Russia tries hard to step on the same rake that already deprived Americans of independent court representation. The case of attorney #VitaliyBurkin and expansion of attorney monopoly in Russia - with the urging of the American Bar Association

Since its inception in 2014, this blog is dedicated to promoting independence of court representatives, the in the United States and not only.

I repeatedly write about cases when such independence is infringed upon and especially in cases where attorneys are disciplined for criticism of their own regulator (in the U.S.) - courts and judges.

Punishment of attorneys in the U.S. for criticism of the judiciary have become a practically routine occurrence.  I wrote about some statistics of that "phenomenon" here. 

I will repost the names of attorneys I know from my own research and from research of law professor Margaret Tarkington here.

Prof. Tarkington in her law review article on attorney speech lists 48 cases from 28 states where attorneys were sanctioned for criticism of judges, from 1877 to 2007.

Kansas	1877	In re Pryor, 18 Kan. 72
California	1911	In re Shay, 160 Cal. 399
New Jersey	1930	In re Glauberman, 107 N. J. Eq. 384, 152, Atl. 650
California	1934	In re Friday, 138 Cal. App. 660, 32 P.2d 1117
Wyoming	1945	State Board of Law Exam'rs v. Spriggs, 155 P.2d 285
Iowa	1964	In re Glenn, 256 Iowa 1233
New Mexico	1966	In re Meeker, 76 N.M. 354, 414 P.2d 862
Nevada	1971	In re Raggio, 87 Nev. 369
Florida	1973	In re Shimeck, 284 So. 2d 686, 690
Iowa	1976	In re Frerichs, 238 N.W.2d 764, 769-70
South Dakota	1979	In re Lacey, 283 N.W.2d 250
California	1980	Ramirez v. State Bar of Cal., 28 Cal.3d 402
Iowa	1980	Comm. On Prof'l Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Horak, 292 N.W.2d 129
Kentucky	1980	Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Heleringer, 602 S.W.2d 165, 168
Kentucky (another)	1980	Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Nall, 599 S.W.2d 899
Louisiana	1983	La. State Bar Ass'n v. Karst, 428 So.2d 406
Tennessee	1983	Farmer v. Board of Prof'l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 660 S.W.2d 490
Maryland?	1986	In re Evans, 801 F.2d 703 (4th Cir. 1986) (disbarred from USDC for district of Maryland), footnote 15
Tennessee	1989	Ramsey v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, 771 S.W.2d 116
Minnesota	1990	In re Graham, 453 N.W.2d 313
Missouri	1991	In re Westfall, 808 S.W.2d 829, 833-34
New York	1991	In re Holtzman, 78 N.Y.2d 184
West Virginia	1991	Committee on Legal Ethics of the W. Va. State Bar v. Farber, 408 S.E.2d 274
California	1993	Peters v. State Bar of Cal., 219 Cal. 218
Indiana	1993	In re Becker, 620 N.E.2d 691
Washington?	1993	S. Dist. Ct. for E.D. of Wash. V. Sandlin, 12 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 1993)
Indiana	1994	In re Antanga, 636 N.E.2d 1253
Indiana (another)	1994	In re Garringer, 626 N.E.2d 809
California?	1995	Standing Committee on Discipline for the U.S.Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. Cal. V. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 1437 (9th Cir. 1995)
Idaho	1996	Idaho State Bar v. Topp, 129 Idaho 414
Iowa	1996	Iowa Sup. Ct. Board of Prof'l Ethics and Conduct v. Ronwin, 557 N.W.2d 515
Kentucky	1996	Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Waller, 929 S.W.2d 181
Indiana	1999	In re Reed, 716 N.E.2d 426
Delaware	2000	In re Guy, 756 A.2d 875
Florida	2001	Fla. Bar v. Ray, 797 So.2d 556
Indiana	2001	In re McCellan, 754 N.E.2d 500 ("McClellan" in fn 39)
Indiana	2002	In re Wilkins, 777 N.E.2d 714
Kansas	2002	In re Arnold, 274 Kan. 761
Ohio	2003	Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416, 793 N.E.2d 425
Louisiana	2005	In re Simon, 913 So.2d 816
Massachussetts	2005	In re Cobb, 445 Mass. 452
Michigan	2006	Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 719 N.W.2d 123
Minnesota	2006	In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct involving File No. 17139, 720 N.W.2d 807
Arkansas	2007	Stilley v. Sup. Ct. Comm. On Prof'l Conduct, 370 Ark. 294
Delaware	2007	In re Abbott, 925 A.2d 482
Kansas	2007	In re Pyle, 283 Kan. 807, 156 P.3d 1231
Utah	2007	Peters v. Pine Meadows Ranch Home, 151 P.3d 962
Utah (another)	2007	Utah v. Santana-Ruiz, 167 p.3d 1038, 1044

Additionally, through my own research I found 33 cases from 14 states:

