselves more breaks than to everybody else

(and they do, by giving themselves absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts, issuing lenient judicial ethics opinion allowing practically bribes in many formats to themselves - as exclusively judge-populated New York Commission of Judicial Ethics, and rules of federal judiciary regularly do, allowing judges to accept wining-and-dining and free trips from attorneys)

then there is no rule of law and no equal protection of law.

Americans from across the country are ordered by a fundraising-for-Obama federal judge to pay for illegal aliens - Part II. You ain't need to follow any pleading rules - for the right cause.

I started writing some time ago about the order of a federal judge in San-Francisco (who reportedly fund-raised $200,000 for Obama) who ordered a nationwide stay of President Trump's Executive Order ordering the Justice Department and the Attorney General to put in measures to cut off, in compliance with all federal laws, federal funding to "sanctuary cities".

At that time, I promised to go through the mountain of pleadings and to publish my analysis of it on this blog.

I am starting to do it.

This blog is just the analysis of 3 pleadings:

(1) the complaint of the City of San Francisco and Santa Clara County;
(2) S-F's motion for a preliminary injunction against the Executive order; and
(3) President Trump's opposition to that motion.

We already know that the S-F motion for a preliminary injunction was granted by Judge William Orrick III.

There were a lot of celebratory comments about that decision.

Yet, reading the pleadings of the City of San-Francisco - just the pleadings, without the opposition or Judge Orrick's order on that motion - even a 2nd year law student (that's when Evidence is usually taught in law schools) must inevitable come to a conclusion that the injunction could not possibly be granted, because the pleadings were not only woefully legally insufficient, but give an impression of amateurish drafting, and drafting pitched at emotions, feelings and political affiliations and leanings of the judge, and not at any kind of legal standards.

First of all, the lawsuit by San-Francisco is a so-called "pre-enforcement" lawsuit - no monies were yet yanked from San-Francisco because it is a self-proclaimed sanctuary city, and has been so since 1987, according to its own pleadings.

Pre-enforcement actions are usually dismissed left and right because of a failure to establish the "plausible risk" of constitutional violation in the future.

Here, the Executive Order of the President has a 1-year horizon during which the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney General must first promulgate some regulations and then undertake some steps based on those regulations before any threat to S-F's budget will even surface.

So, it is obvious that S-F was safe as to this year's budget, and the only reason for the lawsuit was to "challenge Trump at every opportunity" - lawful or unlawful, meritorious or baseless.

Since S-F was safe as to this year's budget, there was no basis for a pre-enforcement action, and it should have been dismissed, with sanctions and attorney fees against S-F, paid out of the pockets of its taxpayers.

Since a motion for a preliminary injunction turned on the "likelihood to prevail on the merits", and the lawsuit is frivolous from the pre-enforcement point of view alone, no preliminary injunction could be granted either.

But, there is more.

S-F claimed as its only "constitutional injury" a threat of economic harm, specifically, the alleged risk of yanking of the federal funds - 1.2 BILLION dollars annually we all are paying out of the federal budget to S-F for supporting the illegal alien population.

According to established precedents - that was pointed out in President Trump's opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction - a threat of only economic harm is not enough to establish a constitutional violation.

Moreover, all precedents cited by the City of S-F in its favor on the issue of constitutional injury, were cited incorrectly (and, obviously, knowingly incorrectly, since the City of S-F is represented by professional attorneys who should know what they are doing), because those precedents were asserting harm to individuals of personal nature (excessive force etc.), not harm to cities of financial nature.

Additionally, any 2nd year law student knows that pleadings of a lawyer have no evidentiary value, only the testimony, or written sworn affidavits of witnesses do.

Not only that, but supporting affidavits of witnesses must answer to a certain standard, too.

There is what is called "the best evidence rule", applied in both state and federal courts equally.  The "best evidence rule" dictates that whenever a witness is talking about a document, the witness's statements about the document are inadmissible without, first, admitting an original or certified copy of the document the witness is testifying about.

