Some history of corruption, retaliation and cover up of New York Chief Judge DiFiore and her predecessors and the trail of bodies of African Americans following DiFiore in her offices

As I have disclosed many times on this blog, my law license has been suspended without a hearing in November of 2015 by the State of New York based on sanctions imposed by a corrupt judge, Carl F. Becker, who has run from the bench 3 months before my suspension when first the New York State Comptroller and then the FBI started to investigate financial shenanigans in the County that Becker was part and parcel for 30 years. 

Becker sanctioned me for "harassing him" personally with motions to recuse, commenced, prosecuted, provided unsworn testimony in and adjudicated disciplinary proceedings against me.

I am not alone in how I was sanctioned.

All across the country attorneys are subjected to judicial retaliation for criticism of judges.

Just how thin a skin to criticism top judges have, was demonstrated in two mutually quoting "law review articles" (which had nothing with the law, but everything with lamentations about criticism and not-so-thinly veiled threats against critics) - by the then-Chief Judge of New York Court of Appeals Judith Kaye and by the Court of Appeals judge and friend of prior Chief Judge Sol Wachtler (who was convicted of a federal felony just 3 years prior to the time of the law reviews) Joe Bellacosa.

I wrote about Bellacosa's "law review article" here. 

By the way, Bellacosa was an invited guest at the swearing-in ceremony of the present Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals Janet DiFiore that looked like a fraternity gathering. 

Chief Judge DiFIore, of course, started out by, saying all the correct words and doing all the corrupt deeds - like her predecessors.

On the one hand, she has started an "Excellence Initiative"

where DiFiore, a former career prosecutor, asks you to submit "anonymously" your "thoughts and comments" about how the New York court system works.

Of course, when considering that, you need to know that those who submit such "thoughts and comments" not anonymously, like I did against DiFiore to the New York State Senate

• asking to impeach her as the Westchester County DA and investigate her for commission of multiple crimes, including public corruption when she was Chairperson of the Commission for Public Ethics and rescued Governor Cuomo and his powerful donors (who nominated her to her current position, and appointed her husband Dennis Glazer to another high-standing and lucrative position, to the Commission of Betting games after that) from an investigation for public corruption

become the target of DiFiore's rage - DiFiore did not recuse, presided over my constitutional appeal from the disciplinary suspension, deeming it discretionary instead of mandatory, as it was by law, and refusing to review it on the merits, as, in her obviously unbiased view, not establishing a "substantial" constitutional violation. 

By the way, I was denied a right to appear at DiFiore's Senate Confirmation hearing and testify in person, the Senate accepted my written testimony, but failed to conduct a criminal investigation of DiFiore before confirming her as the state's Chief Judge, and failed to ask DiFiore questions I asked the Senate to ask at her confirmation hearing.

And, confirmation of DiFiore was a bit stalled, but not for any kind of vetting her background - just until Andrew Cuomo threw the N.Y. Senate a bone by nominating the Senate's own attorney, Michael Garcia (another friend of felon Sol Wachtler), to the same court.

After DiFiore, after having taken an oath of office to uphold and enforce the ENTIRE U.S. Constitution, then engaged in "picking her cases", as the then-Judge Pigott of the same court said the New York Court of Appeals doing, and, according to a 2010 rare dissenting opinion in that court, was doing for a while, in violation of the State Constitution and state statute.

DiFiore now gets to - unlawfully - choose, as she did in my case, as she would do in your case, if you report corruption to her "Excellence Initiative" and you are retaliated against, which of that U.S. Constitution is "substantial" or "insubstantial" for her to violate.

Well, she did that during her entire tenure as a DA, why should she stop now?

So, after she did away with the law license of her public critic in the Senate confirmation hearing, DiFiore continued with her corrupt ways, took for review and granted a case for her husband's agency, and appointed her husband, as a 35-year marriage anniversary, to the Constitutional Convention Commission.

It is very obvious that you cannot make a good product (be it a pie or a judge) from rotten initial materials.