John E. Wofgram	California	Attorney challenging the concept of judicial immunity as unconstitutional and who sided with the "Jail for Judges" movement seeking state constitutional amendments to abolish judicial immunity - by legal process	1989
Dr. Richard Fine	California	Disbarred, incarcerated and held in solitary confinement for exposure of judicial corruption	2009
George Sassower	New York	Disbarred for exposing judicial corruption, held in contempt, bankrupted	1988
Doris Sassower	New York	Suspended after she filed an appeal of a dismissal of lawsuit on behalf of clients challenging impropriety of cross-endorsing judges by multiple parties in judicial elections	1991
Doug Schafer	Washington	Suspended for reporting judicial corruption	2003
Barbara Johnson	Massachussets	Disbarred after she ran for the seat of the State Governor on a platform of judicial reform and cleaning up judicial corruption	2006
Eugene Wrona	Pennsylvania	disbarred for calling a judge a "domestic terrorist"	2006
Zena Crenshaw-Logal	Indiana	Suspended for “making false allegations against judges”	2007
John A. Aretakis	New York	The attorney who exposed child molestation by Catholic priests, was suspended for making motions to recuse and defaming the Catholic priests	2008
David Roosa Sean Conway	New York Florida	Criticized a judge for misconduct in assigning cases only to attorneys who will not do discovery, motions and trials for their clients Suspended for calling a criminal court judge who gave only a week to prepare for a criminal trial after indictment, an "evil, unfair witch"	2009
Andy Ostrowski	Pennsylvania	Criticized and continues to criticize judicial misconduct in publications and a radio show, ran for the U.S. Congress on the platform of judicial reform, is being repeatedly denied reinstatement on those grounds	2010
Lanre Amu, a Nigerian lawyer	Illinois	Made a complaint against a Circuit Judge	2011
Frederick J Neroni	New York	Disbarred after his law partner and wife criticized a judge for apparent bribery, the judge's former law parnter, a local criminal prosecutor, threatened Mr. Neroni to withdraw a criminal appeal raising the same issues, not to "burn the bridges", Mr. Neroni was disbarred after he refused to do that	2011
Jeffrey Norkin	Florida	suspended in 2013 "for making threatening and disparaging statements to a judge", and then disbarred	2013
Leon Koziol	New York	repeatedly denied reinstatement for testimony against judicial corruption before the Moreland Commission, publications and rallies criticizing judicial misconduct in Family Courts	2013
Don Bailey	Pennsylvania	Criticized federal judges in pleadings	2013
Robert Serafinowicz	Connecticut	Suspended for 120 days for criticizing a judge in an email, making a motion to recuse and filing a complaint agains the judge with state disciplinary authorities	2014
Kenneth Ditkowski	Illinois	Suspended for criticizing judicial corruption in probate courts	2014
Paul Ogden	Indiana	suspended for an e-mail criticizing a judge, ordered to pay giant disciplinary cost of proceedings	2014
James Albert Frost	Maryland	Suspended for impugning integrity of judges and disciplinary prosecutors	2014
Michele MacDonald Shimota	Minnesota	Was arrested in the courthouse by order of a judge she sought to recuse and sued, sexually abused in the holding cell, forced into a wheelchair, stripped of glasses, shoes, files, wheeled into the courtroom and forced to represent a client this way	2014
Robert Grundstein	Washington	Disbarred for criticism of judicial corruption in Ohio courts	2014
Stephen L. Hall	West Virginia	Suspended for 3 months for criticizing judges	2014
Erwin Rosenberg	Florida	Suspension time increased from what was recommended after attorney moved to disqualify the judge-referee	2015
JoAnne Marie Denison	Illinois	Suspended for 3 years for exposure of corruption in probate courts through blogs	2015
Nanine McCool	Louisiana	Disbarred after running for a judicial seat, then criticizing a judge in motions to recuse	2015
Tatiana Neroni	New York	Suspended for criticizing a judge for apparent misconduct and corruption in motions to recuse	2015
Kathleen Kane	Pennsylvania	revealed judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in e-mails, was suspended by the judge she outed, the judge resigned after suspending her	2015
Kevin A. McKenna	Rhode Island	Suspended for 1 year for criticism of judges	2015
David Dow	Texas	An attorney who exposed misconduct of Judge Sharon Keller who refused the last-minute death appeal by a statement "we close at 5" - was held in contempt and blocked from appearing in death penalty cases	2015
Russel Stookey	Georgia	Charged with a felony for seeking public records of a court operating account to expose judicial misconduct	2016
Christine Mire	Louisiana	Suspended for well-founded criticism of a judge, based on documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses that indicated that the judge altered or caused to alter court audio files of a judicial proceedings protecting herself from allegations that she did not disclose the judge's irreconcilable conflict of interest	2016
Ty Clevenger	Texas	attorney who exposed sexual misconduct of federal judge Walter Smith and insisted on reopening of his case and speeding investigation once the case was reopened	2016

Conceptual support of such punishment is exceptionally poor. 

After all, the 1st Amendment prohibits infringement upon speech, and the prohibition is absolute.

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court, as it usually does, did invent exceptions to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and amended the Bill of Rights by inventing, instead of a direct prohibition to infringe upon the freedom of speech, "tests" as to when such infringement is prohibited, and when it can be allowed.

But, even under the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence, content-based regulation of speech must be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny, the strict scrutiny - and that applies to even the type of speech that the U.S. Supreme Court gives the lowest type of protection, commercial speech.

Not in cases of attorney discipline though. 

The U.S. Supreme Court routinely refuses to hear such cases, thus allowing states courts and lower federal courts to keep a fear grip on the bar and undermine independence of court representation.

After all, it is unreasonable to expect from an attorney such a level of self-sacrifice (and sacrifice of his family's well-being, too) that, for the sake of faithful representation of one client he would risk losing years of investment of time, effort and money into his profession. 

It is not reasonable to expect an average attorney to accept that risk of losing his attorney status, especially in the country where a motion to recuse a judge may land you without a law license, as it regularly happens in the U.S. (in the case of John Aretakis in New York, Christine Mire in Louisiana and many others) and blacklisted not only from working in a law office, even as a driver or a plumber, but also from all other regulated professions - which take in the U.S., by conservative assessments, from 25% to 30% of the market.

In other words, if you criticize a judge, you risk leaving yourself without any ability to earn a decent income for life.

The situation is aggravated by the fact that, as regulators of attorneys, American courts invented or pushed through legislatures (also permeated by attorneys as senators and advisers to senators) laws restricting or eliminating attorneys' rights to appeal disciplinary decisions. 

And, since the U.S. did not fully ratify the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, there is no possibility for disciplined American attorneys to obtain or even seek an out-of-the-country review of such decisions, stripping them of their livelihood for doing their job as attorneys and citizens - as attorneys from other countries, including Belarus and Russia, may do.