Even though the federal "best evidence rule", FRCP 1002, is restricted by FRCP 703 (expert evidence), where the basis of expert testimony do not have to be excluded, and even though all declarants who filed sworn declarations in support of S-F motion for injunctive relief would qualify as experts by their training and experience, there was one major disqualification that made FRCP 703 inapplicable - lack of expert neutrality.  All declarants were part of the Plaintiff, on salary from the Plaintiff, dependent for their continued employment with the Plaintiff, and had a stake in the outcome of proceedings, as the city of S-F was claiming that salaries of its personnel were to be cut if the President's EO was not to be stopped.

Moreover, to skip the best evidence rule requirement of FRCP 1002, expert statement must satisfy not only FRCP 703 and the due process requirement of expert neutrality, but also should satisfy FRCP 702:

S-F in its motion did not even care to establish that it satisfied FRCP 1002, 703 or 702, it just added declarations from interested witnesses (salaried City employees and officers) who pointed out at contents of documents without providing A SINGLE DOCUMENT that they were referring to.

Judge Orrick, in finding that the Plaintiffs (City of S-F and Santa Clara County), satisfied their "burden" of demonstrating, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (that's the standard for preliminary injunction) that the stay - nationwide stay - should be imposed, apparently threw away the Rule book of Federal Procedure, because there was not only no "clear and convincing" evidence presented by Plaintiffs in support of their motion, but no ADMISSIBLE evidence whatsoever.

Instead, Judge Orrick accepted as "clear and convincing evidence" the "slightly hysterical" (not my characterization, but one by another legal commentator of those same pleadings) lamentations of the City employees that had nothing to do with satisfying the elementary pleadings standards and rules of federal civil procedure.

Since Judge Orrick did not follow the elementary rules of Federal Procedure and disregarded pre-enforcement standing requiring ripeness (which was not there, there was no threat of imminent denial of funds for this year's budget) and an imminent threat of constitutional injury (and purely economic harm could not constitute that injury), and accepted as "clear and convincing evidence" lamentations of interested witnesses of the City of San Francisco that were not even admissible evidence under the federal best evidence rule FRCP 1002, and failed to qualify under expert evidence rules, FRCP 702 and 703 - Judge Orrick obviously had reasons other than furthering his oath of office when he, nevertheless, not only granted a preliminary injunction to S-F, but made it nationwide.

As a result, all of us, American taxpayers, are made hostages of the extremely rich - and spoiled - public officials of the City of SF, a city where the cost of living is exorbitant, to pay for that cost of living of illegal aliens, because all of American taxpayers have to contribute, as captives, to federal coffers under the threat of criminal FELONY prosecution.

So, we have to pay in, otherwise we will be charged with a federal felony.

Yet, those who harbor illegal aliens (a federal felony) and knowingly not report such harboring (another federal felony, 18 USC 4) - get to receive the funds forcibly extracted out of all of us in order to fund their illegal activities.

And, a federal judge, supposedly furthering his oath to support and faithfully apply federal laws, blocks enforcement of federal laws, and blocks discretionary disbursement of funds by the federal government - on 10th Amendment grounds no less.

You know what the 10th Amendment is about?

The State's right to take care of safety and health of their citizens without interference from the federal government.

But, the City of S-F and the County of Santa Clara, and those cities and counties that supplied the amicus briefs in support of the injunction against the President, do not claim that they are blocked from discharging their duties.

They are claiming that somehow the federal government owe them a duty to FINANCE the states' "independent" 10th Amendment duties.

Well, that is simply not so. 

If states have independent 10th Amendment right and duty to protect safety and health of their citizens, the states have to be able to provide their own financing of those duties, independently of any outside source.

And, since the imposed injunction is nationwide, one more glaring question also comes to mind - how did a nationwide injunction happen in an action which is not a class action? 