Russians have a more explicit saying - you can make a candy out of shit, but it will not taste like candy.

You can nominate a corrupt person to a judicial position and call her "Honorable", but that word will be only a job description.

New York so far tries hard to mass-produce candy out of shit, with DiFiore and other top-ranking public officials appointed through corrupt cross-endorsement and nomination process where the public is not allowed any real opportunity to speak, and when critics of such process are viciously persecuted.

So far, I see that two attorneys in New York criticizing judges in motions to recuse are suspended (John Aretakis in 2008 and myself in 2015), an attorney who opposed cross-endorsement in elections of judges has been indefinitely suspended in 1992 (Doris Sassower), and the attorney who exposed the mechanism of cross-endorsements in judicial elections in New York in a book, is apparently forced to stop practicing (Susan Settenbrino, see her registration information not featuring her contact address). 

Note that the victims of judicial retaliation in New York are mostly women (3 out of 4).

By the way, let's always remember why New Yorkers even stopped electing their top court judges - because the now-felon then-Chief Judge Sol Wachtler was pissed that a "nobody" without his level of political connections, Judge Jacob Fuchsberg, was elected to the New York Court of Appeals (described here).

Wachtler

• squeezed Fuchsberg out of that court into an early retirement by nasty pranks:
• having court personnel put melting ice-cream into his file cabinets, 
• exiting an elevator where Judge Fuchsberg remained and sending it into the basement, 
• making impersonations at an all-men club that Fuchsberg was there when he wasn't and had a stance against other judges patronizing that establishment - all of that was described in the book about Wachtler that Wachtler acknowledged reading, acknowledged talking to the author and did not oppose any statements in the book as untruthful) and
• disciplinary proceedings, and
• lobbied his friends in the Senate and his friend the Governor Mario Cuomo (father of the present Governor Andrew Cuomo) to abolish elections into "his" court and replace them with nominations by his friend the Governor.  That is how Wachtler got his friend Bellacosa appointed to the court without any judicial experience - for which Bellacosa was criticized by legal scholars, which criticism of legal scholars Bellacosa (friend of DiFiore) bitterly attacked in a "law review article".

Of course, karma had it that, after Wachtler was released from federal prison, and even after his law license was inexplicably restored, only the Judge Jacob Fuchsberg Touro Law Center was unscrupulous enough to hire Wachtler as a law professor - so Wachtler now has to see his enemy honored much more than he will ever be, and has to see his name every day he goes to work, on his employer's building and paychecks.

And, let's also consider the response of DiFiore's court to the death of their own colleague, African-American and Muslim female Judge Sheila Abdas-Salaam.

Her family rejects any possibility that Judge Abdas-Salaam could commit a suicide, there is no reported cause of death, so the other alternative is homicide.

Yet, the police investigation into the death is reportedly closed.

My question is - with the corrupt public official at the helm of the court, was Judge Abdas-Salaam murdered, and is her murder being covered up with the help of DiFiore?

After all, DiFiore was already reported for covering up a murder of another African American public official - police officer Christopher Ridley - and got away with it, I will publish materials from that lawsuit, with my comments, in one of my next blogs, but I already have those materials on file.

Moreover, when DiFiore and her husband attorney Dennis Glazer was criticized in the local press of Westchester County about the allegations of a bribe her attorney husband Dennis Glazer allegedly offered for her election, but refused to pay after her election as the DA, she allowed herself to call the owner of the paper, use four-letter language at him, intimidate him and claim that her husband is on first-name basis with all U.S. Supreme Court Justices and have their direct phone lines - while appearing in front of them.


And, DiFiore's DA's office was involved in racial profiling in drug stops on Route 17, which was both common knowledge in the legal community, and was reported to me by my own clients stopped on Route 17 as to the circumstances of the stops.

And, DiFiore personally was accused of dragging her feet with the grand jury investigation in a police slaying of an African-American 69-year old former Marine Kenneth Chamberlain after he allegedly accidentally set of his LifeAid alert device.  DiFiore's police officers were alerted, came and killed him. 