For example, the United Nations Commission of Human Rights fairly recently reversed denial of a law license by Belarus to Mechislav Gryb for criticism of the government.

And, the European Court of Human Rights fairly recently reversed disbarment of a Russian attorney Igor Kabanov for, among other things, criticism of a judge.

Not so in the U.S. 

With

• no meaningful court review,
• no right to a jury trial,
• no right to appeal,
• a review of attorney disciplinary cases by competitors and not by consumers of the attorney and without any decisionmaking authority by consumers of attorney's services, and with
• the statistics of the overwhelming majority of disciplinary cases against attorneys disciplined for criticism of the judiciary decided against attorneys, attorneys are forced to operate in a self-preservation mode. 

And keep their heads low as far as criticism of the judiciary goes.

To the point of letting known bad violations of human rights proceed - as it happened in Kids-for-Cash scandal in Pennsylvania - rather than criticize a judge, as Professor Jonathan Turley and Indiana attorney Paul Ogden (himself punished for criticism of the judiciary) point out.

Attorneys are not only deadly afraid to report judicial misconduct - ask a law professor what to do if a judge in front of you is committing misconduct, and he will tell you (as professors told many of my readers who asked that question) that to report judicial misconduct or challenge it in any way would be a "professional suicide" - they are proud of their "record" of never reporting judicial misconduct.

For example, one attorney I interviewed recently about his ordeal with trying to get open records for his client from the court system and getting arrested instead, proudly stated that he has never complained about judicial misconduct of any judges, even when that misconduct hurt him personally.

Given that the attorney practiced for a lifetime, and, naturally, must have seen a lot of judicial misconduct, especially after 1978, when American judges granted themselves immunity from malicious and corrupt acts, and judicial misconduct was thus encouraged, that proud statement did not sound that good.

Rather, it was a sign of operating, for a lifetime, in a forced self-preservation, survival mode, the so-called "defensive lawyering" - as compared to "defensive doctoring", doing certain procedures not to help the patient (client), but to, at the same time, charge money and protect yourself from punishment.  That's not a good thing - not in doctoring, not in lawyering. 

And, that is definitely not a good sign for consumers of legal services in need of a rigorous defenders of their constitutional right to impartial judicial review, and their constitutional right to a vigorous court defense in cases fought in court against the government, a powerful opponent with unlimited financial resources.

It is understandable that lawyers do not pay money for their law education to become penniless martyrs because of one case where a motion to recuse needs to be filed, and, as a result, that there are not many kamikazes who would want to criticize a judge, no matter how badly the client's case requires it.

The bar across the country is intimidated and trembling, keeping silent when such discipline is imposed upon lawyers, provides no support to such lawyers, instead, instantly casts them out of attorney organizations, such as the ABA and New York State Bar Association, and even rescinds book offers for foreign attorneys who were punished for their civil rights activities by obviously politically oppressive regimes - for financial and political reasons.

And, while the bar is silent, consumers of legal services suffer. 

Because the right to not just any judicial review, but to an impartial judicial review is a constitutional right - and when your lawyer is afraid to make a motion to recuse a biased or corrupt judge for fear of losing his income forever, your right to an impartial judicial review is shot.  It is simply non-existent. 

And quashing this constitutional right wouldn't have been possible without attorney monopoly, where court representation is restricted only to people who are approved - or disapproved - by the same judiciary that they are supposed to challenge in objections, motions to recuse and appeals.

Well, unfortunately, this example of keeping the bar "in check" appeared to be contagious for another country. 

Actually, Russia appears to be borrowing this American rake to step upon it - and, as it will be shown below, with the help of the American Bar Association whose members priced themselves out of the shrinking U.S. market of legal services and are now preparing expansion into the Russian market, clinching it for themselves by pushing through the American model of attorney monopoly.

A good illustration of how that attorney monopoly will hurt consumers of legal services in both criminal and civil proceedings, and out of court, too, is the case of Russian attorney from the city of Ufa in the Republic of Bashkortostan.

This past week, a young and talented criminal defense attorney, Vitaliy Burkin, was stripped of his attorney status - and instantly removed from tens of criminal cases - because of his open and sharp criticism of judges and judicial system.

What were his particular faux pas?

In July of 2017 he posted on social media a picture of three expensive cars illegally parked on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bakhkortostan in the city of Ufa.  Not only he posted a picture on the media, but he also called for the tow service and had them towed.

The illegally parked, and towed, vehicles, belonged to a judge and two prosecutors.

Of course, Vitaliy Burkin said in a video interview that he does not believe that judges would be so petty as to exact revenge against him for having their vehicles towed. 





Yet, it appears that Russian judges and prosecutors are made from the same ... materials as judges in the U.S. and no petty revenge is beneath them.

Even more so that Vitaliy Burkin not only had their vehicles towed for illegal parking, that was the last drop.  He also criticized - and asked the federal Attorney General of Russia to criminally prosecute - high-ranking judges of the Republic of Bashkortostan who illegally transferred some real estate to themselves.

Vitaliy Burkin also publicly made a stand against oppressive judicial decisions which were not based on the law - does it ring a bell, my American readers?

And, during review by the European Court of Human Rights of the case of Oxana Semenova, a prison inmate and a cancer patient who was denied treatment and painkillers by Russia prison authorities, Vitaliy Burkin had the duty (no, the audacity, apparently) to raise the same issues of denying cancer treatment to his client, a pre-trial detainee.

And, the most grievous error of Vitaliy Burkin's ways was, and that's his own assessment in his video interview embedded above, that he is actually a very good criminal defense attorney who undermined the conviction count for the local prosecutors by getting "too many" acquittals or reversals of convictions on appeal.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against Russia in Oxana Semenova's case on October 3, 2017.  According to Russian sources, Oxana Semenova was diagnosed in prison with cervical cancer, the prison hospital lacked medical license, ability to treat cancer (radiation therapy equipment and personnel), or painkillers.  The court refused to authorize a medical release Oxana Semenova to obtain medical treatment outside the prison system, and she died in prison.  The complaint to the ECHR was made on behalf of her 14-year-old daughter.