Judge Orrick claimed that a nationwide injunction is appropriate when a law is facially unconstitutional.

Yet, facial constitutionality is extremely difficult, nearly impossible to establish, and requires to establish that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES the challenged law and statute can be lawful.

S-F claimed in its own pleadings that it is not clear for them, which funds are going to be targeted for prohibition, and the Executive Order itself directs federal agencies to promulgate additional rules that will further state which funds are going to be prohibited to sanctuary cities, if at all.  Moreover, the Executive Order clearly states that the funds will be withheld "in accordance with federal law".

Under such wording, the Executive Order is not "facially" unconstitutional, and the nationwide injunction is, thus not appropriate and not legal.

As to a class action, S-F did not designate the lawsuit as a class action in the caption and did not apply for class certification.  Throwing a heap of amicus briefs from other jurisdiction at the court does not substitute for lack of designation as a class action.

So, is it a political action by Judge Orrick under the guise of a court order?

There is no doubt about it.

Will Judge Orrick be impeached for that?

We'll see, but he should be.

How Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York Lawrence Mark single-handedly deregulated the legal profession and abolished the criminal statute on unauthorized practice of law

In the previous blog, I discussed a "Law Day 2017" article of a New York appellate judge about efforts of the court system to reinforce public FAITH in the rule of law.

That judge is actually the chief disciplinary judge for lawyers in 1/4 of New York State, and it is through her efforts that the attorney monopoly for court representation is maintained and reinforced, blocking indigent people's access to justice and making sure that the regulation "serves" only the rich who can afford a lawyer without any regulation and do not need protection against their own lawyers because they have enough money to obtain that protection through malpractice lawsuits and political pressure.

In the same "Law Day" splurge of articles by judges, yet another remarkable article appeared, authored by Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York Lawrence Marks, with this intriguing headline:

In that article, Chief Administrative Judge Marks

stated this (among other things, of course):

But, that was a predictable - and desirable for lawyers - result of attorney monopoly.  Any economist worth his salt will tell you that a monopoly creates:

• a shortage of providers of goods and services;
• an increase in prices; and

ultimately hurts the consumer.

That's why we have anti-monopoly laws, right?

And, no matter how anybody is going to be persuading us that THIS is GOOD monopoly, for our benefit, unless we took part in establishing that monopoly

(and we didn't, lawyer bureaucracy decided it without us, and still do not allow "lay" people to make any meaningful decisions in attorney discipline, where lawyers appointing lawyers and making rules for lawyers constitute a "supermajority" of the disciplinary boards, so that a "lay" member of the public has no chance of having his voice and opinion prevail, if it differs from the opinion of an attorney, competitor of the attorney he is "regulating") -

that monopoly is not good for us.

And, that is especially so that attorney regulation, and any other occupational regulation, is offered as government help in checking FOR US, the background, competence, honesty and "fitness" of professionals, so that we could safely choose out of those government-vetted individuals.

Yet, if you simply say, as any competent adult can when offered help - no, thank you, I want to choose on my own, from a larger pool of people who were not pre-vetted by the government (and that is especially important when that individual simply does not want to trust government vetting when he either sues the government, or the government pursues him in a civil or criminal proceeding) - then, that individual will be told by the government - oh, no, this help of ours is MANDATORY, you cannot choose an unlicensed individual, that will be, for you, aiding and abetting unauthorized practice of law, and for your chosen court representative - unauthorized practice of law, a crime, and he/she will go to jail for that and have a criminal record.

The situation gets even more murky - and especially so in view of Judge Peters' claims of "reinforcing public faith in the rule of law"  that what constitutes that "law" in the area of "practice of law" is not clear - because what constitutes the practice of law is not defined by statute.

That means that no notice is given to the public as to what exactly is being regulated as "the practice of law", and that means that under such circumstances the government has no authority to regulate the legal profession. 

