Issues in NWIRP's lawsuit: what is the state interest in federal regulation of practice in front of a federal administrative board?

This is my fourth blog regarding the lawsuit by non-profit NWIRP portrayed as a heroic deeds in the press.

I covered

• conflicts of interest in court representation of the lawsuit here;
• conflicts of interest in composition of the Board of Directors and staff of NWIRP here;
• conflicts of interest regarding assertion that one-time ghost-writing for clients somehow serves clients' best interests here.

Now I am raising another issue - what is the "interest" of the State of Washington to interfere into this lawsuit as a "friend of the court" (amicus)?

First of all, I already wrote that two current members of the Board of Directors of NWIRP, Teresa Mosqueda and Regina Garcia, are employees of the State of Washington, and, as to Garcia, of the Washington State Bar (the regulator), which creates an impression that NWIRP is a part of the government of the State of Washington.

Moreover, that is what the Washington State Attorney General was directly asserting in his amicus brief, claiming that a staff attorney in NWIRP, paid by grant money from Washington State Attorney General, is actually conducting functions of a criminal investigator or prosecutor for the Washington State AG.

So, NWIRP's "partnership" with its own regulator (Washington State AG regulates NWIRP as a non-profit) is snitching on its own competition - because the AG considers as "notario fraud" representation for money (not necessarily bad representation) without being admitted in front of immigration courts - which is the same as NWIRP's own "legal advocates" .

Yet, the Washington State AG prefers not to prosecute NWIRP's "legal advocates" for "notario fraud", but instead gives NWIRP money for snitching - through "cy pres grants" no less, while installing into NWIRP an attorney to discharge a function of a de facto Washington State Assistant Attorney General, which is, of course, an illegal act of sub-delegation of the Attorney General's power to a private non-profit, in exchange for

• squashing the non-profit's competition;
• non-prosecution of the non-profit for their own "notario fraud" acts;
• giving the non-profit money in exchange for their snitching;
• giving the non-profit the status of a de facto Assistant Attorney General, by placing a paid attorney on its staff with the functions of the Assistant Attorney General, and
• even referring clients to that non-profit.

Considering, once again, that two of the State of Washington's high-ranking employees are on the Board of Directors of the non-profit - regulated by the State of Washington - the relationship is more than murky.

It is even murkier that, while asserting the interests of the State of Washington in this litigation, the State of Washington did not attempt to intervene as a party.

But, the elephant-in-the-room question, and especially for the State of Washington is - when the challenged rule in litigation is a FEDERAL rule regulating practitioners in front of a FEDERAL agency, what the heck may be the State of Washington's "state interest" in such regulation?

Isn't it a crystal clear case of separation of what state government does and what federal government does?

Isn't the State Attorney General of the State of Washington trying to butt into what the state of Washington has absolutely no right to regulate - appearances in representative capacity in front of a federal agency?

And isn't the State Attorney General of the State of Washington, in order to cater for its pet non-profit, wasting taxpayer money (of state and federal taxpayers) by supporting a frivolous lawsuit against the federal government in their official capacities, thus suing all of us, American taxpayers, to block the federal government from providing a BENEFIT to the immigrants in immigration proceedings?

The rule that the State AG is opposing (by supporting the NWIRP lawsuit) is a federal rule created to do the same thing as the State AG paid NWIRP $125,000 for doing - fighting the "notario fraud".  How does all of this make any sense - other than that the name of the Defendant is Jeff Sessions, and thus any frivolous lawsuit against him must be allowed to the pro-Clinton lawyers as a matter of right?

Let's ask the question again - what is the State of Washington's interest in regulating representation in federal agencies?

The State AG has the audacity in claiming, in his amicus brief, that the FEDERAL rule regulating appearances of representatives in FEDERAL immigration proceedings in front of a FEDERAL agency allegedly violates the 10th Amendment right of the State of Washington to regulate the practice of law IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.