On the same date, October 3, 2017, ECHR ruled against Russia on a freedom of speech and expression issue, ruling as unlawful conviction of a newspaper editor for publishing statements by "two Chechen separatist leaders". 

On the same date, October 3, 2017, ECHR made yet another decision against Russia on violation of free speech, declaring as unlawful "defamation proceedings against an editorial house and a journalist following the publication of two articles concerning the sinking of the Russian Navy's nuclear cruise missile submarine "Kursk" in the Barents Sea in August 2000 and the investigation into the accident".

Americans can only envy Russian, as well as other countries who have access to an out-of-the-country review of inside-the-country human rights violations, since Americans do not have such a right.

Even though in America, inmates are also denied medical care, but, due to severe procedural restrictions (15 days to file a grievance in the same jail where you are kept and face the risk of retaliation for that, in order to preserve your right to sue for human rights violations) created by the Prison Litigation Reform Act and federal law allowing federal judges to toss prisoner lawsuits as "frivolous" before they are even served, on subjective grounds, such cases, unless some powerful organization turns its eye at them, do not even get reported, much less get reviewed by any international human rights organizations.

And, even though in America,

• people are persecuted, and viciously, for critical publications against the government, as it happened last year to journalist Mark Thomason of Georgia (see also my blogs this month about #JudgeBrendaWeaver),
• persecuted for filming police misconduct, as it happened to Maurice "Mo" Crawley and Adam Rupeka in New York, legislator John Walker in Arkansas and the legislator's lawyer Omavi Kushukuru;
• criminal cases are fabricated against them, as it happened to #MarkThomason, his attorney Russell Stookey in Georgia, Maurice "Mo" Crawley and blogger #AdamRupeka in New York last year, and
• when people are, to all appearances (because no meaningful investigations are happening in such cases, so what remains are only appearances) assassinated, as it very likely happened to
• Sunny Shue in New York after repeatedly reporting on judicial misconduct and starting investigations of a New York judge's property holdings,
• as it happened in New York last year to vigorous critic of police misconduct Adam Rupeka, and
• as it happened recently to attorney #PatrickMissud in California who actively criticized judges, up to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts, and was mysteriously found dead in jail when detained before trial where he was supposed to testify in a case of "criminal threats against a judge"

 - victims of such persecution and their families lack the right of out-of-the-country review, and in-the-country review of such things usually leads to dismissals, if not with sanctions, because nothing that the government (and especially the judiciary) does in the U.S. may be deemed bad.

Russian government at the very least allowed Russian citizens to sue itself in an outside forum, the European Court of Human Rights.

Nevertheless, victories in free speech lawsuits against Russia at the beginning of this month did not prevent, and, very possibly, accelerated what happened to attorney Vitaliy Burkin, as a method of intimidation of all other potential critics of the government in Russia.

In two and a half weeks, Vitaliy Burkin, the "troublemaker", was stripped of his "advocate status" and removed from criminal cases.

By the "Chamber of Advocates", an association of his competitors.

While having done NOTHING WRONG in representation of his clients - and regulation of the legal profession in Russia, as well as in the United States, was introduced on the pretext of protecting consumers of their services.

Apparently, his clients suffered, same as clients suffer in the United States, when their chosen, competent and courageous attorneys, usually independent solo or small-firm criminal defense or civil rights attorneys, are removed for criticism of the judiciary.

And, apparently, same as in the United States, nobody asked Vitaliy Burkin's clients whether they would agree to removal of Vitaliy Burkin from their cases.

Somehow, the decision of who would represent their interests in court was taken out of their hands and given to competitors of their own attorneys, and very possibly, to their opponents in litigation, since - remember? - Vitaliy Burkin, after all, called a tow truck upon a couple of prosecutors, one with the same last name as the Deputy Chief Attorney General of the Republic of Bashkortostan.

"Coincidentally", at the time of persecution of Vitaliy Burkin, lawyer lobby was actively trying to push through the Russian Legislature (the Duma) various types of attorney monopoly - similar to what already exists in Russia, and, similarly to the U.S., without any sunrise review and without any verification with consumers of legal services whose rights such attorney monopoly is claimed to protect, whether consumers want attorneys to guard the chicken coop. 

It is interesting to see the supposedly unrelated interaction of Vitaliy Burkin's case with what is happening in the Duma.

As soon as Vitaliy Burkin was told that he was stripped of attorney status - without actually giving him, according to Vitaliy Burkin, the written decision with reasoning about such an extraordinary punishment - Vitaliy Burkin made a public statement in an interview with journalist Stas Michailov.

In that interview, attorney Burkin, in answer to the journalist's question whether he is going to undertake steps to restore his "advocate status", answered that the "advocate status" does not make much difference in his work since he can still work as a lawyer without being a court criminal defense attorney.

In Russia, attorney monopoly at this time concerns only representation in criminal court, specifically appearances in court, and not consulting, giving legal advice, preparing documents, and representing people in arbitration and civil court proceedings.

But, attorney Burkin may be out of luck in his hopes that he was stripped only of the status of criminal defense court attorney.

According to reports of Russian business newspaper "Kommersant", a new bill in the works - to spread attorney monopoly exactly the same way as it exists in the U.S., to cover all those things that were not (yet) stripped from attorney Burkin.

If that is passed, competitors and the government will have an opportunity to remove independent Russian attorneys not only from criminal cases, but also from arbitration, civil and, especially, from civil rights cases - and prohibit attorneys to so much as peep a legal opinion or give legal advice to people, or draft any documents.