When that happens, the regulation must STOP to allow the legislature to figure out what the heck the government is actually regulating and give it a strict definition, to give the public the due process notice under the 14th Amendment that Judge Peters and other judges who published Law Day articles profess they love so much.

Not so.

They just go ahead and make rules as they go, in arrears.

And, for that reason, and because they want to gear those rules to the particular situations, to keep the gates closed to those who courts and the legal elite does not want competing with them, the "regulating courts" who are in the pocket of that legal elite, are all over the place defining what the practice of law is, and they define it as something entirely different if you are:

1. a never licensed paralegal;
2. a licensed attorney;
3. a consumer of legal services;
4. a suspended or disbarred attorney; or
5. a nonlawyer "helper", like Judge Marks is describing in his article.

While practicing law without a law license is a crime in New York, and while the 3rd Department included into the practice of law the following activities listed in Gaspar Castillo's motion decided this past January,

judge Marks has the following opinion as to how to close the "justice gap".

So, what would be the "creative solution" in Chief Administrative Judge Marks' opinion?

But, wait a minute - isn't such an "aid of a trained non-lawyer" a crime of unauthorized practice of law?

It is, according to Matter of Castillo, and Matter of Brandes, and the latter was affirmed by New York State's top court.

Yet, Judge Marks marches right on:

So, Judge Marks tells you that appearing in court with an unlicensed individual, a "non-lawyer", "can greatly improve a litigant's court experience and also affects outcomes".

Come again?

Committing a crime on both sides (litigant and non-lawyer) of unauthorized practice of law or aiding and abetting UPL greatly improves outcomes of a court case - that's what the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York advises litigants on Law Day?

Judge Marks plunges right through, admitting now that courts, the very same branch that regulates the undefined "practice of law" and enforces criminal laws against unauthorized practice of law, actually break that same law themselves by doing this - courts are "harnessing" (whatever that cute word means) "the skills of non-lawyer volunteers to assist people in need".  In other words, courts that are supposed to enforce the law, are aiding and abetting unauthorized practice of law, in order to help the public overcome the justice gap created by regulation of the undefined "practice of law".

If ANY of these "services" would be provided by me, my husband, or any other suspended attorney, we would be immediately dragged out of court in handcuffs, for unauthorized practice of law.  So, why the "navigators", whose educational level is not known, who may not have even a high school diploma, allowed to work as substitute lawyers, and practice law without any license?

Why do we need regulation of the "practice of law" at all, if it causes the "justice gap", and if courts themselves disregard it by allowing this "bypass solution" of unlicensed "law navigators" practicing law in violation of New York Criminal Code?

Because regulation is for the rich?

Because representation by "navigators" are for the so-called "needy" people?

Then, what prevents the State of New York to just cancel regulation of the practice of law, so that the "needy people" can simply choose whoever they want to represent them in court?

Why control people's private choice of their own providers?

Chief Administrative Judge Marks writes:

Helping litigants file answers in Housing Court may be the practice of law in New York.  At least, it will be if I (a suspended attorney) try to do that.

Since there is no "navigator" exclusion in the UPL criminal statute in New York, Judge Marks is praising people committing the crime of UPL.

Moreover, Judge Marks points out that advice from nonlawyers may "improve outcomes" for litigants in court.

Of course, there are questions to such a hilarious approach to court representation.

• Why did it suddenly stop being a crime of UPL for "navigators", "Legal Hand" and such like "helpers"?
• Who amended the UPL statute so that it is no longer a crime - Judge Marks?  He has no authority to do that;
• Why it is OK, under the current scheme of attorney regulation that established attorney monopoly specifically to protect consumers from incompetent service providers that in "consumer court" especially, people will be represented by non-attorneys, "consumer advocates", while opposed by licensed attorneys represented banks?  So, Judge Marks finally recognized that representation by a licensed attorney is the privilege of the rich?  If that is so, who does attorney regulation protect?  Those rich people who can afford to protect themselves?

