A New York town justice Paul Lamson was sentenced to jail after accepting sexual favors from reportedly TEN female litigants in exchange for favorable rulings.
TEN.
How could that possible happen?
Why wasn't the guy caught after the first such ruling? Were people who knew afraid to report it? Were people afraid to investigate or prosecute the judge until the number of victims grew so much that they could not longer ignore it?
And this is the second judge from the same locality who was convicted for the same crime?
The interesting part of it is not even that the judges were charged and convicted - that's a rarity in New York.
The interesting part is that both judges are "town justices" and not attorneys - so their conviction will not result in an automatic disbarment for either one of them.
Yet, no judge in New York for many years was convicted of a felony, saving them from disbarments, and even the judge who was convicted (in a federal court sitting in New Jersey), Sol Wachtler, was given his attorney license back.
I will not believe for one second that judges above the level of town justices do not commit crimes.
Yet, judges above the level of town justices, judges who are attorneys, are regulators of the NYS AG's and county prosecutors' own law licenses.
And, for that reason, their criminal prosecution, no matter how bad their crimes, will not result in a felony conviction and disbarment.
No matter how the NYS AG pounds his chest in claiming that he is the defender of human rights.
He is a coward.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
On Masterpiece Cakeshop, discretionary enforcement of the U.S. Constitution and the right of every individual to have their constitutional rights enforced
I wrote today about two U.S. Supreme Court cases, which the court chose out of 8,000 petitions, 99% of which the court tosses (it decides about 70 cases out of over 8,000 filed each year).
One of the cases chosen by the U.S. Supreme Court was decided in favor of debt collectors.
There, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it has no power to amend an Act of Congress.
The other case was against the Trump administration where the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review jurisdictional threshold issues and instead amended (without authority) another Act of Congress, after its justices received multiple benefits over the years from one of Trump's opponents, the State of Hawaii University School of Law, and after Justice Ginsburg has actually made a trip while one of the related cases was being decided by the lower appellate courts and had "meetings with faculty" of that state law school (part of the party in litigation in front of her), while the "faculty" included 3 law clerks of the judge of the federal appellate court deciding the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled in June on LGBT rights of same-sex couples, continuing the line of cases started by its decision in 2015 in Obergefell v Hodges, just one precedent so far on the issue of gay rights.
The issue in Pavan v Smith decided on June 26, 2017 was that a male spouse is considered by default a parent and is included on the child's birth certificate, whether the child is or is not the male spouse's biological child, but a female same-sex spouse is not so included on the birth certificate of the child by default.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced that, out of the 8,000 petitions filed, it has chosen yet another gay-rights case, verifying whether a cake-shop owner had a right to refuse to decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Yet, the same U.S. Supreme Court, while paying lip service to prohibiting the government to regulate speech based on its content, stubbornly refuses to take up any whistleblower cases against the government - and thus refuses to uphold a long string of its own precedents.
There are PLENTY of U.S. Supreme Court precedents indicating that the government cannot regulate speech based on its content - yet, this year, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to apply this principle not to whistleblower/retaliation cases, but to cases of credit card companies charging extra fees, and, lately, the right to trademark derogatory names.
It comes to the point that many people in the whistleblower community who have suffered retaliation from the government for criticism of misconduct of government officials expressed (even though discreetly) in their communications that, unless you are gay or transgender, nowadays it is impossible to get a review from the U.S. Supreme Court.
And such a resentment is understandable.
Nobody - nobody - should be given a free right to choose whose constitutional rights are to be enforced, and whose to be ignored.
Yet, that is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court is doing, based on the 1925 Judiciary Act.
Choosing cases favoring debt collectors, credit card companies, "Wonder Doodles", birth certificates for gay rights, have much less impact on society than establishing, once and for all, access to justice for all by prohibiting the government to yank occupational licenses of attorneys who criticize judges IN MOTIONS TO RECUSE - yet, that is happening left and right, such attorneys are left without jobs, without money, without opportunities of employment, while the public is left without independent representation, because attorneys that remain license are intimidated that the same will happen to them if they do their job properly.
And, of course, ruling in favor of attorneys - or other whistleblowers against the government - will require honest, integrity, courage, and neutrality, while the U.S. Supreme Court, very apparently, lacks all of the above.
People, including same sex couples, will continue to get into situations where judicial bias and corruption will require to file a motion to recuse.
