A belated eulogy for the untimely death by suicide of law professor Mike Adams

A heartfelt eulogy by a Russian lawyer on the death of law professor Michael Adams North Carolina who committed suicide on July 27th or a couple days prior, because he was harassed to death by the politically correct crowd in and around his university just because of several tweets where he expressed his conservative opinion.

This country is going down the drain fast if people like Michael Adams, who is rated the best professor by his students, is squeezed out of the academia and harassed to death.

It is a long eulogy, but it is valuable in terms of details and assessment of those details.

Translation, will do it by parts:

"In the memory of professor Mike Adams, we'll take care of and preserve your families!

On the 23rd of July of this cursed year of ours, professor Mike Adams committed suicide before he reached the age of 56.  To be precise he was nearly a former professor - he was squeezed out of his university and on the 1st of August he was supposed to become a former professor.

Who was he, why was he squeezed out and why did it end so badly?

A lawyer and a criminologist, Adam start several subjects in the University of North Carolina - criminal procedure, evidence and other legal nonsense which can become the boring drilling of statutes rules and court cases, or it can become the most entertaining time and one of the best memories of student years.

Professor Adams fit the second category.  On the site read my professor his former students write about him - and not only stellar students,  but C-students,too. It is the same as review of any business, it is always worth it the review negative readings to understand what is going on.  I remember sitting in the best cocktail bar I have ever visited, that was called Aptekas in Vilnius, I checked out its ratings and saw a negative review "there is no beer by the glass" and "there is no TV with sports channels", which is obviously very positive for a cocktail bar.

Similarly, the c-students write - "if you rely on drilling, do not take this course but this is the coolest professor I have had in my entire time in college".

The rest just praise him, and all the ratings agree that there was no professor in that University who would be better, funnier, more educational and more interesting.

God dammit, why did they sack the best?

Adams was a conservative.  This horrible sin in American universities (and in Israeli universities as far as I know, too) is as unforgivable as was homosexuality in the last century. God forbid somebody will learn about it, but if people do know, you need to keep mum (you know this rotten tune - let them do anything in the bedroom but let them do it quietly and so that children would not know).

Back in 2007 already, when the first swallows of militant progressivism have flown through the American skies, Adams was passed over in his promotion to the full tenured professors.  I don't know how it is in Russian and how the economic system works, it is a permanent professorship instead of a temporary. they did not want to take Mike into the real professorship because you had a mouth that he did not want to close.

That same here Adam sued, demanding to stop politically motivated discrimination.  The litigation continued for 7 years.  After he went through several court levels, he has won the right to a jury trial, and after that the university back down and promoted him into the tenured professorship in arrears, as well as paid him full tenured professor salary for the last 7 years.

Despite the torture that he has endured, Adams continued to speak out, and lately allowed himself several unforgivable statements, called the "peaceful protesters" demolishing stores - "rioters", called "people with vaginas" - "women" (I'm afraid to quote any further. If it was enough to harass a professor of law to death, will be enough for sure to block me on Facebook).

Heart-feeling activists have launched on social media campaign for his firing and cooked up a petition "sack the turd".  No it is in America and its satellites there is a magical expression "they do not feel safe" - and as soon as something is said that is not to the liking of the progressivist activists, students begin to "feel they are in danger', and a danger to life must be immediately eliminated.

The crowd of " liberal" (now this word can be used only in quotation marks, since nowadays it means exactly the opposite of what it meant before) activist from Twitter got their way, and the professor was squeezed out.

But of course that was not enough, because one cannot underestimate the danger that was coming from that person, therefore the activist put up boards saying "beware of a racist and chauvinist" opposite his house and glued similar papers over the entire neighborhood, so the neighbors would know with a dangerous maniac lives next door.

A week ago he shot himself.  The man who has raised generations of students, who has taught them to love their profession, who has ignited in them the flame of gaining knowledge, we had grafted onto them the interest in the criminal procedure, a bright outstanding personality - was harassed to death in the name I love the "feeling of safety".