And, last but not least:

• did law school education, bar exam, fitness committee and law license become obsolete because, as Judge Marks confirmed, as "research shows", representation by non-attorneys is just as good and improves outcomes of otherwise unrepresented parties?

Of course, Judge Marks finishes with lip service to the UPL statute and is saying that he is not promoting or condoning unauthorized practice of law.

Yet, by his article, that is exactly what he is doing.

As well as making the death toll of attorney regulation sound louder.

Happy Walpurgis - oops - Law Day! Witch - oops - Judge Peters has something to say to you...

Yesterday was Walpurgis night, the night when witches meet.

Today, witches came out into the open and promised to protect your rights.  

For example, Karen Peters, the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division 3rd Department, sued multiple times for civil rights violations - and always claiming her "absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts" against any liability, Karen Peters who sat forever on the State Commission for Judicial Conduct protecting judges from discipline, and at the same time on the disciplinary court taking away attorney's licenses for criticism of such judges, claimed support of the 14th Amendment and especially its due process clause.

I will re-post her article in larger font, piece by piece, so that those who sued Peters for misconduct would see the witch's lies pouring, like frogs, out of her mouth.

Who can celebrate what does not exist?

Only witches like Peters do, because that's her job to make sure that the rule of law is substituted by the rule of whim of Peters and her politically connected friends.  By the way - Peters will soon turn, if she did not turn yet, 70, let's see which law firm takes her under their wing, to grease the "wheels of justice" and the "rule of law".

Here is another frog from Peter's mouth:

That's a big ugly, bold, green frog.  Because, first, how can one, with clear conscience, reinforce "public faith" in what does not exist?

On the other hand, Peters is right - only public FAITH, like in "blind faith", like in "religious faith" can be maintained in the "rule of law" (and reinforced, I guess - which is what Peters is doing by taking law licenses of critics of judicial misconduct) in the absence that rule of law.

After all, Peters is not just a witch, she is an educated witch, and she knows what fideism means - only faith is independent of reason, you believe something because it cannot be proven right or wrong, but because your "leaders" (parents, community 'leaders', church leaders) tell you that this is what you absolutely MUST believe - and, importantly, never question.

So, witch Peters confirmed that, by heading the court that disciplines lawyers for criticism of judicial misconduct, and by denial of reinstatement motions no matter how the law changes after the initial discipline, she is doing "her part to reinforce public FAITH in the rule of law".

So, faith it is.  Like immaculate conception.  You will not come to a court of law claiming that a child was born through an immaculate conception, will you?  Similarly, when a judge who is regularly sued for civil rights violations, including MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts in office, suddenly claims that she embraces and toils to "reinforce public faith in the rule of law", that's a large big frog jumping out of that judge's mouth - and it is not a stand-up comedy act, because this judge is hurting real people with her actions.

Here is the list of lawsuits against Karen Peters in federal courts:

Peters even has a civil rights cases where she sues - me - as a plaintiff.  Of course, that IS a stand-up comedy act, because it was my civil rights lawsuit against Peters that the incompetent NDNY staff reversed so that Peters would sound as a plaintiff, and I - as a defendant - see Case No. 3:2013-cv-00180 highlighted in the list above.  Of course, I am not a "state actor" (Peters is), so Peters could not possibly have sued me in a civil rights action (code 440 next to the Case No. is a civil rights case) - but who cares for the "rule of law".

Peters also let out of her witch's mouth yet another frog:

Who serves whom is a big question.

For example, Karen Peters did not include into her frog-dropping article, among descriptions of how she honors, cherishes and reinforces "the rule of law", that, while she was sued in federal court since 2004, a judge of her court (Thomas Mercure), who is an all-around expert in judicial ethics, was part of the so-called "State-Federal Judicial Council" "as one of five state judges meeting regularly with five federal judges to facilitate the disposition of cases in both court systems".