Yet, people will continue to run into reluctance of attorneys to do that because judges are both regulators of their livelihoods and decision-makers in court cases, which creates an untenable situation where attorneys cannot dare do their jobs and ensure for their clients their constitutional right to impartial judicial review, for fear of losing their own livelihoods.
That is a countrywide human rights problem, which the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to address.
Instead, it addresses issues whether it is constitutional when an artist is being punished for refusing to create a piece of art on a certain topic - a clear case of politically-correct compulsion of artistic expression.
It may be a violation of the artists' 1st Amendment rights. And, it is an obviously frivolous lawsuit.
An artist may refuse to create a work of art for you for any reason, including lack of inspiration, which cannot be commanded.
Think about it. Will you sue an artist for lack of inspiration regarding you?
With the current amount of political unrest in our society, it will be for everyone's benefit to abolish the 1925 Judiciary Act and make ALL petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court mandatory, so that people would not feel resentment that a gay couple - yet again - is given review while a whistleblower against the government - yet again - is denied review of glaring violations of constitutional rights.
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court, whose judges are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, should not be given a free reign as to which constitutional violation to address and which to ignore.
Not to mention that if the Court wants any kind of respect for upholding its own precedents, it should actually do that in all cases.
Not only for those who can afford to pay (taxpayer money) for the judges' vacations, for those represented by the judges' former law clerks, or for those whose cases will get the most publicity for the judges, and thus more opportunities for judges' paid speeches and readership for their books.
Let us make the U.S. Supreme Court actually work.
One of the cases chosen by the U.S. Supreme Court was decided in favor of debt collectors.
There, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it has no power to amend an Act of Congress.
The other case was against the Trump administration where the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review jurisdictional threshold issues and instead amended (without authority) another Act of Congress, after its justices received multiple benefits over the years from one of Trump's opponents, the State of Hawaii University School of Law, and after Justice Ginsburg has actually made a trip while one of the related cases was being decided by the lower appellate courts and had "meetings with faculty" of that state law school (part of the party in litigation in front of her), while the "faculty" included 3 law clerks of the judge of the federal appellate court deciding the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled in June on LGBT rights of same-sex couples, continuing the line of cases started by its decision in 2015 in Obergefell v Hodges, just one precedent so far on the issue of gay rights.
The issue in Pavan v Smith decided on June 26, 2017 was that a male spouse is considered by default a parent and is included on the child's birth certificate, whether the child is or is not the male spouse's biological child, but a female same-sex spouse is not so included on the birth certificate of the child by default.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced that, out of the 8,000 petitions filed, it has chosen yet another gay-rights case, verifying whether a cake-shop owner had a right to refuse to decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Yet, the same U.S. Supreme Court, while paying lip service to prohibiting the government to regulate speech based on its content, stubbornly refuses to take up any whistleblower cases against the government - and thus refuses to uphold a long string of its own precedents.
There are PLENTY of U.S. Supreme Court precedents indicating that the government cannot regulate speech based on its content - yet, this year, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to apply this principle not to whistleblower/retaliation cases, but to cases of credit card companies charging extra fees, and, lately, the right to trademark derogatory names.
It comes to the point that many people in the whistleblower community who have suffered retaliation from the government for criticism of misconduct of government officials expressed (even though discreetly) in their communications that, unless you are gay or transgender, nowadays it is impossible to get a review from the U.S. Supreme Court.
And such a resentment is understandable.
Nobody - nobody - should be given a free right to choose whose constitutional rights are to be enforced, and whose to be ignored.
Yet, that is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court is doing, based on the 1925 Judiciary Act.
Choosing cases favoring debt collectors, credit card companies, "Wonder Doodles", birth certificates for gay rights, have much less impact on society than establishing, once and for all, access to justice for all by prohibiting the government to yank occupational licenses of attorneys who criticize judges IN MOTIONS TO RECUSE - yet, that is happening left and right, such attorneys are left without jobs, without money, without opportunities of employment, while the public is left without independent representation, because attorneys that remain license are intimidated that the same will happen to them if they do their job properly.
And, of course, ruling in favor of attorneys - or other whistleblowers against the government - will require honest, integrity, courage, and neutrality, while the U.S. Supreme Court, very apparently, lacks all of the above.