Moreover, DiFiore, the "legal advisor" of that grand jury, presented the evidence in such a way and advised that grand jury in such a way, that it did not return an indictment against the slayers of Kenneth Chamberlain.  Since grand jury proceedings are secret, we do not know whether the grand jury DiFiore convened was all-white or not.

And, Westchester County, which DiFiore was an officer of for years, the county where DiFiore, Governor Cuomo and the Clintons live, was just blasted by the 2nd Circuit for their 13-year battle with HUD on the County's obstructionist, racist policies for segregation in housing.

In this context, the death, out of the blue, of the otherwise healthy, happy and accomplished only African-American Muslim judge on the Court of Appeals, and the abrupt closing of investigation into her death by NYPD right after the self-praising Law Day publications by Judge Abdas-Salaam's boss and her subordinates, sounds downright sinister to me.

DiFiore comes from a county with a history of racial profiling, has a history of using her power to cover up TWO apparent murders of African-Americans.

And, just a year after her installment on the top New York Court, the very first African American Muslim female judge, who is health, happy, recently married, accomplished, having grandkids and no mental health issues, "coincidentally" ends up in the Hudson River, dead.

Don't we have to have a little bit more scrutiny into this case than was given to it.

And shouldn't a special FEDERAL investigator be appointed to look into that case?

Or, will federal investigators and prosecutors be afraid to pursue the case given the possible rank of the people who can be involved in the death of Judge Abdas-Salaam?

And, will we EVER know the truth about the death of Judge Abdas-Salaam?

I doubt it. 

I doubt that NYPD will dare to explore a cover-up that may go all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, given that DiFiore's husband is on "firsts name basis with all U.S. Supreme Court justices and has their direct phone lines".

After all, NYPD was timid enough not to investigate the Chief Judge Sol Wachtler, even when he stalked and harassed a personal friend of the presidential couple and her minor child, George and Barbara Bushes, requiring a federal investigation and prosecution in a New Jersey federal criminal court.

And, after all, NYPD was also accused of participating in the murder of a critic of judicial corruption in New York, Chinese immigrant Sunny Sheu.  They are, of course, the best choice to investigate the potential murder of a top state court's judge.

So,

• the hush-hush way the investigation is handled,
• the history of NYPD investigating - and closing - a case where NYPD was, according to allegations of witnesses, an accomplice;
• the racist history of the County where DA DiFiore was raised and mentored;
• the racist history of DA DiFiore's own prosecutorial office;
• the racist history of DA DiFiore's cover-ups of two murders of African-Americans;
• the implausible theory of suicide it spawns about a woman who recently re-married, and, according to her friends, was happy and contented with her life;
• the previous history of non-investigation and non-prosecution by NYPD of Chief Judge Sol Wachtler,
• the extremely fast closing of the investigation into the death of Judge Abdas-Salaam, and just after DiFiore and her crew published a self-praise as to how good, clean and fair they are 

requires, to me, that the feds step in with their own investigation. 

As to the super-sweet and nauseatingly self-praising publications on Law Day by:

• Chief Judge Difiore;
• Chief Administrative Judge Marks;
• 4 heads of all 4 State Appellate Divisions

trying hard to persuade the public that New York "justice system" is the best and the fairest, after which the investigation of the death of Judge Abdas-Salaam was closed, as I said above, candy can be made out of shit, but it will not smell as sweet.

Political persecution, corruption, racism and murder are spelled all across these sweet articles of these sweet people, and I already wrote "tributes" about corruption of Karen Peters, Lawrence Marks (here, about Judge Marks' cancelling criminal UPL statutes for "public-private partnership", in exchange for "private donations", and here, about Judge Marks' further campaigning in favor of those same private-public partnerships), and Janet DiFiore, and blogs about the other three personages - Chief Judges of the Appellate Divisions 1st, 2nd and 4th Departments are to follow.

It is not surprising that people are leaving New York in flocks.  They should go even faster, since the state becomes downright scary.