He was not the first, and, regretfully, will not be the last, who has been harassed to death by the progressist riff-raff.  Do you remember the British attorney who in a drunken condition I did something about Hindus on a plane? She has been harassed for half a year until she committed suicide, having destroyed the whole world (by the way not only juice like to talk about "who one soul in Israel", it is a later addition, an add-on, the is no Jew and no ellin in the original, there are only people).

By the way, I was also harassed by these creatures - defenders of all good from all bad, they even printed in newspapers that I am a misogynist, they even forward it to me a letter from the biggest women's organization, the cover of this whole snake pit ("irgun gag" it is called). In the letter I was ordered to repent and to present apologies two old women on the planet, otherwise they will file a complaint with the chamber of advocates.

To tell you the truth, the letter was not signed, and, when I inquired about the name of the author in order to file a complaint with the police about blackmailing, the courage left the tiresome strugglers for the rights of women (which I do not know why anybody needs to fight for if they exist for a long time and are confirmed in the law), and they got lost in the oblivion.

Now for the most important thing.  Well what I said previously is important to, but this is even more important.

The majority, the overwhelming majority! Of those harassed to death were single.

Never married, divorced, out of relationships (or it would be more proper to say separated?) - without a wife who would give you a hug in consolation and who would tell you, let them go to hell!

I remember I had a boy who went to rob a store with his best friends, but gor caught as an idiot, and decided to become a witness for the prosecution, to betray his best friends so that they would let him go.  I do not work with such people, so I called his wife and told her I'm leaving. I remember I was trying to find a good replacement attorney instead of myself for him, end up nobody out of decent people wanted to take such a client on.

So, when his wife has heard the reason for my leaving, she said - I will not live with him.  But now, while he's still in jail, I will be with him to the end, with when it will all finish, we will split, because you cannot trust such a person.

But now I must support him, because when we were getting married, I promised in joy and in sadness, and now it is sadness, and I must go through this with him without regard what I'm feeling right now.

Therefore, let's drink to our "halves", and not even 'halves", but real halves of ourselves, without home where only half a human.

Because those who have a good life partner shoot themselves a lot more rarely.

Because family it is, it is the true life, and work is just a means to feed the family and to do what you love to do, and however you're being harassed will fired you can find another job and another opportunity to do what you love to do.

And the search for that human who will become for you protection from death in the meaning of your life and you for her, me take the whole of your lifetime, and the result is not guaranteed.  It is not by chance that I have two bachelor friends both over 40, both amazing intelligent people, I saw such girls, too, who are despairing already.

Pablo Neruda said the right thing - "Si nada nos salva de la muerte, al menos que el amor nos salve de la vida".

---

So, here.

His numerous former and present students, his colleagues and his friends are afraid, as I understand, to say about him and about his untimely outrageous death by harassment what an out of the country foreign attorney dared to say.

And that is the saddest statement as to the state of the country we have become.

Done by speech to text dictation, apologies for possible mistakes.

Do not criticize Cuomo during the pandemic!

Governor Cuomo has started to show frustration with "irrational outbursts" of "some individuals" who, as a result of "cabin fever", are attacking the flawless performance of public officials and "undermining public tranquility".

 Doesn't like criticism, this one.

After all, what is there to criticize about Cuomo's performance as a public official?

Disbanding the public corruption (Moreland) commission when it started to investigate his surroundings.

Giving lush jobs to his criminal friends who have saved his sorry ass from a public corruption investigation (Exhibit 1 - Chief NYS Judge DiFiore and her hubby awarded a seat on cushy Gaming Commission).

Giving himself a 40% raise during the pandemic, budget crisis and economic disaster for individual New Yorkers and small & medium-sized businesses. Suffocating the upstate seniors because billionaires in NYC need their vents.

Indeed, what is there to criticize.

Cabin fever.

Irrational outbursts.

Heroes maintaining public tranquility.

Cabin fever like this, eh?

3 senators so far contracted the "cabin fever".

Senator Stefanik is "cabin-feverish" to the point of starting online petitions against the executive order "to share".

So, after all of this "cabin-fever" irrational activity of legislators undermining Cuomo's efforts in maintaining public tranquility he has finally addressed the issue of seizure by National Guard of ventilators from the upstate for NYC at the press-conference.

In the only way he knows how.

He lied.

