Oneida County Judge Louis Gigliotti denied a civilly committed individual a right to pro se representation and to a change of counsel

An attorney is supposedly in a "fiduciary" relationship (relationship of trust) with a client.

And, if a client wants to get rid of an attorney because the attorney does not respond to his phone calls and letters, in other words, the client no longer trusts his own attorney to represent his interests in court, the client has an absolute right to get rid of that attorney.

And, in any case, a client must have an absolute right to self-representation.

Right?

Wrong.

Not in the blessed State of New York.

There, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office, while "not opposing" a motion of a civilly committed man to either change his assigned counsel because he did not file a petition on his behalf and did not respond to his letters and phone calls, still asked the court to "search the record and case law" in order to respond to the man's request.

And boy did the judge do that.

After doing that, the judge came up with these two "rules":

• the man did not show "good cause" to fire his own counsel whom he no longer trusted;
• the man, being a civilly committed individual, was not entitled to represent himself.

So, the government at the same time:

• ordered a man civilly committed (locked up without a criminal sentence);
• assigns to that obviously indigent man an attorney that the man claims does not do his job - by the interesting name of Coffin, no offense;
• and now denies the man the right to replace or straight-out get rid of government-assigned representation and to represent himself.

Convenient case law.

Good job, the supporter of civil rights (who represents the government in fighting civil rights lawsuits in court) NYS AG Schneiderman.

Good job, New York.

Good job, Judge Gigliotti of Oneida County.

The heavenly state of Hawaii bribed the shameless Ginsburg, and other judges of the U.S. Supreme Court to change the Immigration and Nationality Act - a call for reform of the U.S. Supreme Court and impeachment of its judges

Back in February, 2017, I wrote about the interesting trip of SCOTUS judge Ruth Ginsburg to the State University of Hawaii - complete with speeches, dances, dining on the ocean, and even a mural painted by the time of her arrival by the university's art students on a fence concealing the blight of construction on campus, not to offend Ginsburg's tender sensibilities.

I wrote that Ginsburg's trip was during her work time in her busy court, was at the expense of the State of Hawaii School of Law, was one of Ginsubrg's and other SCOTUS judges (and their families') routine vacation all-expenses-paid trips to this resort destination over the years, that the State University School of Law of Hawaii employed as professors THREE law clerks of a federal appellate judge who was deciding a request of the Trump administration to stay an injunction imposed upon the President's immigration executive order.

It is no secret that Ginsburg made public statements indicating her dislike of President Trump, to the point of promising at one point that she will emigrate if he is elected.

He was elected.

Instead of emigrating to New Zealand, as she promised, Ginsburg is skipping work to fly to vacation spots, all expenses paid by the President's opponents in litigation, in order to fix court cases for them.

In February, 2017, Ginsburg flew to Hawaii to have "meetings with faculty" of its school of law employing 3 law clerks of a judge of a federal appellate court (located within 7 minutes drive from the law school) who was deciding the motion of the Trump administration to stay the injunction on the Executive Order's temporary restriction on immigration right at that time.

That is called corruption, ladies and gentlemen, pure and simple.

And, such corruption calls for impeachment of Justice Ginsburg.

But - how can anybody touch a U.S. Supreme Court justice?

By the way - the University of Hawaii School of Law stalled my Freedom of Information request for records of who paid expenses of Ginsburg, her husband (before his death) and for other judges and members of their families on their trips to the school over the years, by claiming that it is too difficult to provide the records for me unless I pay over $10,000 for their excruciating search work.

Voila - now, Ginsburg and other SCOTUS judges who accept speaking, teaching and other engagements from state universities all over the country, and specifically from the State University School of Law of Hawaii - rule in favor of the State of Hawaii, upholding the illegal injunction on the President's immigration executive order.

No recusal because of her multiple statements spewing hatred against President Trump, before and dafter his elections.

No recusal because of her interesting, Hawaii State-paid trip to the State University of Hawaii School of Law, to meet in private with the "faculty" that included 3 law clerks of a judge who was deciding a case in favor of state universities benefiting from higher tuition from enrolled foreign students.