If that is any consolation to anybody, there is no statute of limitations on murder, aiding and abetting a murder, and being an accomplice after the fact in a murder.

The case of Judge Abdas-Salaam, and whose path she has crossed to end up floating in the Hudson River, the first judge of that court ever to be slain, is waiting for its true investigators.

But, remember - the State of New York has a history that if a Chief Judge of that State wants something that is illegal, his subordinates cannot say "no", will never pursue him, and will always forgive him and embrace him.

As to U.S. Supreme Court justices fixing court cases, we have:

• Ruth Ginsburg's little all-expenses-paid trip to Hawaii Law School in February of 2017 and private talk to the "faculty" of that school, counting among it 3 clerks of the federal judge of the 9th Circuit deciding/fixing the court case of President Trump's immigration order;
• Ruth Ginsburg's former clerk at whose wedding Ruth Ginsburg officiated is - voila - listed as the most successful female litigator (and part of the so-called Echo Chamber of lawyers whose cases are always taken by the U.S. Supreme Court)
• Sonya Sotomayor and her April 2017 trip to Albany Law School (NY), her private talks there also with the "faculty" of that school, which includes an Assistant NY Attorney General, and her later voting the same month of April, 2017 not to take the case of a New Jersey attorney against New York for discriminating against out-of-state attorneys admitted in New York, to the detriment of the public, where NY Attorney General was a party.

We also have U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun who, according to Sol Wachtler, visited him in federal prison, met with him in obviation of the federal prison visitation requirements, and promised Wachtler that "everything will be well" after his release.  Wachtler writes about it in his book "After the Madness".  And - voila - everything IS well.  The felon Wachtler was restored as an attorney, is teaching law at Touro Law School and is invited to new Court of Appeals swearing-in ceremonies.

I am not even talking about Scalia and his partiality to fishing and hunting trips offered for free by parties in litigation.

We also can fairly surmise that these judges will do anything for a freebie of, let's say, an all-expenses-paid trip overseas or a "teaching job" with the foreign government, the type of trips that Ruth Ginsburg reported in 2015 in South Korea and as Chief Judge John Roberts reported in 2015 in the Tokyo University.

I provide some tables that I created from publicly disclosed trips and extra income of U.S. Supreme Court Justices for 2015:

Teaching jobs (during work time) and board memberships:

Anthony M. Kennedy	McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific	$                   12,500.00
Anthony M. Kennedy	Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Clarence Thomas	Horatio Alger Association
Clarence Thomas	Creighton University School of Law	$                   15,000.00
Clarence Thomas	George Washington University School of Law	$                   10,000.00
Clarence Thomas	J. Reuben Clark Law School - Brigham Unviersity	$                      2,225.00
Clarence Thomas	The Daily Caller	Salary
Clarence Thomas	Liberty Consulting, Inc.	Salary and benefits
Ruth Ginsburg	Trust Article Fourth U/W Martin D. Ginsburg, Trustee
Ruth Ginsburg	University of Michingan - Tanner Lecturer	$                   10,000.00
Samuel Alito	ABA Advisory Committee on the Law Library of Congress
Samuel Alito	Member Honorary Board of the Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land in the United States
Samuel Alito	University of Kentucky	$                      6,000.00
Samuel Alito	Duke University Law School	$                   15,000.00
Elena Kagan	Harvard Law School
Elena Kagan	President and Fellows of Harvard College	$                   15,000.00
Stephen Breyer	Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Stephen Breyer	The Pritzker Architecture Prize
Stephen Breyer	Penguin Random House LLC, Royalty Income	$                 116,774.61
Stephen Breyer	The authors Registry, Inc; Royalty Income	$                         384.93
Stephen Breyer	Penguin Random House LLC, Nonemployee compensation	$5,000