And, the interesting thing is that such a bill appeared after you know who vigorously toiled to teach Russian attorney bureaucracy and judiciary about "the rule of law"? 

The American Bar Association that has a death grip upon attorney monopoly in the United States, notwithstanding the "justice gap" that such an attorney monopoly produces for people.

The ABA, through its "Rule of Law" project and its exceptionally interesting director, Gleb Glinka, husband of the recently (allegedly) deceased Dr. Lisa, who has his own very interesting ties in top tiers of both the U.S. and the Russian government, brought American own corrupt judges to lecture to the Russian judges how to rule the legal profession better, engage in corruption and escape accountability for that, brought Russian judges back to America for tours (I translated in one of them, where judges came from the Astrakhan region). 

In view of the ABA turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the fate of attorneys who suffered for criticism of the country in the ABA's own country, and in other countries - which is reflected in the ABA's policy of membership to accept only attorneys "in good standing" with their own governments, even if those governments are oppressive dictatorships, and in view of the recent testimony in the U.S. Congress about the ABA's reneging a book offer to a Chinese civil rights attorney, obviously in an effort not to ruffle the feathers of Chinese government and not to jeopardize business prospects of its members in China - the recently concluded "Rule of Law" project of the ABA in Russia was not any kind of charity to sermonize to the supposedly uneducated Russian lawyers and judges what the rule of law is - but a purely business venture.

The ABA was pushing through the American model of attorney regulation in Russia notwithstanding the fact that attorney monopoly enriching politically connected attorneys in the United States, makes the majority of Americans go to court without an attorney or forego their legal rights completely, since, with the minimal pay across the United States under $15 an hour, they are unable to afford a licensed attorney whose hourly rate starts at $200, and, according to comments, is on average now $400 an hour.

At the same time, due to criminal laws pushed through by attorney lobbies in the US, which prohibit "unauthorized practice of law", without clearly defining what the "practice of law" actually is, with severe penalties such as up to 5 years in prison, a criminal felony conviction and stripping of rights of employment and voting rights on conviction, people who cannot afford to pay $400 an hour to a lawyer (actually, much more upfront since most of attorneys require several thousand dollars down as a retainer to start representation in a court case), are forced to proceed without an attorney entirely. 

Thus, attorney regulation as it exists in the US, protects only the rich, who can afford an attorney and who does not need such "protection", and as a result of such "protection" people who do need court representation go without any such representation whatsoever, because their choice of their own court representatives is taken away by the government and by the legal profession.

Hiring a court representative of their own choice from anything but a government-approved lists of licensed attorneys is a crime in the United States, for both the consumer (as a solicitation), and the contractor - which is especially stupid when the very government who restricts consumer choice of court representatives, is the opponent of that same consumer in litigation, in:

• family court social services cases against parents,
• tax foreclosures,
• property forfeiture cases,
• disciplinary proceedings against licensed professionals,
• criminal proceedings, and in 
• civil rights cases where the government is being sued by people for violation of their civil rights.

Apparently, that's the rake towards which the ABA, through its now embedded lobby in Russia, is pushing Russia.

And, attorney Burkin's case - and his instant removal, by a group of competitors, from criminal cases where his clients chosen him to represent them for his competence, skills, courage and independence, without his client's knowledge, notice or consent - is, unfortunately, but likely, only the beginning of the backlash against independent court representatives in Russia.

Apparently, corruption and greed are the best products that the American legal profession can export to Russia.

Nothing like plunging people into the dark ages, all the way asserting lofty causes.

I would very much prefer that Russian consumers of court representation - same as American consumers - wake up finally and make their opinion on the subject of attorney monopoly, and the resulting justice gap, known.

Until then, third parties with special interests will be deciding who and how will represent them in court, where their life (in the U.S.), liberty, property, custody of children (both in the U.S. and in Russia) are concerned.

And attorneys of their choice will continue to be removed from their cases by decisions of those third parties with special interests - like it happened in American cases listed above, like it happened in Russian in the case of attorney Vitaliy Burkin. 

How we enable public prosecutors to commit crimes in office - the case of Suffolk County (NY) DA Thomas Spota and his criminal charges - too little, too late

Violation of civil rights is a criminal offense, I found today from the criminal federal indictment of Thomas J. Spota, the just-resigned and now former District Attorney of Suffolk County, New York.

Spota is charged as Count 4 of the indictment as an "accessory after the fact to the deprivation of John Doe's Civil Rights.

Here are the full charges from the docket report of the criminal case against Thomas Spota.

Here is the full indictment against the former DA Spota:

The indictment had more or less vague and conclusory statements of what was it that Spota did wrong.

Reporters hunting for juicy details provided a less sterile view of why exactly former DA Spota was indicted.

Yet, as juicy as the indictment against the now-former DA Spota can be, Count 4, accompanied with review of the list of civil rights lawsuits against former DA Spota in the official electronic register of such cases - Pacer.gov, raises a bigger question.

Why wasn't he indicted earlier?

Spota has been sued many, many, many times for violation of civil rights (see below the list of lawsuits against him from Pacer.gov as of yesterday, codes 440 "civil rights", 445 "Americans with Disabilities Civil Rights in Employment", 550 "prisoner petitions - civil rights") - and most of these cases were dismissed, on prosecutorial immunity grounds.

And, dismissal of civil civil rights lawsuits on judge-invented immunity grounds should not have prevented charging DA Thomas Spota for the CRIME of violation of civil rights under 18 U.S.C. 242 through criminal indictments in every single case where he was sued - because sworn statements from witnesses about violation of civil rights are enough to charge with such a crime, and every single civil rights lawsuit requires that it be sworn - certified under oath.

Here is the list of lawsuits against Thomas Spota available on Pacer.gov as of yesterday.  There are 131 cases listed on Pacer against Spota, some of them where he was an attorney, but still, here is the list where codes 440 and 550 - civil rights and prisoner civil rights - repeatedly appear.