Instead, a ruling hailed as positive by the press, which was obviously corrupt and bought by YEARS of free wining-and-dining all expenses paid trips to the resorts of Hawaii, by nearly ALL judges of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, the unanimous ruling of the corrupt court did throw a bone to the president, by allowing him to do his job under the Immigration and Nationality Act in all cases where people whose travel to the U.S. the President restricts do not have a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity with the United States".  And continued the injunction in favor of those individuals where there is such a "bona fide relationship".

Consider this - the case that the U.S. Supreme Court chose "in its discretion" to hear has as a party - coincidentally, of course - the State of Hawaii that has been paying, out of taxpayer pockets, for all-expenses-paid trips to Hawaii and vacationing on the ocean in grand style of all U.S. Supreme Court justices, for decades. 

And, consider this - that this same court, as of June 12, 2017, has ruled unanimously that it has no authority to amend an Act of Congress - remember the "revolutionary" decision of Judge Gorsuch in favor of debt collectors?

Now, follow their hands in how they actually DO amend the Act of Congress in favor of those who pay them "in kind" bribes - as well as direct monetary bribes, such as universities across the country regularly paying US Supreme Court justices money for additional "teaching" or "speaking" jobs.

First, the elephant in the room was STANDING - a jurisdictional issue.

Standing of foreigners outside of the United States to contest not being allowed into the United States.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the President an unlimited discretion to exclude people from the U.S. borders based on assessment of their security risk, including a country security risk - same as the U.S. Supreme Court, through an Act of Congress, obtained for itself in 1925 an unlimited discretion to hear or not to hear appeals (in order not to address its entire caseload, but only to use their job to help friends, in exchange for benefits).

According to multiple rulings of the same U.S. Supreme Court, there is no standing of non-citizens located outside of the U.S. to contest a denial of entry into the U.S.

The Immigration and Nationality Act has no exemption for people who have "a bona fide relationship with a person or entity within the U.S."

And, the rule of no standing to foreigners outside of the U.S. cannot be miraculously changed by giving standing to the same people on the basis of their connection to people within the U.S., or by giving standing to people within the U.S. to contest restrictions on entry of foreigners outside of the U.S.

Not that the SCOTUS judges, obviously aspiring for new expenses-paid trips to Hawaii and other places, care about the law.

They had a job to do, the job they were bribed - oops, paid - oops, you understand - to do.

So, they created this interesting rule about the injunction applying not only to petitioners (who themselves had no standing, because they were not foreigners outside of the U.S. seeking entry), but also to all "similarly situated individuals" - even though cases in question were not certified as a class action.

But, again, who cares about the rule of law when you have a job to do to secure future all expenses paid trips, speeches, engagements, free book advertisements, additional teaching jobs, etc.?

You know how the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the threshold, central, focal, fundamental, jurisdictional issue of standing?

Guess.

It didn't address the issue at all, it ignored the issue.

I encourage my readers to word-search the text of the U.S. Supreme Court for the word "standing". 

I did.

The word "standing" is used there twice, in both cases when the U.S. Supreme Court mentions that the government raised the issue of standing.


Once the word standing is used here:

And once here:

That's it.

The court does not even attempt to discuss or resolve that threshold issue - like it does not exist.

Because, had it addressed the issue of standing, it would have had to dismiss the case, with sanctions against attorneys who brought it, for frivolous conduct.

The Immigration and Nationality Act gives no standing to states to contest denial of entry to foreign nationals - whether they are state universities' prospective students, employees or relatives of state residents.

Neither does the Immigration and Nationality Act give such standing to individuals within the country to contest denial of visas to competent foreign relatives outside the country.

As an example, try doing something on behalf of your relative in court - on behalf of a mother-in-law (as the U.S. Supreme Court allowed to Dr. Elshikh):

There is no such thing in the U.S. jurisprudence as a standing to sue on behalf of an in-law - when the in-law in question does not a standing of her own.

In fact, representation of a relative in court without a power of attorney (and there is no indication that Dr Elshikh sued on behalf of his mother in law on any kind of a power of attorney, not to mention that suing on the basis of a POA can be done only when the person on whose behalf you are suing has her own standing to sue) is considered a crime of unlawful practice of law. PRACTICING LAW.