Foreign trips

Japan	1	Roberts	foreign sponsor
South Korea	1	Ginsburg	foreign sponsor
Austria	1	Kennedy with spouse	University of the Pacific
Israel	1	Kagan	foreign sponsor
U.K.	3	Ginsburg	American College of Trial Lawyers
		Breyer	foreign sponsor
		Breyer	foreign sponsor
France	2	Breyer	foreign sponsor
		Breyer	foreign sponsor
Switzerland	1	Ginsburg	foreign sponsor
Dominican Republic	1	Alito	Federal Bar Council
	11

All trips in 2015 - mostly during working time, instead of reviewing petitions for which the same "justices" have no time, with all the book deals, speaking and teaching engagements and other freebie offers

7/7/2015	7/16/2015	Tuesday to Thursday of next week	0	University of Tokyo	Tokyo, Japan	Teaching	$            13,559.11	John Roberts	air, transportation, meals and lodging
1/23/2015	2/10/2015	Friday + next week + Monday, with spouse	7	Annenburg Foundation	Palm Springs, CA	Seminar on civics and teaching	n/a as to value of gratuities	Anthony Kennedy	Lodging, food, and transportation (self and spouse)
4/24/2015	4/25/2015	Friday and Saturday, with spouse	1	Colonial Williamsburg Foundation where the judge is a member of the Board of Trustees	Williamsburg, VA	Attend board meetings	n/a as to value of gratuities	Anthony Kennedy	Lodging, food, and transportation (self and spouse)
5/7/2015	5/10/2015	Thursday through Sunday, with spouse	2	Stanford Law School	Stanford, CA	Speaking	n/a as to value of gratuities	Anthony Kennedy	Lodging, food, and transportation (self and spouse)
7/2/2015	7/19/2015	2.5 weeks - a tour to California and Austria, with spouse	0	University of the Pacific	Salzburg, Austria; Los Angeles, CA	Teaching and speaking	n/a as to value of gratuities	Anthony Kennedy	Lodging, food, and transportation (self and spouse)
7/29/2015	7/31/2015	Wednesday through Friday, with spouse	0	Utah State Bar	Sun Valley, UT	Speaking	n/a as to value of gratuities	Anthony Kennedy	Lodging, food, and transportation (self and spouse)
10/9/2015	10/11/2015	Friday through Sunday, with spouse	1	State Bar of California	Los Angeles, CA	Speaking	n/a as to value of gratuities	Anthony Kennedy	Lodging, food, and transportation (self and spouse)
10/21/2015	10/24/2015	Wednesday through Saturday, with spouse	3	Harvard Law School	Cambridge, MA	Speaking	n/a	Anthony Kennedy	Lodging, food, and transportation (self and spouse)
11/20/2015	11/21/2015	Friday and Saturday, with spouse	1	Colonial Williamsburg Foundation where the judge is a member of the Board of Trustees	Williamsburg, VA	Attend board meetings	n/a	Anthony Kennedy	Lodging, food, and transportation (self and spouse)
2/2/2015	2/6/2015	Monday through Friday	5	Creighton University School of Law	Omaha, NE	Teaching	$            15,000.00	Clarence Thomas	Transportation, meals, accommodations
2/11/2015	2/13/2015	Wednesday through Friday	3	Yale Law School	New Haven, CT	Meetings	n/a	Clarence Thomas	Transportation, meals, accommodations
5/3/2015	5/6/2015	Sunday through Wednesday	3	New York Federal Bar Council	New York, NY	Meetings and Award Ceremony	n/a	Clarence Thomas	Transportation, meals, accommodations
10/18/2015	10/21/2015	Sunday through Wednesday	3	J. Reuben Clark School of Law - Brigham Young University	Provo, UT	Teaching and meetings	$2225 for teaching, n/a as to value of gratuities	Clarence Thomas	Transportation, meals, accommodations
2/1/2015	2/2/2015	Sunday through Monday	1	The University of Chicago Law School	Chicago, IL	Speech	n/a	Elena Kagan	Transportation, meals
2/3/2015	2/3/2015	Tuesday	1	Northwestern University School of Law	Chicago, IL	Speech	n/a	Elena Kagan	Hotel, meals
2/4/2015	2/5/2015	Wednesday through Thursday	2	Stanford Law School	Stanford, CA	Speech, Moot Court	n/a	Elena Kagan	Transportation, hotel, meals
17-Jun-15	6/17/2015	Wednesday	1	Harvard Law School	Cambridge, MA	Speech	n/a	Elena Kagan	Transportation
8/29/2015	9/5/2015	Saturday through next Saturday	0	Hebrew Univeristy of Jerusalem Faculty of Law	Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem	Speech	n/a	Elena Kagan	Transporation, Hotel, Meals
9/8/2015	9/12/2015	Saturday through next Saturday	0	Harvard Law School	Cambridge, MA	Teaching, Speech	$15,000 + n/a	Elena Kagan	Transporation, Hotel, Meals
9/29/2015	9/30/2015	Tuesday through Wednesday	0	The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law	Columbus, OH	Speech	n/a	Elena Kagan	Transporation, Hotel, Meals
11/15/2015	11/18/2015	Sunday through Wednesday	3	Harvard Law School	Cambridge, MA	Moot Court, Speech	n/a	Elena Kagan	Transporation, Hotel, Meals