Apparently, such a claim can be made only to an extremely "sympathetic" judge - because any fair judge doing his job would have tossed such a claim, with sanctions.

First of all, the federal agency allows to practice in the immigration courts the following individuals:

1. accredited attorneys in good standing;
2. accredited non-profits and their employees who are separately accredited with the courts (which NWIRP's multiple employees are not);
3. law students;
4. parents and/or legal guardians of children who are subject to immigration proceedings;
5. "reputable persons", by permission of immigration courts.

Moreover, as to the last category, the "reputable persons", federal courts do not consider as "reputable" people who represent respondents in immigration proceedings for compensation (even a very low compensation), and who do it frequently.

That, of course, makes no sense at all - because doing business for money, per se, does not make anybody a disreputable person;  and, having experience in doing a certain thing, like representation in an immigration proceeding, does not make a person automatically a "disreputable person".

Well, in federal immigration courts, it does.

So, the rule existing in federal court may be challenged - BY CONSUMERS - as having nothing to do with the declared purpose of regulation, protection of CONSUMERS from

1. dishonest and/or
2. incompetent

practitioners.

Charging money for services, or having experience in your business, does not make a person automatically incompetent and/or dishonest - that's clear as day.

Moreover, if the situation with representation in immigration proceedings is as dire as NWIRP asserts in its pleadings, so that NWIRP takes upon itself the role of Jesus Christ trying to feed 5,000 people with 5 breads (provide one-ghost-motion-per-client "services" to spread their 6 mln dollar per year budget upon a maximum number of claimed clients), neither the federal, not the state government have ANY right to regulate that representation AT ALL, according to the U.S. Supreme Court precedent that is on the books FOR 48 YEARS:

"In the absence of some provision by the State of Tennessee for a reasonable alternative to assist illiterate or poorly educated inmates in preparing petitions for post-conviction relief, the State may not validly enforce a regulation which absolutely bars inmates from furnishing such assistance to other prisoners".

When the "reasonable alternative" is throwing in a ghost-written motion and then leaving the immigrant without a legal representative or a translator to fight his case in court on his own, it is obviously not a "reasonable" alternative.

Yet, the State of Washington and the federal government are fighting over the right to regulate where they obviously may not do so, because their regulation CREATED a crisis of the lack of representation, and fighting "notario fraud" is (1) counter-productive, as it deprives people of ANY representation, simply because they cannot afford an attorney or were not lucky enough to get full free representation from a non-profit; and (2) deprives consumers of their choice of representative, possibly, of their only choice.

So, the fight between the state and federal governments on the issue of who gets to regulate what NEITHER of them have a constitutional right to regulate is clearly frivolous.

But then, there are more conceptual inconsistencies than disobedience of the U.S. Supreme Court precedent of 48 years.

I will just list those inconsistencies.

1. States may not interfere with how federal government regulates practice in federal agencies.  So, the State of Washington has NO interest whatsoever in how federal immigration courts regulate their representatives - and claiming that such regulation affects "residents" of Washington State (illegal aliens) - does not create any state interest;  creating a statute, as the State of Washington did with lobbying of its AG and NWIRP, on the subject of fighting "notario fraud" in FEDERAL proceedings does not create such a "state" interest either, as federal law pre-empts inconsistent state law;
2. practice in front of federal agencies where lay representation is allowed is not "the practice of law";
3. what constitutes "the practice of law" is not clearly defined in Washington State by statute; the ad hoc court rule that may change, in arrears, the definition of the practice of law, does not give constitutional notice of what is being regulated, so the ENTIRE regulatory scheme in the State of Washington is unconstitutional;
4. the AG is challenging the federal disciplinary regulation for practitioners that is meant to fight "notario fraud" - which is what AG is claiming he is doing, too - and the lawsuit so far succeeded to stop this federal regulation, and thus lift the supposed protection against "notario fraud", which doesn't make any sense;
5. how did the State AG end up supporting plaintiffs in a civil rights lawsuit challenging an attorney/practitioner disciplinary rule, when the same State AG is habitually representing DEFENDANT Bar of the State of Washington in challenges of attorney disciplinary rules by disciplined attorneys;
6. the AG is challenging only ONE federal disciplinary rule for practitioners in front of immigration courts, while not arguing that the ENTIRE federal regulation of practitioners in immigration courts is the domain of the State of Washington, and such a selective challenge is illustrative in view of AG's connections with two Board Directors of NWIRP and AG's financing of NWIRP and mutual efforts to help each other in and out of court.