He is a l(iar)awyer, remember?

He has been taught how to maintain a certain legal position without regard to its truth or falsity.

Because -

 1. He said that 0 vents were seized from upstate, while

 2. In comments, people report that vents were sanitized and turned over to the National Guard pursuant to his (kind sharing) eugenic seize-order.

 Now, Andrew Cuomo as a liar?

 No way...

Of course, Cuomo's own former senior staffers say - "yes, way".

And, an interesting question asked by a New Yorker re reports by Cuomo that upstate NY does not have a surge of CV cases.

Probably, another case of irrational carbon fever to ask such questions, don't you think?

Yet, I have reports from people who were denied testing in upstate NY while having symptoms - and I don't know whether that was for

1.  lack of test kits, or because of
2.  Government policy - 

So that it would be easier to present #NYlivesdonotmatter as #letsshare because #NYCneedsitmore.

Because Cuomo's voting base is there.

And, a wholly different amount of financial support is needed to put duce Cuomo into the White House to be the de facto President over the obviously demented and declining Biden.

Hence - #UpstateNYlivesdonotmatter.

The " playbook" does.

And, people with, supposedly, a cabin fever, ask questions like this

Which, after having lived and worked in the NY legal community for 16 years, I would consider quite a legitimate question.

And questions like this - what was the Governor doing at a secret posh fundraiser on March14, 2020?  Was preparing for the pandemic?  Discussing production of ventilators that today he lamented requires more than 2 weeks, logistically,  to produce?

He had those 2 weeks then.

How many lives could have been saved from a horrible death by suffocation had duce Cuomo been doing his job,  not just lining his own and his friends' pockets?

Many watchers of his press-conference from outside NY said - "we envy you, New Yorkers", "such an intelligent man", "Cuomo first President".

I am sure,

1. New Yorkers would let other states borrow Andy and will pay them to keep him, knowing his true history and essence,

2. As to his Presidency - no, thank you.

No more l(ia)awyers for President, especially corrupt ones.

Is it easy or difficult to enforce the federal constitutional right to impartial judicial review in the state of Louisiana

An interview with a practicing Louisiana attorney Christine Mire, in English, with Russian subtitles.

This material is unique, as the topic - judicial misconduct and motions to recuse judges based on judicial misconduct - is mostly taboo in the US amongst members of the legal profession.

Yet, sun, as a US Supreme Court Justice have told us long time ago, is the best disinfectant, so here is the discussion of points of law and of facts of one motion to recuse to contribute to public debate as to how to improve access to justice in the United States.

You won't regret listening to what attorney Christine Mire has to say on the topic.

I admire her beautiful English language, her expertise as a professional lawyer, her dedication to her clients - and, last, but not least at all - her courage.

Christine Mire, the conscience of the American legal profession.

People need the truth about how did corona virus pandemic start

I understand that this is an explosive - and highly political - issue.

But, when the government is mum, while there are a lot of factual information raising questions - and eyebrows - people will inevitably think the government is hiding something.

In the State of Washington, the spread of corona virus started out of 1 nursing home where 40 people died.

A criminal investigation is in order.

Is it being done?

The timeline of the spread of corona virus is disturbing.

October 2019 - Johns Hopkins University together with Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (global vaccine pushers) stage a simulation of - guess what - a coronavirus pandemic, predicting that:

• 65 million Americans may die in such a pandemic and that
• a vaccine is urgently needed for that.

On December 31, 2019 the epidemic of coronavirus started in Wuhan, China.

In January 2020 the U.S. Department of Justice criminally charged 1 Harvard professor and 2 Chinese scientists - for what? - for illegally taking a biological matter - where? - to Wuhan, China.

In February-March the pandemic has come to the U.S. - and Bill Gates immediately left the Board of Directors of Microsoft to "dedicate more time to philantropic priorities".

Now, strict FDA regulations are dropped in order to allow certain pharmaceutical companies - presented to the public as absolute heroes - to quickly invent a vaccine on coronavirus, and a testing on human volunteers of the half-baked vaccine has already started.