2/2/2015	2/2/2015	Monday	1	New York City Bar Association	New York, NY	Participation in Ruth Bader Ginsburg lecture	n/a	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	transportation, lodging, food
2/6/2015	2/6/2015	Friday	1	University of Michigan School of Law	Ann Arbor, MI	Participant in Tanner Lecture	$10,000 for teaching + n/a as to value of gratuities	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	transportation, lodging, food
5/29/2015	5/29/2015	Friday	1	Radcliffe Institute	Cambridge, MA	Radcliffe Medal recipient	$10,000 for teaching + n/a as to value of gratuities	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	transportation, lodging, food
8/3/2015	8/7/2015	Monday through Friday	0	Supreme Court of Korea	Seoul, Korea	Participant in Legal Exchange Program	$10,000 for teaching + n/a as to value of gratuities	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	transportation, lodging, food
9/7/2015	9/10/2015	Monday through Thursday	0	American College of Trial Lawyers	London, England	Partipant in Legal Exchange Program	$10,000 for teaching + n/a as to value of gratuities	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	transportation, lodging, food
9/11/2015	9/15/2015	Friday through Tuesday	0	European Institute at the University of Zurich	Zurick, Switzerland	Participant in conversational program	$10,000 for teaching + n/a as to value of gratuities	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	transportation, lodging, food
9/29/2015	9/29/2015	Tuesday to Thursday of next week	0	Roosevelt Institute	New York, NY	Four Freedoms Award recipient	$10,000 for teaching + n/a as to value of gratuities	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	transportation, lodging, food
12/17/2015	12/17/2015	Thursday	1	New York Historical Society	New York, NY	Participant in conversational program	n/a	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	transportation, lodging, food
2/14/2015	2/21/2015	Saturday through next Saturday	5	Federal Bar Council	Casa de Campo, Dominican Republic	Conference participation	n/a	Samuel Alito	Transportation, lodging, meals
3/27/2015	3/29/2015	Friday through Sunday	1	Fordham Law School Moot Court	New York, NY	Irving Kaufman Memorial Moot Court	n/a	Samuel Alito	Transportation, lodging, meals
9/4/2015	9/11/2015	Friday through next Friday	0	American College of Trial Lawyers	London, England	UK-US Legal Exchange	n/a	Samuel Alito	Transportation, lodging, meals
9/18/2015	9/21/2015	Friday through Monday	0	Federalist Society	Dallas, TX	Speech	n/a	Samuel Alito	Transportation, lodging, meals
9/23/2015	9/25/2015	Wednesday through Friday	0	University of Kentucky	Lexington, KY	Teaching, Lecture	6000 + n/a as to value of gratuities	Samuel Alito	Transportation, lodging, meals
10/18/2015	10/24/2015	Sunday through Saturday	5	Duke Law School	Durham, NC	Teaching	15000 + n/a	Samuel Alito	Transportation, lodging, meals
11/13/2015	11/15/2015	Friday through Sunday	1	New York Historical Society	New York, NY	Film Program & Panel Discussion	n/a	Samuel Alito	Transportation, lodging, meals
11/18/2015	11/19/2015	Wednesday through Thursday	2	Notre Dame Law School	South Bend, IN	Book Presentation & Discussion	n/a	Samuel Alito	Transportation, lodging, meals
2/2/2015	2/2/2015	Monday	1	Palm Beach County Bar Assn. & Forum of the Palm Beaches	West Palm Beach, FL	Address	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transportation and meals
3/12/2015	3/13/2015	Thursday through Friday	2	Davidson College	Davidson, NC	Discussions with groups of faculty and students	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transporation, Lodgings and meals
3/13/2015	3/13/2015	Friday	0	New York University School of Law	New York, NY	Panel discussion on Burtn Neuborne's book "Madison's Music"	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transportation and meals
4/10/2015	4/10/2015	Friday	1	Columbia University School of Law	New York, NY	Discussion with faculty and meeting with Latino Law Students Association	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transportation and meals
4/17/2015	4/17/2015	Friday	1	Bryn Mawr College	Bryn Mawr, PA	Address accepting Katharine Hepburn Medal	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transportation and meals
5/7/2015	5/8/2015	Thursday through Friday	2	Mt. Sinai Hospital School of Medicine	New York, NY	Address accepting honorary degree at commencement	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transportation and meals