Yet, there is one thing in common

• the General Rule 24 (court rule regulating "the practice of law" in the State of Washington);
• the state statute seeking to fight "notario fraud" that Washington State AG relies upon as his "state statutory interest" in fighting "notario fraud" - without joining the lawsuit as a party, and
• the federal regulations regarding the practice in representative capacity in immigration courts -

the presumption that a non-lawyer advice and HELP to consumers FOR COMPENSATION, no matter the quality, must be outlawed.

That is part of the General Rule 24, that is specifically, by its language, prohibited by the state statute, and that is prominent in the "reputable person" regulation in immigration courts:

And look at the "efforts" of Washington State AG, "partner" of NWIRP, in fighting "notario fraud":

Note that the State Attorney General sued the supposed "offenders" not in federal court, but in state court, for unauthorized practice of law - while there is no STATUTE defining what the practice of law is, and while violating a COURT RULE should not be able to create a "state cause of action" to sue in court for its violation.

Also note that the State Attorney General is claiming that unauthorized practitioners' clients are "victims" of "notario fraud", without regard to the quality of provided services.

And, please, note that the State Attorney General (political supporter of NWIRP's Director Teresa Mosqueda) and, "coincidentally", a sponsor of a state statute to fight "unauthorized practice" of "immigration law" (which must be enforceable by the federal agency and not the states), claims in his own press-release that what he is prosecuting is "peddl[ing] assistance completing immigration forms and navigating immigration processes that legally can only be provided by qualified attorneys and accredited representatives".

Of course, the Washington State AG does not explain two interesting things:

• how come "legal assistance" provided by non-accredited non-attorneys working for NWIRP (Washington State AG's paid snitch against competition) do not constitute "notario fraud"

Bill Schwarz, NWRIP's "legal advocate", a non-attorney who is not an accredited representative (those who are, are listed by NWIRP as such) "works to provide direct legal services to individuals detained at the Northwest Detention Center".  The State AG does not seek to prosecute Bill Schwarz for unauthorized practice of law (UPL), or its employers for aiding and abetting UPL, on the opposite, the State AG empowers such behavior by providing NWIRP a $125,000 grant.

Jenna Golan-Strieb is another NWIRP's unaccredited "legal advocate" who has a degree in Spanish Language, Literature and Culture, Latin American Studies, and Global Development Studies - but not a law degree.  Ms. Golan-Strieb is "working to provide pro se legal orientation assistance to immigrants detained at the NWDC" - the same "services" which the State AG prosecutes against other people as "notario fraud".

Maria Cordero-Miranda, a yet another NWIRP's unaccredited "legal advocate" with a degree in Political Science and Spanish, and in Urban Studies (but not in law), and a native of Nicaragua, reportedly "enjoys helping others navigate the immigration system by providing the tools and information necessary to do so".  That is exactly what the State AG prosecutes as "notario fraud" - for "peddl[ing] assistance completing immigration forms and navigating immigration processes that legally can only be provided by qualified attorneys and accredited representatives".  Maria Cordero-Miranda who "enjoys" helping others "navigate" immigration processes is somehow not the focus of State AG's prosecution - as are other people.  Nor is NWIRP, Cordero-Miranda's employer the target of State AG's investigation and prosecution for aiding and abetting "notario fraud".  Instead, State AG pays NWIRP to report others doing the same as its non-attorney employees are doing, for prosecution.