That same industry that has previously obtained from the federal government a completely unconstitutional (but SCOTUS-approved nevertheless) Child Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a federal statute prohibiting ONLY CHILDREN (and not adults injured by vaccines) and ONLY CHILDREN INJURED  BY VACCINES (and not by other medications) to sue vaccine manufacturers in STATE courts (which the federal government may not possibly do), instead having a "fund" set up in such a way that DISCOVERY of causation of vaccine injury to children is blocked - and then pushed through legislations throughout the country to make vaccination mandatory, to the point of not allowing children to go to schools without it, and having parents charged with child neglect and criminally for refusing to vaccinate their children with chemical/biological matters with unknown components that may cause injury or death for which the manufacturers will not even be liable.

You must believe that this same industry are heroes addressing an international crisis.

In your dreams.

Now, as an honest good faith citizen, I do not want to "spread conspiracy theories".

But, I can put certain facts next to one another and at least WONDER if they are related.

I do not have access to investigative capacities that our government has.

That's why, as a citizen, I am asking our U.S. government a question - ARE YOU CONDUCTING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF HOW THE CORONAVIRUS EPIDEMIC HAS STARTED?

Facebook ups its political censorship in the election year with new tricks

In October of 2019, just 4 months ago, the head of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, has publicly stated that he is not going to support political censorship on Facebook.

In November of 2019, The Wall Street Journal has commented on the illegal and fraudulent efforts of this social media giant to manipulate public opinion by targeting and weeding out people of political leanings that oppose the extreme left in politics.

And, of course, Mark Zuckerberg has made the public (and false) declaration that Facebook is not censuring political speech based on its content (and sides in the political debates) just as a point of LIABILITY.

Because by censuring content, Facebook becomes from a social media platform - into a PUBLISHER, with liabilities of a publisher.

And, Zuckerberg has eked out his false declaration of non-censorship only after his platform was put on the spot - including by the White House's temporary hotline for citizens to report instances of political censure on Facebook.

Yet, while declaring that he does not have political censorship on Facebook (at least, not any longer, as of October 2019, the time of his FALSE declaration), Zuckerberg's Facebook has introduced new ways to do just that same political censorship.

As a citizen with a law degree and an expert in Constitutional Law (suspension of my license by the State of New York as political censorship of my criticism of a corrupt judge who has since ran from the bench chased by an FBI/State Comptroller/State Judicial Conduct Commission investigation does not cancel my law degree, experience, expertise, skills or right to speak out as a citizen, WITH in-depth knowledge of the law) - I am very vocal on legal issues of the day.

And, since election of President Donald Trump, I see that the so-called "left" and the so-called "Democrats", including left-leaning prosecutors, judges and a variety of federal employees and non-profit organizations prefer to put the law on its proverbial head rather than acknowledge that Trump may be right on any issues at all.

That is not a support of the "rule of law" to me.

And, as a naturalized citizen, I have given my pledge to support the U.S. Constitution - whether the "deep state" allows me to do that as an attorney or not.

So, I comment on posts of leftist media sources and I express my informed expert opinions on the law, and I create my own groups, and I make friends who share my views, and I invite friends to my groups, and friends invite me to their own "conservative thinking" groups - and I participate in those groups, too.

But, I see that my conservative thinking friends, one after another, get banned from Facebook for days, weeks and months for expressing their political views in a non-violent and non-harassing manner.

And, finally, the axe of Facebook censorship has reached me, so I can speak from my own experience.

On or around February 7, 2020, my account was COMPLETELY disabled.

I was told about that by my daughter who saw me "disappear" on messenger and on Facebook.

My Facebook friends received suggestions to delete me as their Facebook friend.

Facebook required me to confirm my "identity" to enable my Facebook account back on - necessarily through a cell phone, which I could not do at the time since we are located in a dead area in terms of cell service.

I have been doing a lot of things on Facebook for a number of years - I 

• socialize there with people from across the world, 
• read news in my customized feed, 
• do research there as to development of the legal services industry in the U.S. and in my native Russia, 
• share results of my research with opinion leaders in the field of the research etc.

There is a lot of information in my account that I would not die if I lose, but still, I would prefer to keep.

Facebook somehow REQUIRES to tie your Facebook account to a cell phone.