People, including same sex couples, will continue to get into situations where judicial bias and corruption will require to file a motion to recuse.
Yet, people will continue to run into reluctance of attorneys to do that because judges are both regulators of their livelihoods and decision-makers in court cases, which creates an untenable situation where attorneys cannot dare do their jobs and ensure for their clients their constitutional right to impartial judicial review, for fear of losing their own livelihoods.
That is a countrywide human rights problem, which the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to address.
Instead, it addresses issues whether it is constitutional when an artist is being punished for refusing to create a piece of art on a certain topic - a clear case of politically-correct compulsion of artistic expression.
It may be a violation of the artists' 1st Amendment rights. And, it is an obviously frivolous lawsuit.
An artist may refuse to create a work of art for you for any reason, including lack of inspiration, which cannot be commanded.
Think about it. Will you sue an artist for lack of inspiration regarding you?
With the current amount of political unrest in our society, it will be for everyone's benefit to abolish the 1925 Judiciary Act and make ALL petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court mandatory, so that people would not feel resentment that a gay couple - yet again - is given review while a whistleblower against the government - yet again - is denied review of glaring violations of constitutional rights.
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court, whose judges are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, should not be given a free reign as to which constitutional violation to address and which to ignore.
Not to mention that if the Court wants any kind of respect for upholding its own precedents, it should actually do that in all cases.
Not only for those who can afford to pay (taxpayer money) for the judges' vacations, for those represented by the judges' former law clerks, or for those whose cases will get the most publicity for the judges, and thus more opportunities for judges' paid speeches and readership for their books.
Let us make the U.S. Supreme Court actually work.
New York partially upholds its right to underfund public schools - while suing the federal government to fund those same public schools. 10th Amendment, full speed
After Donald Trump became President of the U.S., the so-called "resistance" swamped federal courts with various lawsuits against him - not because the President was doing something wrong (the "wrongs" alleged were the same "wrongs" that the Obama administration was doing all along), but because the backers of the "resistance" did not get to the trough - oops, the wheel.
One of the type of lawsuits currently litigated across the country against Donald Trump, is for denying discretionary federal funds to states, including for public education that must be financed by states, not by the federal government.
Amazingly, these frivolous lawsuits are asserted under the 10th Amendment - which actually gives the state the right to act on their own in deciding issues of care and safety of their residents, and with the right comes an obligation to financially provide for such care.
But, anyway, the states are suing the feds under the 10th Amendment claiming that denial of discretionary federal funds will cripple state efforts to fund public education.
Great.
The interesting wrinkle on this argument in New York though is that recently some parents in New York City sued New York State, under the State Constitution, for failing to properly fund public schools.
The case reached all the way to the top court of the state, the New York Court of Appeals, which heard it and, while having dismissed two causes of action, remanded (allowed to proceed) a cause of action challenging "the adequacy of defendant State's education funding accountability mechanisms”.
That's the "education funding accountability mechanisms" of the same State that claims, like a leech, an entitlement to get federal funds to put into the same hole.
Will New York now lose its federal lawsuit regarding its alleged "entitlement" to put more federal money down that same hole without trying to device "education funding accountability mechanisms"?
One of the type of lawsuits currently litigated across the country against Donald Trump, is for denying discretionary federal funds to states, including for public education that must be financed by states, not by the federal government.
Amazingly, these frivolous lawsuits are asserted under the 10th Amendment - which actually gives the state the right to act on their own in deciding issues of care and safety of their residents, and with the right comes an obligation to financially provide for such care.
But, anyway, the states are suing the feds under the 10th Amendment claiming that denial of discretionary federal funds will cripple state efforts to fund public education.
Great.
The interesting wrinkle on this argument in New York though is that recently some parents in New York City sued New York State, under the State Constitution, for failing to properly fund public schools.
The case reached all the way to the top court of the state, the New York Court of Appeals, which heard it and, while having dismissed two causes of action, remanded (allowed to proceed) a cause of action challenging "the adequacy of defendant State's education funding accountability mechanisms”.
That's the "education funding accountability mechanisms" of the same State that claims, like a leech, an entitlement to get federal funds to put into the same hole.
Will New York now lose its federal lawsuit regarding its alleged "entitlement" to put more federal money down that same hole without trying to device "education funding accountability mechanisms"?
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":
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.
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,
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.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)