State of Washington AG then says that "[i]mmigration services fraud places the legal status of unsuspecting immigrant consumers in jeopardy, risking their ability to live and work in the U.S. - and takes their hard-earned money in exchange for dubious services".

So, the Washington State AG is claiming that ANY representation by a person who is not a "qualified attorney" or an "accredited representative", including help in "completing immigration forms" and in "navigating immigration processes" constitutes a "dubious service" that must be prosecuted - to protect "consumers" no less.

Yet, NWIRP's "legal advocates" somehow do not fall into this definition, or rather, Washington State AG does not enforce legislation against his friends and paid informants.

And, there are also parents who are allowed to represent their children (note that the federal regulation does not say "minor children", simply "children").  Parents do not become competent legal representatives simply because they are parents, and children, as consumers of supposedly legal services, should not be regarded as second-rate consumers with less rights than other people.

Parents are also not "accredited representatives", so the AG's claims are just a little bit self-serving, especially considering that the statute that the AG has "sponsored" only fights advice by "notarios" in exchange for compensation - which looks very much like efforts to stamp out competition to AG's own law license, and to law licenses of his friends, and officers and staff members of pet non-profits.

But an even bigger "elephant-in-the-room" issue emerges here:

WHY,

• while fighting enforcement of federal immigration laws through a lawsuit against President Trump's executive order;
• while fighting enforcement of federal immigration laws by fighting prohibition on discretionary disbursements of federal funds against "sanctuary cities" because they disobey federal immigration laws, and REFUSING to enforce federal immigration laws;
•  the State of Washington suddenly claimed an interest in ENFORCING federal immigration law in fighting "notario fraud" - in an interesting way, while fighting in court, a disciplinary rule that was devised to PREVENT that same "notario fraud" in immigration proceedings?

So, the State of Washington now has a "state interest" in ENFORCING some portions of immigration laws - against the federal government - while fighting against that same federal government's efforts to COMPELL the State of Washington and its municipalities to abide by those same federal immigration laws?

Doesn't make any sense - other than, when you need to use your power to prevent the money trickle towards your friends' businesses from drying up - the end justifies the means.

And let those consumers who are left without any immigration services as a result take care of themselves.

They are only numbers in head counts for the Washington State AG and non-profits in their fundraising campaigns, after all.

Issues in NWIRP's lawsuit against Jeff Sessions: is attorney ghost-writing for pro se parties and partial representation an attorney's constitutional right?

This is my third blog about NWIRP's lawsuit against Jeff Sessions portrayed in some media as a heroic deed.

I have written about conflicts of interest in connection with this lawsuit in representation of NWIRP in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington here, and about conflicts of interest in NWIRP's Board of Directors and staff here.

The media, while hailing as good anything that is against Trump or officers in his administration, omitted to mention that the rule that NWIRP's lawsuit is attacking was introduced and enforced by the Obama administration in 2008.

What is even more bizarre is that NWIRP is asserting lawyers "constitutional right" to

• not own up to their work (ghost-write pleadings),
• not appear in proceedings in which they are advising clients, and
• to represent clients only partially.

In its pleadings, NWIRP has written to the court that in represented cases clients fare better (4 to 5 times better, based on the outcomes) than unrepresented clients.

Great.

Yet, NWIRP is asserting their "constitutional right" to throw in for unsophisticated immigrant clients, often for those who do not know English, a sophisticated pleading (a petition or a motion), as a ghost-writer for a pro se respondent in an immigration proceedings, and then leave that same client to litigate what they threw in, on his own.

And, NWIRP asserts that they are actually providing their clients a benefit.

Let us model this on a hypothetical.

Imagine that a lawyer has a budget of over 6 MILLION DOLLARS - that's what NWIRP had in 2014 (the latest publicly available report).

Imagine that a lawyer is reviewing a case of ONE client - because a lawyer must have an undivided loyalty to every single client.