Gaps in the farthest right column, "Date Closed", indicate lawsuits against Thomas Spota that are still ongoing.

There are 18 (!) such ongoing lawsuits as of today, plus two on pending appeals.  10 are pending for over a year, 7 are pending for over 3 years, 5 are pending for over 5 years and one is pending for over 7 years.  And that is with existence of absolute prosecutorial immunity for corrupt acts which courts use to get rid of civil rights litigation against prosecutors immediately!  I wonder what former DA Spota did so that even the extremely biased federal courts let civil rights lawsuits against him proceed for such a length of time?

Date filed	Code	Meaning of code	Case Number	Duration of litigation as of October 27, 2017	Spota's role in case
1/6/2010	440	Civil righs	2:2010-cv-00032	7 years 9 months	Defendant
5/27/2011	440	Civil righs	2:2011-cv-2588	5 years 5 months	Defendant
3/20/2012	440	Civil righs	2:2012-cv-01455	5 years 7 months	Defendant
8/28/2012	440	Civil righs	2:2012-cv-04327	5 years 2 months	Defendant
8/28/2012	440	Civil righs	2:2012-cv-04327	5 years 2 months	Defendant
4/10/2013	440	Civil righs	2:2013-cv-2104	over 3 years	Defendant
4/17/2014	442	Employment	2:2014-cv-02473	3.5 years	Defendant
11/17/2014	445	Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment, Civil rights	2:2014-cv-06731	2 years 11 months	Defendant
6/27/2016	440	Civil righs	2:2016-cv-3431	1 year 4 months	Defendant
7/5/2016	440	Civil righs	2:2016-cv-3723	1 year 3 months	Defendant
12/22/2016	440	Civil righs	2:2016-cv-07047	0 years 10 months	Defendant
5/8/2017	530	Habeas corpus general	2:2017-cv-3135	0 years 5 months	Respondent
5/8/2017	530	Civil righs	2:2017-cv-03135	0 years 5 months	Defendant
8/17/2017	440	Civil righs	2:2017-cv-4853	0 years 2 months	Defendant
8/21/2017	442	Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment, Civil rights	2:2017-cv-04897	0 years 2 months	Defendant
8/24/2017	550	Prisoner petitions - civil rights	2:2017-cv-05023	0 years 2 months	Defendant
9/29/2017	440	Civil righs	2:2017-cv-05706	0 years 1 month	Defendant
10/13/2017	360	Other personal injury	2:2017-cv-06006	0 years 1/2 months	Defendant

While I will try, time permitting, to look into what kind of civil rights cases were not dismissed - as usual - on prosecutorial immunity grounds against former DA Spota, the question remains:

why do we, People of the United States, the constitutional source of power in the government, allow our prosecutors to have judicially (and thus illegally) granted prosecutorial immunity for corrupt acts and for violation of the U.S. Constitution?

Why did we allow Article III federal courts that DO NOT have authority to legislate, not only to legislate, but to carve out an exception to the U.S. Constitution - granting certain classes of people, starting from judges themselves, and extending to prosecutors, the usual breeding ground of judges - an exception to their own constitutional oath of office?

Why are we asleep at the wheel and allow prosecutors to become bolder in their lawlessness because - as the example of DA Spota shows, he's been sued for years by victims of his criminal behavior, and for years federal courts who are tasked by the U.S. Congress through the Civil Rights Act to protect THE VICTIMS of civil rights violations, protected THE PERPETRATOR, under an illegally - judicially - granted "absolute immunity".

By the way, such immunity was granted (illegally) by the U.S. Supreme Court on a pretext that attorney discipline is enough for prosecutors.  Of course, U.S. Supreme Court knew at the time it was spouting this illegal nonsense that prosecutors are never disciplined.

But, the whole idea of usurping the exclusive authority of Congress to legislate and giving immunity to prosecutors, the main source of the judiciary, for CRIMINAL behavior and for oath-breaking?

Why do we enable and encourage prosecutors to commit the FEDERAL CRIME of civil rights violations by protecting them from accountability to their VICTIMS by allowing courts to give them immunity from that CRIMINAL behavior?

Why do we allow the same judges and prosecutors who give themselves (judges) and prosecutors absolute immunity for MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts authority to block our access to grand jury to prosecute them criminally for that behavior?

Because they do.

You won't be able to access the grand jury without presentation by a prosecutor.

I still remember how I talked to Delaware County (NY) Senior Assistant DA John Hubbard asking him why wouldn't he prosecute then-judge Carl Becker for falsifying court records, filing a falsified certificate of elections going back go 2002 when I pointed out that there is no documentary proof of his legitimacy on file?  It is still there, in that record, falsely certified by Delaware County Board of Elections while underlying documents that could prove or disprove that he was ever elected in 2002 were long gone.

You know what the now-DA Hubbard told me then?  "Tanya, why?  Why are you doing it?  Why do you need to do this?"

You know what the now-DA Hubbard DID NOT tell me at that time?

That he was the freaking LAW PARTNER of Carl Becker before Becker usurped the bench.  That came out only after 

• Becker ran from the bench in July of 2015 during an State Comptroller and an FBI investigation, as well as several of his cronies in Delaware County shortly before him and shortly after him;
• Hubbard's boss Dick Norhtrup was elected a judge on November 4, 2015;
• I was safely suspended from the practice of law, on November 15, 2015, less than 2 weeks after Northrup's election, for criticizing Carl Becker for the same falsification of election records, 
  • in a secret proceeding that
  • I had a right to open,
  • asked to open, but
  • was denied my right to an open proceeding right there in the Delaware County so that people who know me and whom I represented would come and see what exactly I am charged with, and without a hearing, 
• Northrup was sworn in (unlawfully) by the same Becker, who was not a judge any more by that time, was a private attorney and did not have a right to swear in new judges into office, but was still allowed to don a black robe and swear in a new judge.  That Becker was allowed to unlawfully don back the black robe and swear in Northrup as a new judge speaks volume about their closeness and favors they likely exchanged over the years.