So, while she was sued in a federal court, her colleague was having backroom meeting with judges of the same court to fix cases where she appeared as a defendant. 

Nor did Peters disclose that her colleague on that "Council" was "advised" by a law partner of a member of attorney disciplinary committee that Peters appointed - of John R. Casey - and that that firm also had in their pocket, and was wining and dining Judge Lawrence Kahn, and magistrate David Peebles, through yet another secret membership organization, the American Inns of Court.

So, let me count:

1. Judge Peters' colleague Thomas Mercure was fixing federal lawsuits against her through a secret Council, composition of which I will have to sue both court system to disclose - they both are stalling my Freedom of Information requests;
2. Thomas Mercure was "advised" in that Council by Hiscock & Barclays partner, an attorney who was appearing before both courts she was "advising";
3. Judge Peters appointed another partner from  Hiscock & Barlays, John R. Casey, to the attorney disciplinary committee, so that he would eliminate critics of the judiciary - and he did, he started disciplinary proceedings against both my husband and myself (by the way, we both ran a free legal clinic in an under-served rural area of upstate New York, without any fanfare on Law Day, like other local lawyers did - advertising that they will provide a whole of 15 minutes of free consultations on that Law Day as a "service to the public".  We, and that especially refers to my husband, were on-call with free consultations around the clock for many years, my husband gave consultations for free for 37 years of his legal career);
4.  Hiscock & Barclay partners were also appointed to the disciplinary committee of the court where they advised (through State-Federal Judicial Council) and wined and dined (through American Inns of Court) U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn and U.S. Magistrate David Peebles  -

all the while advertising their connections with judges and all the while appearing in their courts nevertheless, despite glaring conflicts of interest.

Judge Peters allowed her colleague on the Commission for Judicial Misconduct to appear in front of her court, and ruled in his favor at all times - see how her court dismissed a prima facie tort case against her colleague on the Commission Stephen Coffey.

It was then Judge Peters' appointee to the disciplinary committee John R. Casey out of Hiscock & Barclay (look up all other connections of Hiscock & Barclay to judge Peters court and to the federal court where Judge Mercure was fixing court cases for Judge Peters and their court above, and in this blog, and in this one).

So, Peters had connections everywhere that counted:

• her own law license was protected because she appointed to attorney disciplinary committee regulating her own law license a law firm that appeared in front of her and "advised" her court how to fix lawsuits against it through the State-Federal Judicial Council, as well as wined-and-dined federal judges;
• she was protected from any liability, because, again, federal judges, well wined and dined by her "advisors", would not have let her down;
• she was on the Commission for Judicial Conduct;
• one of the judges of her court fed that Commission with "judicial ethics" opinions, as an expert - without disclosing that he is also an "expert" in case-fixing, that he confessed to only when he got off the bench, as part of his attorney advertising; and
• her court allowed to appear that colleague from the Commission in front of the court, ruled in favor of that colleague and eliminated attorneys who dared to sue him.

Judge Peters is right - only blind FAITH would require to believe in the rule of law under such circumstances.

And here Witch (oops, Judge) Peters drops the last, the slimiest, the plumpest and sleaziest frog, confessing her satisfaction about the "concerted actions" of those with whom she concerts to maintain public FAITH in what does not exist, thanks to the efforts of #WitchJudgePeters and her companions:

I don't know how Peters can promote what she is doing "across our nation", she is not in the U.S. Supreme Court yet, but she sure did built a nice little stable in "her courts", there is no doubt about that.

So - happy Law Day, folks.

When will Louisiana prosecutor Leon Cannizzaro be prosecuted, criminally and as an attorney disciplinary matter, for issuing fake subpoenas?

When a prosecutor conducts a criminal investigation, a prosecutor is not covered by absolute prosecutorial immunity (that invention of courts to absolve 2 out of 3 lawyers participating in the criminal process, from liability - the judge and the prosecutor, but not the defense attorney).