Is a budget of 6 million dollars enough to represent, from first to last day of immigration proceedings, ONE client?

Undoubtedly so.

Do NWIRP attorneys have any right (much less, a constitutional right), to instead emulate Jesus Christ and try to feed 5 000 men with 5 loaves of bread?

Because that's what NWIRP are trying to assert as their own right - and somehow as the right of their clients and potential clients.

They are claiming to the court in their lawsuit that:

1. they do not have funds (6 million dollars per year is not enough) to represent people from first to last day of immigration court proceedings, and
2. they have a constitutional right to provide consultations or to ghost-write pleadings for pro se clients, in violation of a disciplinary rule that was introduced by the Obama administration in 2008, because this way they will help more people.

Of course, if they just represent 100 clients from first to last day, and win all of these 100 cases, that will not be as impressive as saying that they "helped" by (ghost or partial) representation 10,000 people, as NWIRP is asserting in their lawsuit.

Now imagine an assigned attorney telling his client - I will only throw in one motion, and then you are on your own.

No court will allow that.

The court where they are suing will not allow NWIRP's own attorneys to get out of the case without the court's permission, and NWIRP knows that.

Immigration courts will not allow that either, there is nothing new about it.

In court proceedings in the blessed State of Washington (whose AG supported the NWIRP lawsuit through an amicus brief) withdrawal of an attorney over objection of a single party is prohibited without a court order - so, if a client objects, an attorney who is in the case, cannot withdraw without court's permission.

Is it constitutional?

Probably, not, but the constitutional right violated here is not the attorney's 1st Amendment rights, for sure.

It is the attorney's 13th Amendment right not to be ordered by the government into an unpaid servitude - and the 13th Amendment violation was, certainly, NOT asserted by NWIRP, because asserting that would clearly highlight that the attorney's "right" to ghost-write conflicts with the client's right for representation throughout the proceedings.

And that's what NWIRP is fighting - they are fighting AGAINST their clients' right to have NWIRP represent them once they step into an immigration case, as required by disciplinary rules of that court, until the successful or bitter end.

By the way, NWIRP practically lied to the court by manipulating the court with the statistics of outcomes of represented vs unrepresented parties in immigration proceedings, because those statistics were inapplicable to what NWIRP is doing.

NWIRP did not provide ANY statistics as to outcomes of its clients for whom they provided one consultation, ghost-wrote (possibly, by non-attorney illegal "advocates") one petition or one motion, and then let those clients hang out to dry on their own.

Since NWIRP asserts in the lawsuit their "constitutional right" NOT to represent their clients from the first to the last day of the immigration proceedings, statistics that NWIRP used for court comparing outcomes in represented vs unrepresented proceedings, is inapplicable - and was fraudulent to use in court (my personal opinion) in order to impress the court.

Why did NWIRP even file this obviously frivolous lawsuit?

The answer is clear - enforcement of the 2008 rule hurts their fundraising efforts.

As I mentioned above, it gives NWIRP, and their lawyers, more glory and more grounds for self-promotion to claim that they "helped" 10,000 people (without giving the statistics of outcomes for those 10,000 people and while claiming that identities of those 10,000 are secret - so there is no way to verify their claims that they actually helped those 10,000 people) than to openly, and following the immigration court rules, help, from the first to the last day of immigration proceedings, a much smaller number of people, but to actually help them by representation, not by bits-and-pieces consultations, ghost-writing and then USING those unnamed people in their further fundraising campaigns.

Once again, I would like to stress that NOWHERE in attorney conduct rules, federal or state, anywhere in the U.S., does a rule exist allowing an attorney for a non-profit organization to consider partial representation simply because by way of partial representation he will have more "heads" of clients to claim for purposes of reports and future fundraising - even if such partial representation hurts outcomes in the specific cases for specific clients, which it undoubtedly does, as NWIRP's own statistics indicates - unrepresented clients fare at least 4 times worse than represented clients.