After all that, Hubbard ran for a DA himself and now disclosed to the public, in January of 2016, that actually all this time when he was a Senior Assistant District Attorney, his office appeared in front of his own former law partner - without any disclosures in criminal proceedings about that.

Hubbard and Northrup were opponents of my clients in criminal felony cases before Becker for years, they NEVER made a disclosure that Becker is Hubbard's former law partner.

And, both Hubbard and Northrup faithfully locked the doors of the grand jury against prosecutions of themselves, any Delaware County officials known for their corruption, and, of course, their benefactor tossing them victories in criminal cases - former law partner of John Hubbard Carl Becker.

The same way as former DA Spota obviously locked the doors of the grand jury for investigations against himself and the police, and that situation continues until now.

While there is no double jeopardy in charging people for crimes in BOTH state and federal court, the only way former DA Spota was charged was only in federal court.  No state prosecutor dared present a criminal charge against DA Spota to a state grand jury.

And, former DA Spota is old.  Very old.

So, he was allowed to violate people's civil rights with immunity for years and decades, so one does look for reasons other than those stated in the indictment for why in reality he was indicted now.

Somebody desperately wanted his powerful seat that he was clinging to?

The whole story is disgusting, but it is time for people across the country to see that nothing good is coming out of prosecutorial immunity and insist that their legislative representatives do their jobs and to have them

• legislatively outlaw, once and for all, judicial and prosecutorial immunity, and introduce penalties FOR JUDGES for any attempts of applying it;
• put the power to present cases of public corruption to grand juries into citizens' hands directly,
• remove the secrecy from the identities of grand jurors and from grand jury proceedings, on both "true bills" and "no true bills", at least after the fact when an indictment was already rendered proceedings, at least after the fact;
• take away authority of "legal advisors" to prosecutors as parties of criminal proceedings disqualified from being such an "advisor" by their dual role, acting both as advisors of the indicting body and as party to litigation - which provides prosecutors an opportunity to block criminal grand jury investigations and indictments against themselves and public officials they are closely tied with.

Until and unless that is done, cases like DA Spota will be popping up - only when the feds condescend to bring criminal charges against state officials, which happens next to never, and only when there is no way of concealing the garbage any more.

We deserve better.

The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga, Part XI - The Governor of the State of Georgia and his aversion to sunshine in his own office

Just filed an open records request with the Governor of the State of Georgia, and, boy, it was fun - actually, not.

This is the Open Records Request I have filed.

==

Mr. Deal:
You do not have a subsection in your "required list" of an Open Records Request, so I had to choose something else. This is an open records request. Also, you do not provide the e-mail of the Governor's office, which is a public record, but require me to provide mine.  Please, provide within the period of time required by law, to the above mentioned address and email address, copies of the following public records: e-mail of the Governor's office, e-mail of the Appallachian Circuit court administration,  all records pertaining to nomination and appointment of Mary Elizabeth Priest in 2016 as a judge.

Thank you

==

Remember - that was the Mary Elizabeth Priest who Judge Brenda Weaver paid off, by paying her $17,000 from state Judge Bradley's bribery account funded by three counties, and by having her appointed as a judge by the State Governor Deal, in an extremely timely and expeditious manner, while she was still representing the stenographer who apparently cooked both the transcript and the audio, so that these two court "documents" would match and not show racial slurs by Judge Roger Bradley and, according to witnesses, at least two law enforcement officers who were in the courtroom.

Nothing too crooked, not at all.

I received this response to my Open Records Request from the Governor's website:

Yet, I have no way of proving I filed my Open Records Request - because the Governor of the State of Georgia does not seem to be too friendly with Open Records requests.

First, the Governor of the State of Georgia only gives you a mailing address and a telephone number to file your open records requests.

Despite proudly posting on his "Contact us" page Facebook and Twitter accounts, there is no way to contact the Governor through Facebook, attempts to do that throw you back at an online form (not e-mail address).

Instead of providing an e-mail address for the quickest Open Record Requests that would leave a record with the requesting party and proof that the request was made, the Governor's website provides a link to a form.

This is a well-known trick of governments to duck Open Records Requests by creating conditions when people cannot provide proof they ever filed an Open Records Request - the ideal proof would be an e-mail, creating an electronic record that the request was sent, with a time-stamp.

Not so.  The Governor for the State of Georgia prefers snail mail or phone calls - the only way of preserving evidence of an oral records request to be filed over the phone would be to record it.

I did.

The gentleman who answered the phone at 404-656-1776 in the office of the Governor Nathan Deal of the State of Georgia, after hearing that I want to file an oral Open Records Request (which is allowed under the Georgia law), got off the phone the minimum of 3 times to consult with somebody as to how to deal with me.

He was clearly unprepared to deal with such a request, and at first claimed that that phone number was only for "constituents".

I told him that there was no such restriction on the website.

He then told me that I need to file my Open Records Request with the Office of the State Attorney General.  I said that I wanted to file my request specifically for public records in the Governor's office.

After some off-the-phone consultations he tried to re-route me to another person, but first asked me if I am an individual or an organization - which was irrelevant to the nature of my request.

I honestly told that I am just a private individual.

After some more consultations off the phone, he said that he needs my name, then he will transfer me to the supposed Open Records officer.

I said that I would prefer to give my name to that Open Records officer directly, if that becomes necessary.

Then he consulted off the record once again and came back to me, directing me to file my oral Open Records Request by e-mail, to rbarnes@georgia.gov.