That is highly discriminatory to people who 

1.  Do not have a cell phone, and who, like me

2. Lives in areas where cell service does not reach.

Which means, Facebook discriminates against the supposed "red necks", the supposed "deplorables", creating for itself "rules" that make it easier for itself to disable - for a long time, without ability to restore - accounts of conservative thinkers and speakers.

I was lucky I live fairly close to an area where cell service is available, I can at least travel there by car, which I did the next morning - and restored my Facebook account by receiving and entring the code sent by cell phone on my Facebook page.  Of course, by that time the length of time it took me to restore my account and my attempts to do it by means other than cell phones were, possibly, considered by Facebook as additional "suspicious activity on the account", and, though my account was enabled again, I had restrictions for a week, then prolonged for 4 more days (no explanation given, for what reason) to 

• post links on my own page;
• post and comment in groups, including my own;
• create groups.

Many people who have a Dish or cable Internet, but no cell service - from the rural areas - who "coincidentally" support Donald Trump - may be not so lucky as to having an ability, like I did, to travel the very next morning to an area with cell service.

I am retired and have an ability to travel.

Other people might need to go to work in the morning and for the remainder of the weed and may not have an opportunity to reach a cell phone-accessible area for a week or more.

And, there is a big possibility that conservative voters from rural areas with no cell service will just give up on this nonsense, be too busy working and earning a living to consider traveling a considerable number of miles to the nearest area where cell service is available, especially in winter conditions, especially with bad roads and snow on the roads - and not try to get that code by cell phone text message back.

Or, be "too long" (like I was) from the point of view of Facebook to restore their accounts - and have additional restrictions slapped on them when they come back, "because of unusual activities on the account" - which there were none.

Now, I, as many other residents of no-cell-service areas in the United States - do have a high-speed cable Internet.  Some of my neighbors have Dish Internet.

We do have Internet.

And most of us living in our neighborhood have landline phones - since cell service is not available.

If anybody wants to confirm my identity, it can be done by calling my landline, talking to me and asking me certain questions that only a true-identity person can answer.

But - here is the gimmick.

The megarich Facebook giant that has enough personnel to police speech of conservatives on its platform - does not have live individuals to talk to, in writing or orally, by e-mail or by (landline) phone, to discuss the matter.

To simply ask for explanations as to what kind of "suspicious activity" or "violation of Community standards" occurred on the account that warranted disabling the account altogether or restricting activities on the account, such as (what has been done to me 3 TIMES since February 7, 2020):

• ability to form groups;
• ability to post in groups;
• ability to comment on posts in groups;
• ability to post links - in groups and on your own page.

It is not so funny that I, as a founder and sole moderator of my own groups regarding human rights (including freedom of speech and access to justice), in English and in Russian, am allowed to approve posts from other people - but not my own.

I am not allowed to even welcome new members to my own groups.

It is obviously done by Facebook to weed out interest to the group which has activities of its main contributor/author suspended again and again, for days and weeks on end.

At the same time, I see people with left-leaning views say horribly vulgar, crass, harassing and bullying things to conservative-leaning people, on that same Facebook.

I had DEATH THREATS against me and my family members sent to me through a Facebook messenger for my posts - reported it to Facebook - and Facebook did nothing, and I was not alone, other conservative-leaning people report the same attitude from Facebook toward them.

Moreover, I see a lot of people with accounts very obviously not under their own names - and they are allowed to exist on Facebook just fine, no super-verification of their identities needed.

                                                           *              *              *

The timeline of my FB bans during the Democratic primaries and many, many discussions about those primaries, gun rights, various actions by the President etc. in groups - is like that:

• I was put into a Facebook jail on February 7, 2020 until Valentine's day, February 14th, no explanation, why;
• The jail time was extended to February 18, no explanation, why;
• On February 18 I was allowed to post again;
• On February 19, 2020 the ban was reimposed until February 26, 2020 - no explanation, why.
  

Now, what I also noticed - especially having an experience in the past as an appellate attorney and a civil rights attorney - is that there is no thing on Facebook as a "notice and opportunity to be heard" when restrictions of any kind are imposed.