5/7/2015	5/7/2015	Thursday	0	Association of the Bar of New York	New York, NY	Address to New Lawyers Institute	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Meal
7/23/2015	7/23/2015	Thursday	0	Bronx Children's Museum	Bronx, NY	Participaption in Dream Big Day events	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Meal
9/1/2015	9/3/2015	Tuesday through Thursday	0	University of Notre Dame	South Bend, IN	Address, question and answer conversation, meeting with studens, meeting with faculty	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transportation, Lodging and Meals
9/8/2015	9/8/2015	Tuesday	0	Amherst College	Amherst, MA	Question and answer conversation with faculty and students	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transportation, Lodging and Meals
9/9/2015	9/9/2015	Wednesday	0	Springfield Public Forum	Springfieldl, MA	Moderated interview	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transportation, Lodging and Meals
10/21/2015	10/22/2015	Wednesday through Thursday	2	Pomona College	Claremont, CA	Question and answer conversation with faculty and students	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transportation, Lodging and Meals
10/22/2015	10/23/2015	Thursday through Friday	1	University of the Pacific	Stockton, CA	Participation in Advancing Women Leadership Conference	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transportation, Lodging and Meals
11/16/2015	11/17/2015	Monday through Tuesday	2	University of Richmond	Richmond, VA	Question and answer conversation with faculty and students.  Meeting with Virginia Supreme Court Justices	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transportation, Lodging and Meals
12/11/2015	12/11/2015	Friday	1	University Club	New York, NY	Moderated interview	n/a	Sonya Sotomayor	Transportation, Lodging and Meals
1/16/2015	1/17/2015	Friday through Saturday	1	Pritzker Foundation	New York, NY	Pritzker Prize Jury Meetings	n/a	Stephen Breyer	Round-trip train fare, meals and lodging
3/12/2015	3/12/2015	Thursday	1	Bloomberg View	New York, NY	Bloomberg View Interview	n/a	Stephen Breyer	One-way airfare, return train fare
3/12/2015	3/12/2015	Thursday	0	University Club	New York, NY	Luncheon Speaker	n/a	Stephen Breyer	Lodging
4/3/2015	4/8/2015	Friday through Wednesday	4	Marshall and the Commemoration Commission	London, England	60th Anniversary Marshall Alumni Lecture	n/a	Stephen Breyer	one-way airfare
4/9/2015	4/16/2015	Thursday through Thursday	5	Conseil D'Etat	Paris, France	Participant in a conference	n/a	Stephen Breyer	one-way (return) airfare
14-May-15	16-May-15	Thursday through Saturday	2	Pritzker Foundation	Miami, FL	Pritzker Ceremony	n/a	Stephen Breyer	roundtrip airfare, lodging
28-May-15	28-May-15	Thursday	1	Massachusetts Historical Society	Boston, MA	Lecture	n/a	Stephen Breyer	roundtrip airfare, lodging
4-Jun-15	4-Jun-15	Thursday	1	DANA-Farber Cancer Institute	Boston, MA	Annual Dinner	n/a	Stephen Breyer	roundtrip airfare, lodging
28-Jul-15	31-Jul-15	Tuesday through Friday	0	Magna Carta Trust	London, England	Magna Carta Mock Trial	n/a	Stephen Breyer	Round-trip airfare, lodging
7-Sep-15	10-Sep-15	Monday through Thursday	0	American College for Trial Lawyers Legal Exchange	London, England	ACTL event	n/a	Stephen Breyer	Round-trip airfare (self and spouse)
16-Sep-15	16-Sep-15	Wednesday	0	KNOPF	New York, NY	Book event	n/a	Stephen Breyer	one-way airfare
18-Sep-15	19-Sep-15	Friday through Saturday	0	Yale Law School	New Haven, CT	Yale Global Symposium	n/a	Stephen Breyer	Lodging, meals
21-Sep-15	25-Sep-15	Monday through Friday	0	Huntington Library, LA	Los Angeles & San Marino, CA	Speaking at Wallis Theatre (LA) and Huntington library/ Book event	n/a	Stephen Breyer	roundtrip airfare, lodging
25-Sep-15	25-Sep-15	Friday	0	SF Arts & Leisure	San Francisco, CA	Book event	n/a	Stephen Breyer	roundtrip airfare for spouse
16-Oct-15	24-Oct-15	Friday through the Saturday next week	7	Odile Jacob French Publisher	Paris, France	Book event - various speaking events	n/a	Stephen Breyer	rountrip airfare
19-Nov-15	19-Nov-15	Thursday	1	Kennedy Foundation	Washington, D.C.	Book event	n/a	Stephen Breyer	one-way airfare
20-Nov-15	20-Nov-15	Friday	1	Pilgrims Club, NYC	New York, NY	Book event	n/a	Stephen Breyer	one-way train fare
16-Dec-15	16-Dec-15	Wednesday	1	Foreign Policy Association	New York, NY	Book Event	n/a	Stephen Breyer	one-way train fare
17-Dec-15	17-Dec-15	Thursday	1	Council on foreign relations	New York, NY	Book Event	n/a	Stephen Breyer	one-way train fare