A minute's search showed me that a Roy Barnes was the State of Georgia's Governor from 1999 to 2003.  If the gentlemen at the Governor's office thought it was some kind of cute joke, the joke is entirely on him, since the way the Governor's office acted was a clear violation of the Open Records Act.

This is the form that I was forced to use in the first place when I filed an Open Records Request following the link "email the Governor".

Here is the screenshot of the form that occurs when you follow that link:

The drop-down list in "What is Your Message" section does not include an Open Records Request, and does not include "Other" as an alternative option, so you have to choose something entirely different from what you want if you want to file an Open Records Request.

After I sent my Open Records Request this way, this is the only proof that I've sent it that I received (and the window in the "message" was too narrow to preserve in a screen scan my entire Open Record request):

That's it.

So, there is no proof whatsoever that I have ever filed an Open Records Request - short of my recording of the telephone conversation with the Governor's Office, of course, where the Governor's Office ducked my attempt to file an oral Open Records Request by directing me to the e-mail of the former Governor whose term expired in 2003, 14 years ago.

Beautiful job, Governor Nathan Deal.

As I see, your office is very much pro-sunshine.

But, that was not all.

I have actually filed my Open Records Request, in an expanded format, by sending it to the e-mail address the Governor's office so kindly gave me, as well as to the "reply to" e-mail address that came with the confirmation e-mail from the Governor's office that the Governor will be given my message filed through the online "Contact us" form.

Once again, here is the response from the Governor's office to my online filing.

Here is the "reply to" e-mail address from that e-mail:

Here is my e-mail to that address, copy to the e-mail address that the Governor's office directed me to send my Open Records Request to:

And - here is the instant response from the official "reply-to" Governor's office e-mail address:

My message could not be delivered because:

• "the remote server is misconfigured", and because
• "Recipient address rejected: access denied".

So, the Governor's office makes sure that you cannot file an Open Request by any means, and, if you do, you requests will be rejected (as mine was, twice - orally and in an electronic format) and evidence that you ever made them not preserved.

As a result - dear Georgians, enjoy the sunshine - outside, in the very literal sense.  That's enough of sunshine for you.  Sunshine in the government all remained as a fake promise on paper - as Mark Thomason and his attorney Russell Stookey have learned the hard way, see my previous stories of their saga for exercising their right to access public records in the full-of-sunshine State of Georgia, Parts 1 through X in the blog list on the right.

Update as if 18:05 on October 24, 2017: I have got a response from a Rhonda Barnes from the Governor's office who claimed that she will be handling my open records request, and that she has never met former Governor Roy Barnes.  I will take that claim at face value now, give Ms Barnes the benefit of the doubt and wait for production of documents.

I will publish any documents provided to me in response to my open records request to the Governor of the State of Georgia.

Meanwhile, I am finishing review of other documents I recieved in Mark Thomason's case and will shortly start publishing them, too.

Stay tuned.

How the free press taught President Trump how to bash the 1st Amendment - and the free press

I see a lot of "mainstream media" articles lately about President Trump threatening to revoke licenses of news outlets for supposedly publishing what he considers "fake news" - and about how bad his behavior is, that it is in violation of the 1st Amendment.

And - it is in violation of the 1st Amendment.

There is no question that the government may not quash the press simply for the publications critical of the government.

But, in this particular situation - where the "free press" is horrified of the President threatening the free press with adverse consequences for criticizing this particular President - who brought this on?

Really?

Let's recall how the same free press was bashing Donald Trump, at that point only a presidential candidate, and not a public official - for what, remember? - for criticizing a judge.

Whether Trump had good reasons to criticize that particular judge or not - I think, he did, see my blogs about it here and here if you are interested in the essence of that controversy - is not so relevant to the core question:  did Trump have a 1st Amendment right to criticize the government?

Because - judiciary is part of the government, remember?

At that time, the "free press" raised a firestorm explaining why it was inappropriate for Trump to criticize a judge - because it was "racist" apparently to point out the judge's own background as having "Mexican heritage" (as I said in my blogs, Trump did not go far enough in his criticism, the judge not only had "Mexican heritage", but was also the so-called anchor child of illegal immigrant parents, which required his disqualification because he identified with the people, just like the judge's own parents, who Trump pledged to deport), and because the judge was "widely respected".

Well, the same "free press" now moderates comments on their articles in social media - and removes (censures) comments that are critical of the articles, see my blogs about it here and here. 

But, the same media leaves in and does not moderate or censure out vile personal attacks making racist comments about the President's skin color, hair color, length of his sexual organ, his bedroom activities with his wife, claiming his wife is a porn star - and that's just the blandest descriptions of what is actually posted, and what the "free press" allows to be posted in comments, again, while erasing comments that are critical of the issues in articles and are actually relevant and on point.

If we distill the issue down to the very basics, we have the following question:

Does ANY individual in the United States have a right to criticize the government under the 1st Amendment?

The answer seems a no-brainer.

Of course, everybody has a right to criticize the government in the United States.

Yet, the free press appears to instill into the readers a double standard.

The "rule" of the "free press" since 2016 was that that "somebody" does not have a right to criticize the government if he is a private individual (even though a presidential candidate) who certain media sources do not like.

And, that "somebody" does not have a right to criticize the government if the public official criticize is a judge - because it somehow undermines public "trust" in the integrity of the judiciary.  

In other works, do not criticize a particular judge for potential appearance of impropriety, bias or misconduct in order to help the judiciary as a branch of the government to save face in front of the public.

Well, the "free press" has itself to blame now, because President Trump appeared to have learnt the lesson - that in certain times censure of criticism of the government is good.  That's what the press and comments told him in 2016.  Shut your mouth, Donald Trump, and do not criticize a judge.

In other words, shut your mouth, a private individual, and do not criticize the government.

Isn't it what Trump is returning to the "free press" now - shut your mouth in your criticism of me, the public official, or I will yank your broadcasting license?