So, when beating up on Trump and Sessions, no matter what they do, the press should at least look a little bit into the matter and figure out - maybe the truth is not on the side of those "revolutionaries" who are trying to filibuster Trump and Sessions not because they are doing anything wrong, but because they are not Hillary Clinton?

I will continue my analysis of the NWIRP's lawsuit.

Stay tuned.

Immigration lawyers' lawsuit: heroics or a self-serving mess? The Board of Directors and conflicts of interest.

In my previous blog, I pointed out that the lawsuit of a Washington State non-profit #NWIRP may be not as heroic as it is presented in the pro-Clinton and anti-Trump (right or wrong) press, especially that there was no legal basis for filing and prosecuting that lawsuit, and especially that the temporary restraining order was granted without an explanation or legal grounds by a court where at least two attorneys for NWIRP in the lawsuit were the court's interns or law clerks.

I have read the materials from the lawsuit, and am continuing to publish and analyze them.

Apparently, there were more smoke and mirrors, more conflicts of interest and more self-serving hypocrisy and conceptual mess in this lawsuit.

First of all, the players in the NWIRP lawsuit are definitely no heroes, and in this blog I will point out potential conflicts of interest of board members, officers and employees of NWIRP.

Here is the composition of the NWIRP's Board of Directors, obtained by me from their 2014 tax report (the latest report available), published on guidestar.org, a comprehensive website providing information about the U.S. non-profits.

Here is the composition of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff, NWIRP, as of today, from their own website, and a comparative table of dynamics of the board members.

The current composition of the board of directors:

	2014 Board	2017 Board	Background	Potential conflicts of interest
1.	#MonicaBatraKashyap, President	Stayed on Board	Professor of Seattle School of Law in charge of externship with the presiding court	Personal connections with the court, potential for ex parte communications, for influence upon the court through the use of former externs and law clerks (two attorneys representing NWIRP in the lawsuit are former law clerks/externs of the court, likely placed by Kashyap); Seattle Law School personally wined and dined the presiding judge and his wife
2.	#HilaryHan, Vice-President	Left the Board	Has a private immigration law firm	The break NWIRP obtained in the lawsuit for its own lawyers and lawyers “associated” with it benefits Han’s private business
3.	Marie Higuera, Director	Left the Board	Has a private immigration law firm	The break NWIRP obtained in the lawsuit for its own lawyers and lawyers “associated” with it benefits Higuera’s private business
4.	Kristen Kussman, Secretary	Stayed on the Board	Lawyer, powerful lobbyist	Advertises her membership on the NWIRP Board of Directors as part of her business attorney advertising, thus receiving business benefits from her position
5.	Omar Riojas, Director	Became the President		Former judicial extern clerk to one of the judges of the presiding court, a private attorney
6.	Julie Frye, Treasurer	Stayed the Treasurer
7.	Huy Nyugen, Director	Left the Board
8.	Teresa Mosqueda, Director	Stayed on Board	Political and Strategic Campaign Director, Washington State Labor Council	A conflict of interest, as Teresa Mosqueda is a state employee while the State AG, without participation in the lawsuit as a party, but after endorsing Mosqueda in her political run for the Council of Seattle, supported her non-profit in the lawsuit asserting “state statutory interest” in the lawsuit, but in reality making sure that the non-profit will not be sanctioned and will not lose fundraising capabilities
9.	Steven Severin, Director	Stayed on Board	NY attorney, NWIRP says “retired”, but the registration in NY does not show retirement	May financially benefit from practicing in immigration courts
10.	Jorge L. Baron, Executive Director	Left the Board
11.	Francoise Maxie, Finance Director	Left the Board
12.		Luanda Arai, Board member	Immigrant, grant manager for Washington Youth & Families Fund at Building Changes, not a lawyer
13.		Richa Arora, Board member	Immigrant, former client of NWIRP, not a lawyer
14.		Susi Collins	Immigrant, not a lawyer
15.		Renata Garcia	Immigrant, lawyer, manager of mandatory CLE program with mandatory Washington State Bar, part of the state government (NWIRP version), or “staff liaison” of the Washington State MCLE program (the Bar Association’s version)	Washington State did not participate in the lawsuit as a party, but Washington State Attorney General asserted “state statutory interest” in support of the lawsuit through an amicus brief, and asserted that NWIRP is a partner of Attorney General’s office in fighting “notario fraud” (its own competition), to the point that: 1)      NWIRP snitches on “notaries” to AG; 2)      AG, in return, refers clients to NWIRP; 3)      AG gave NWIRP a $125,000 grant to help AG fight “notario fraud” (competition); 4)      AG does not prosecute NWIRP for participating in unregistered representation of immigration clients, including through non-attorney employees
16.		Wamaitha Kiarie	Immigrant, former NWIRP client, not a lawyer
		Sarah Litt	NY lawyer, formerly of Courtroom TV Network, NY registration site does not show retirement	May financially benefit in practicing in immigration courts