So, did Dr Elshikh and "similarly situated individuals" engage, under the current laws of all jurisdictions in the U.S., in the crime of unauthorized practice of law when they sue on behalf of their relatives?

Apparently, yes.

And, apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court, the top regulator of the practice of law in the country, does not care.

Because, when your palm is well greased and you have an unlimited power, you will invent the law that the greasers needed.  Right?

And that's what was done.

Now Dr Elshikh and "similarly situated individuals" now, according to the ruling of the corrupt U.S. Supreme Court, in exchange for all-expenses-paid trips to the Hawaii Oceanside by justices and their families, now has a right to sue on behalf of their relatives, no matter how such a "right" violates the existing law.

So, the court gave third parties without standing to sue on behalf of foreigners outside of the U.S., who also do not have standing, the right to contest authority of the President of the U.S. clearly delineated by an Act of Congress, in order to secure its own freebies from state universities and colleges.

And that was done without ANY discussion and without ANY resolution of the issue of standing.

So, standing was invented where no standing existed, without discussion of standing.

And, an exemption as to "bona fide relationship with an individual or entity within the U.S." - an extremely vague and overbroad concept - was created by the court as an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act exactly 2 weeks after the court, in a previous case, acknowledged that it has no authority to amend an act of Congress (and that is true, according to the Article I and III of the U.S. Constitution that EVERY SINGLE U.S. Supreme Court "justice" is sworn to uphold).

A unanimous decision that the press is drooling over.

It is apparent that the U.S. Supreme Court, the way it exists today, in its "discretionary" capacity, is a corrupt and useless/harmful organization that needs to be dissolved and re-instituted with a mandatory caseload, enough judges to handle it, and strict prohibitions on corrupting such judges into making decisions that make no sense - but favor those who greased the judges' palms.

The discretionary US Supreme Court - via Gorsuch - announced that its job (as the US Constitution, Article III requires) is not to change statutory law, but only to apply it. What a fresh idea!

The new SCOTUS judge Neil Gorsuch is lauded by the press for authoring the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court claiming, among other things, that it is not the job of that court to change statutory law, but only to apply it.

While that is exactly what the U.S. Constitution, Article III and Article I say - Article I giving exclusive authority to legislate (create and amend federal laws) only to the U.S. Congress, Article III not giving similar authority to federal courts, including to the U.S. Supreme Court - the U.S. Supreme Court justices usually never follow what they were sworn and are paid to do.

First, the choice of cases.

You may not be aware that the "discretionary right" of the U.S. Supreme Court to take only cases they deem "worthy" for their pre-eminent review did not always exist.

It was given to the U.S. Supreme Court by the U.S. Congress only in 1925, on the request of the U.S. Supreme Court complaining that they have too many cases to review - too hard a job to do.

Instead of expanding the court to be able to handle all cases that come their way, or impeach justices who, in response to a growing caseload, asked to allow them NOT to give people an opportunity to be heard, the U.S. Congress condoned the justices claim for their right to be lazy and gave them the right for "discretionary" picking and choosing which cases they want or not want to hear on a final appeal.

And do they pick since then.

Imagine a completely discretionary job.

On the one hand, all SCOTUS judges are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution - which, by the way, does not include in it Supremacy Clause precedents of that same SCOTUS. 

On the other hand, by the Supreme Court Act of 1925, SCOTUS judges are at liberty not to do their job - not to take any required number of cases per year.

The 9 of them occupy a huge marble palace, are paid royal upkeep and are given a royal crowd of servants, but are not required to do a damned thing.  Literally.

All of their job is discretionary.

They can pick to hear one case per year if they want to - or not to find any one case worthy of their review in any given year at all.

They routinely toss meritorious cases, citing multiple violations of the U.S. Constitution by civil rights plaintiffs, and especially by pro se plaintiffs.

Yet, they routinely take cases of corporations - and I wonder how many of those fund their wining and dining, their and their families' trips, "scholarships", speaking engagements and careers.

So, let's look at the very "principled" decision of Justice Gorsuch.