And, not to be outdone, we have DiFiore's husband Dennis Glazer who is on a first-name basis with all, but the latest U.S. Supreme Court Justices and has their direct lines, according to DiFiore's own admission, which was part of a lawsuit in, I believe, 2008, I will publish the materials from that lawsuit later.  So, whenever the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear a case from DiFiore's court, you can safely assume that Dennis Glazer picked up the phone and did his job for his wife - at least that's what DiFiore clearly threatened on the owner of a newspaper that dared to criticize her, her husband and the then-Chief Justice Judith Kaye.  And offered him or her - what?  Another trip?

Here, we are talking the death of a top state court judge.

The circumstances are extremely murky.

The players are extremely high-ranking and known for their corruption.

Will anybody be bold enough to explore all possible links in the death of Judge Abdas-Salaam, no matter how high, and go after perpetrators if perpetrators are ascertained?  How could the police close the investigation in less than a month since her death and not explore any possible connection to the many, many decisions by Judge Abdas-Salaam over the years, which would take much more time of diligent research?

As to an overview of some of lawsuits against DiFiore over the years, and her statements in those lawsuits, as well as the contrast those lawsuits pose with DiFiore's current attempts to create a public image of a squeaky clean public official, I will post a separate blog.

Stay tuned.

Update as of May 10, 2017:

Here are the blogs about two lawsuits against DiFiore, for election fraud and press intimidation.

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...