But, apparently, prosecutors forget that.

For example, a Louisiana prosecutor, Leon Cannizarro, this nice, smiling and handsome young man,

wanted some information from certain alleged witnesses so much that he has sent them fake "subpoenas", compelling them to come and talk to the prosecutor.

Of course, there is no such thing as a "prosecutor's subpoena", a subpoena can only be issued by the grand jury, or later, after the indictment, by the prosecutor, so that the witness would testify in court, but not to give information to the prosecutor BEFORE the grand jury and BEFORE that trial.

And, of course, if a witness refuses to testify and invokes his or her right against self-incrimination, he must be given immunity if he is compelled to testify.

And the prosecutor, of course, did not want to give any immunity.  Only to pretend that he may give such immunity while knowing that when a person just comes to talk to investigators, not in front of a grand jury or a court in a criminal trial, such immunity is unavailable.

But, prosecutors can lie, can't they?

Police investigators are allowed to lie by courts.

Apparently, prosecutors acting in investigating capacity believed they can do that, too.

But, the lying gets a little bit too far when fake court documents are used to get people to talk.

What I am wondering about though is - where is the Lousiana Supreme Court and its attorney disciplinary committee in all of this?

Why aren't they prosecuting DA Leon Cannizzaro for fraud upon the court since he already admitted that his office had such a "practice", obviously, sending not just one fake subpoena, but many?

That's not enough for discipline?

Louisiana only has resources and motivation to prosecute attorneys who criticize judges for confirmed misconduct?

And, why isn't DA Cannizzaro prosecuted criminally for issuing fake court documents that he had no authority to issue?

Law professors shy away from getting serious about academic value of their own work. It will cost too much for them to be honest.

I wrote on this blog recently about how law professors turned submission process of law reviews as a race to the top in search of a better employment, at the expense of law students, and how law reviews have no academic value because they are reviewed and accepted for publications not by "peers" of professors, but by law students who do not even have a completed law degree.

Law professors continued discussion of that sticky subject on their own blog.  It is interesting that the most critical comments came from anonymous participants, and that law professors branded those valid comments as "snarky".

Yet, the commentator under the picturesque nick "YesterdayIKilledAMammoth" only said this:

"Anything short of peer-review will not make law reviews more legitimate to outside disciplines."

Which was absolutely true.  Who cares about the value of law reviews if they are sorted out and accepted by students, often from their own law professors or their friends, in exchange for grades and careers?

And, the "Mammoth" also said this:

"While, I applaud at least one proposal to get us going, the proposal begins with funding and participation problems--which are death knells for any meaningful reform.

Law professors need to decide two questions. First, do they want to be part of the larger academic world? And second, do they want to influence the practical world? If the answer to either of these is 'yes', then systemic change is needed.

If the answer is no, then we'll continue to watch the growing obsolescence of legal research."

Legal research is not get "obsolete", it gets computerized, so the law professor may soon go the way of the mammoth - possibly, that's why they don't want to change anything about how they operate, no matter how wrong.

Trying to get the piece of the pie before it disappeared...

Are grand juries indepedent or are they subordinate to courts? A case in Alabama

Supposedly, grand juries are independent bodies of the government, the so-called "fourth power" that operate independently from courts.

Of course, that is not exactly true.

The legal advisor of the grand jury always is the prosecutor, who represents a party in litigation and is interested in the result of the grand jury proceeding - which is a legal nonsense.

And, the grand jury cannot convene on a complaint from a citizen, only on a presentation of a prosecutor - that same "advisor" of the grand jury.

But, in Alabama the push against independence of this "fourth power" was made even further.

A judge of an Alabama Court has threatened to stop the grand jury investigation - into corruption of the government, of course.

So, apparently, the grand jury is reduced to a tail of the government that is being wagged the way the government wants - by prosecutors, and by judges.

Until independence of grand juries is restored, we cannot expect much justice or much cleanup of government corruption.