NWIRP has conflicts of interest in this lawsuit not only through its Board members, but also through its staff where there are a lot of non-attorney "advocates" and "legal assistants" providing legal services to immigrants - without any indication that those "advocates" and "assistants" are approved by the immigration Review Board and immigration courts to practice.

So, NWIRP at the same time "fights" "notario fraud" - consisting sometimes only in giving people advice regarding federal immigration proceedings for money (without regard whether the advice was correct or not, good or bad) - while allowing its personnel to do the very same thing, engage in notario fraud, employing, through its own admission, at least 11 "legal advocates" who are not registered representatives in immigration courts or Review Board:

By the way, practice by paralegals is not allowed in immigration courts.

Now, NWIRP is suing Trump's Attorney General and somehow asserts that they are violating NWIRP's "constitutional rights", while the rule that they are asking the court to lift (and that the court already stayed nationwide without an explanation or legal grounds, because the court's former law clerks/interns, now representing NWIRP, asked for it) existed since 2008, and was introduced by the Obama administration.

In other words, Trump's AG is being sued for enforcing Obama's rule.

And, the rule is a requirement for a representative in an immigration court:

1. to be registered with the court (for an attorney) and approved for representation (for a non-attorney);
2. to announce participation in a certain case and thus own up to the attorney's or representative's work;
3. to stay in the case until the court relieves the attorney or representative.

The rule is actually THE SAME rule as exists in federal court, so Judge Richard Jones, by imposing a stay upon such a rule in immigration courts, and by doing it nationwide, shot federal courts, including his own, in their proverbial feet - because in ALL federal court proceedings and attorney, once stepped into the case, may not get out of the case without the court's permission.

NWIRP, through a sympathetic judge from a court that formerly employed some of their attorneys, changed that rule for themselves now.

Did it help consumers?

Did it protect NWIRP's current and potential clients?

Did it help clarify what constitutes the practice of law?

Did it help clarify who regulates the practice of law, and the practice in immigration courts and why?

I will write about that in one of my next blogs.

Stay tuned.

The Texas #judgeJamesOakley who publicly incited through a Facebook post to lynch a black criminal defendant remained on the bench with a slap on the wrist and an order of "racial sensitivity training"

On this blog, I frequently cover stories from all over the United States showing that judges did not only give themselves an illegal gift of absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench (for violation their own oath of office once they took it), but, even if disciplined (by people with ties to and livelihood derived from the judicial system), they are usually given a slap on the wrist and allowed to continue on, engaging in the same conduct.

Another example of that came from Texas, where a judge, James Oakley,

received a slap on the wrist and was allowed to remain on the bench after posting on Facebook, in response of a media announcement of an arrest of a dark-skinned suspect in the murder of a police officer, stated: "Time for a tree and a rope".

Of course, the judge later erased the post, apologized and claimed that his post was not meant as racist, and was taken "out of context".