The case the "discretionary court" has picked is of an auto debt collector.

You must agree that the non-payment of loans to people who lend money for consumers to buy cars is the most important constitutional problem in this country to tackle.

So, out of 8000 of petitions, most of which (99%) are not given any review, this one was picked, reviewed and decided, in favor of the debt collectors.

And in this case, Justice Gorsuch, getting in the high horse of the "rule of law", has stated that, once again,

• it is not for the Court to amend statutory law enacted by the U.S. Congress, and
• if the U.S. Congress wanted to include or exempt certain entities from the reach of a statute, it would have done it.

Great job.

But - wait a second, didn't the same U.S. Supreme Court find judicial, prosecutorial, "official", "sovereign", "qualified" and a zillion other types of "immunities" which the U.S. Congress DID NOT include into the Civil Rights Act.

Doesn't the same principle apply?

If the U.S. Congress wanted to include something into the statute, it would have?

No, for their own benefit, to give THEMSELVES, and other members of the government a free walk out of a liability under an act of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court found that it is impossible to even thing that the U.S. Congress could have forgotten to give out such immunities, so, if it didn't give such immunities in the text of the Civil Rights Act, it means a completely different thing in the immunity context than what Gorsuch said as applying to any other Act of Congress.

So, if it is an Act of Congress dealing with debt collectors - if the U.S. Congress did not include something into the statute, it is not court's business or authority to change that act of Congress.

Yet, if the Act of Congress did not include something that the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court (or other members of the government) crave for themselves, such as being above the law and immune from the reach of the same U.S. Constitution judges are allegedly protecting - then, the rule is completely different: the U.S. Supreme Court will insert, through interpretation, that the U.S. Congress could not possibly NOT imply what it clearly did not include into the text of the statute.

There is no reason to treat with adoration or awe the "discretionary" U.S. Supreme Court and its decisions - decisions that follow the law only when, in their "discretion", the Court "chooses" to help corporation against individuals.

In the absolute majority of cases the U.S. Supreme Court either refuses to deal with enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, tossing 99% of constitutional violations coming its way, or "sets the law for the whole country", openly usurping the exclusive right of the U.S. Congress to legislate under the U.S. Constitution.

And, in June of 2017, after SCOTUS announced, in a unanimous opinion issued on June 12, 2017 (in favor of debt collectors) that it has no authority to amend an Act of Congress, it did just that - and did it after judges of the court were vulgarly paid off to rule the way they did.

How it was done, I will describe in my next blog.

Stay tuned.

A politically charged criminal contempt proceeding continues against a defense attorney for questioning the judge's integrity in a DWI trial - and an arrest warrant is issued. Time to take attorney regulation, and criminal contempt powers, from the hands of the judiciary

In yet another case proving that regulation of the legal profession should be taken out of the hands of the judiciary, an attorney in Texas has been charged with criminal contempt for telling the jury that he is going to prove how hard it is to get a fair trial in court before Judge Nancy Hohengarten in Travis County, Texas.

This judge.

The targeted attorney is also a political opponent, running on a Green Party ticket for the Senate and previously running for a Criminal Appeals court seat.

The court actually issued an arrest warrant against the attorney because he did not appear at his own criminal trial because he was sick (and had documents from a doctor about it).

But, of course, judges nowadays are such good diagnosticians - without medical licenses of course (which is illegal, but who cares), and the judge "did not buy the ploy" of a documented medical illness of a criminal defense attorney.

I bet that if a prosecutor was ill, only her word, no medical documentation, would be needed to postpone the trial.

This case is certainly a 1st amendment case and a case where judges should be prohibited from bringing criminal charges against attorneys questioning their own impartiality.

Such tactics not only are obviously used for political ends, but undermine independence of representation in criminal (and civil) cases.

American men, and fathers, under the axe of a danger of fabricated sex abuse charges - at all times

Here is an interesting (and eerie) case from Oregon.

Prosecutors made a motion to recuse a judge from a sex abuse criminal case citing "a laundry list" of her alleged indiscretion, predominantly that she is allegedly "soft on criminals" and gives super-light sentences.

The prosecutors hold a grudge against the judge, because the judge acquitted a man charged with a nonsense sex abuse case against his own daughter:

To be charged for sexual abuse of your own child because:  

• the father allegedly kissed the daughter's neck; and
• the father allegedly "grabbed the child's buttock underneath her shorts"

is a nonsense charge to begin with, because reasonable doubt is spelled all over it.

There are a variety of circumstances when a parent can do both of these things without any criminal intent to commit a sex act on their own child.

A parent can grab the child either accidentally, or to prevent the child from falling, for example.

It is horrible how easily sex abuse cases may be manufactured in this country.

And, it is understandable (not in a good way) why prosecutors sought recusal of a judge "soft on criminals" - or who, apparently, may be requiring prosecutors to prosecute real charges instead of the horrible nonsense that they are making up, to the detriment of the people.

Is it ethical for a prosecutor to solicit a guilty plea from an exonerated prisoner in order to save their ass and prevent the state from being sued?

In Nevada, a man spent 29 years ON DEATH ROW - luckily, the state did not expedite his execution, as two recent cases with likely claims of innocence were.

Charles Robins, of Arizona, was arrested and went to prison, on death row, at the age of 19.

Of course, Charles Robins is black - African Americans predominate the death row population in the United States.

Charles Robins was convicted and sentenced to death for allegedly beating to death a 6-month-old child of his girlfriend.

Now new evidence emerged that the child may have died of childhood scurvy, a disease with symptoms mimicking symptoms of child abuse.

Since there is a question whether a child has died, in a 29-year-old case, where the body has long been buried and evidence destroyed - of a natural death, that is "reasonable doubt" that must prevent a criminal conviction.

But, that is not so in Charles Robins case.

He did not come out a free and exonerated person.

He came out a convicted murderer with time served.

Because prosecutors in the case considered it ethically possible to play on emotions of a person who was on death row for 29 years - obviously wrongfully - by re-charging him after the conviction was overturned, and offering him a plea bargain that he could not turn down: still plead to an unlawful killing and time served.

I wonder what Arizona State Bar has to say about behavior of prosecutors in this case?

Anything?

Is it suddenly ethical in Arizona to solicit a guilty plea to a murder in a case where reasonable doubt is spelled out by the new evidence - using the defendant's desire to get out of prison after nearly 30 years on death row?

The super-Democratic California's double-take on for profit prisons - forced labor for the poor and lavish paid accomodations for the rich prisoners

Oh, California, the land of the free!

The state suing President Trump for its right to defy federal immigration law, including criminal federal immigration law, while keeping discretionary federal funds.

The state disbarring attorneys for catching judges in corrupt schemes - like it was repeatedly done by California State Bar to:

• Dr Richard Fine, PhD, JD who was thrown in jail for nearly 2 years for correctly pointing out - and suing - Los Angeles judges for padding their state salaries with additional money from the Los Angeles County that appeared in front of them as a party, which was a clear bribe;
• Patricia Barry, the trailblazer who won in court for all American women a case protecting them against sexual harassment in employment;
• Henry James Koehler IV who has won for American fathers a right to be considered for joint custody of their children in custody proceedings by default.

The state where the California State Bar itself was stripped by the legislature of their power to collect licensing fees because of its own corruption - only to be overruled by the state Supreme Court that reinstated the money power in the corrupt State Bar.

This state has one more "access-to-justice" soft spot - for-profit prisons.

No, not only THOSE kinds of for-profit prisons where indigent prisoners are exploited as slave labor by well-known corporations, to the delight of American consumers "enjoying" the resulting "competitive" low prices.

California also has a different kind of for-profit prisons - for richer prisoners, providing for them accommodations that other prisoners do not have - for a fee.

If you want a "smaller, quieter jail", "away from prison population" - in other words, if you want to spend your time like a human being, not in an overpopulated, overcrowded and unsafe conditions - you need to pay, up to $155 a night (and those were 2013 prices).

Now the price per night is reportedly $250.

So, we have not only a for-profit prison system in the U.S. and in the "democratic" state of California, but a two-tier for-profit prison system - slavery for the poor and comfort-for-pay for the rich.