Yet, what kind of context is needed to read it as anything other than racist?

Why just a slap on the wrist?  Why just a public reprimand (which, as you understand, is nothing in terms of accountability and deterrence of future misconduct) and order into "racial sensitivity training" with a mentor of the Commission's choice?

Can one teach a raging violent racist how not to be a raging violent racist?

And even that discipline happened only because of the judge's own stupidity of openly stating on Facebook his obviously long-held beliefs:

• there is no presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings;
• a black person charged with a crime is guilty on publication of charges,

and because somebody was quick enough to save the scan and send it to the media and social media.

And, of course, the "context" of the judge's Facebook statement, had it been made just a 100 years back would be a body hanging from the tree in the courthouse square, put their by a lynching mob incited by the judge's "fighting words".

Because those words CALLED FOR VIOLENCE.

They called for vigilantism.

And no public explaining-away can erase it from #JudgeJamesOakley - the lynching racist.

Time sheet scandals prove there is no such thing as making high-ranking employees close to the judicial system accountable for misconduct and even crimes - Part IV of public comment regarding proposed New York mandatory discovery rule in criminal proceedings

Falsifying time sheets may be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on how much in unearned public money was stolen. 

For example, recently two employees of the town of Middletown, NY, were charged with felonies and misdemeanors for falsifying time sheets.

That was considered theft of public funds.

Yet, when three attorney disciplinary prosecutors of the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Appellate Division, 3rd Department (New York):

• Elizabeth Devane;
• Steven Zayas; and
• Peter Torncello (the Committee's Chief Attorney before the resignation)

 were implicated in doing the same, they were only allowed to quietly resign, were not prosecuted criminally or disciplined as lawyers.

While Elizabeth Devane is not even listed as an ever-licensed attorney in New York state, Peter Torncello continues to toil in private practice:

and Steven Zayas is even allowed to continue in public service,

possibly, further engaging in theft of public funds, since they were not deterred by prosecution for their previous misdeeds.

In 2015, Chief Judge's own counsel Christina Ryba was fired for unethical conduct, but was never disciplined as an attorney and was allowed to become a judge, which requires to have a valid law license.

Ryba was not prosecuted either by criminal prosecutors - for elections fraud - nor by attorney disciplinary prosecutors, nor by the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct.

Apparently, the ethical probe that Ryba's Republican opponents wanted amounted to nothing.

Nor were there any disciplinary probes of the wife of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York, Otsego County Attorney Ellen Coccoma, former member of the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Appellate Division, 3rd Judicial Department, who, while being a full-time County Attorney, engages in private practice on the side during her work time.

Otsego County responded to my FOIL requests for her time-sheets by claiming that they simply don't have them.

Ellen Coccoma, as the County Attorney, was the legal advisor for that response.  Attorney rules of professional conduct prohibiting participation in a conflicted representation, apparently, did not apply to Ellen Coccoma, as wife of a high-ranking New York State judge.

At this time, New York State Court Administration, at the same time,

• is stalling my FOIL requests for time sheets of the new Chief Attorney of the Attorney Grievance Committee, Monica Duffy, as well as some other attorneys of the Committee and some judges who were, according to my information, skipping work to participate in wining and dining with some attorneys from Otsego, Delaware and Chenango Counties - and,
• is trying to push through "mandatory discovery orders" in criminal proceedings that are meant to pull the wool over the eyes of the public and create an impression that prosecutors - all prosecutors - in the state of New York are allegedly accountable for their misdeeds, see my public comments on that:
• Part I;
• Part II;
• Part III - and more comments to come before June 5, 2017, the deadline for submission of public comments on that issue.

They are not.

The time-sheets prosecutions against town employees, but not against attorney disciplinary prosecutors prove that.

The lack of disciplinary prosecutions against attorney disciplinary prosecutors who falsify timesheets and are even fired for unethical conduct and defrauding voters, prove that.