• You are not told what you did wrong - which makes a restriction a pure, and arbitrary, punishment without any possibility that a person so punished "will learn a lesson" and be "deterred" in the future from committing the same supposed "violation" - since the person in question does not know what it is that he/she has supposedly violated in the first place;
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• 
  

• You are also not allowed to have your "day in Facebook court", the famous "notice and opportunity to be heard" as a matter of due process - no, you are offered a window to report if "that was a mistake", but - guess what - your reporting is now BLOCKED by Facebook.

After I clicked "Send", this window has popped up: 

So, Facebook pretends it gives people an opportunity to report if their activities on Facebook were restricted by mistake, in order to show authorities that they have reporting procedures in place - but it is a lie, since that function is at the same time BLOCKED by the same Facebook.


And this is a not so funny way of Facebook to troll those who it harasses and tries to weed out on political grounds.

After FB blocked me from posting in one of my own groups - from greeting new members, no less - it offered me this interesting message.

Oh, leaving so soon?

Without finishing your post even - that we do not allow you to post? What a pity!  See you later etc....

I must also add that Facebook not only upped its political censorship - I was not doing in February, 2020 on FB anything I was not doing on FB, for years, before February, 2020, but was not subject to 10-day-meet-7-day-after-1-day-freedom bans.

It also devised ways to block people from having ANY kind of "appeal"/reprieve/method of resolution of wrongful imposition of restrictions on Facebook.

Once again:

• there is no explanation given by Facebook to the holder of the account for Facebook-imposed restrictions of his/her activities on Facebook;
• there are no effective means to cancel that decision:
• no live person to talk to in writing or orally;
• the means of reporting a problem/appealing offered by Facebook itself blocked by the same Facebook.

My own groups that I am not allowed to post in are very dangerous, I understand, for Facebook to allow me to voice my opinion in:

1.  "For Freedom of Speech" (Russian and English);

2. "Independence of Human Rights Defenders" (English);

3. "Access to Justice" (in Russian);

4.  "Against Fraud in Regulation of Legal Services Market in Russia" (in Russian).

Groups of other people that I am not allowed to post or comment, where I was invited by friends and accepted are, among others, regarding:

1. Gun rights;
2. Movement to have NY Governor Cuomo impeached;
3. Movement to have NY State split into several states;
4. A group in support of President Trump.
5. Groups fighting wrongful convictions in the US and in Russia;
6. Groups fighting CPS fabrications against parents in the US.

Now, you need to realize that I not only have a Russian first name - which many left-leaning commentators jump upon immediately with gleeful comments that they have just found a "Russian bot" - while at the same time "fighting against bigotry" (toward illegal aliens only).

I am also a naturalized CITIZEN of the U.S.

I am also a registered Republican and a voter.

I am also a legal experts with MANY publications on the issues of constitutional law, access to justice and double standards in the government.

And, I am also a person who was born and raised under the so-called "socialism" in the USSR - and know from experience how horrible the socialist teasers to people from the "Democratic" presidential candidates are.

In other words, for purposes of political censorship, I am target # 1 for Facebook - in order to prevent me from explaining to people and informing people where they are misled in the political discourse of the left, which I regularly do on Facebook.

This IS - deliberate, heavy-handed, cutthroat, take-no-prisoners, have-no-rules political censorship by Facebook for the "left", all forced public assurances by Zuckerberg notwithstanding.

And it MUST stop.

This is an election year, and Facebook is being used to manipulate public opinion which amounts - seriously - to a coup against the U.S. Constitution and against democracy in the U.S.

By weeding out the most vocal, active and knowledgeable voices against the left-leaning candidates.

I repeat - IT MUST STOP.

 

A partial transcript of a documentary showing why allowing lawyers to regulate lawyers is bad

In 2014, 6 years ago, a movie documentary was published on YouTube about history and reality of regulation of attorneys in California - which pretty much reflects the picture of similar regulation across the United States.

As part of my research over the last several years, I am exploring the history and mechanism of work of attorney monopoly in the United States and efforts of the ABA to transplant/graft it upon post-Soviet and 3rd World countries, and the impact and workings of attorney monopoly in those countries.

The most interesting case study amongst those transplants is Russia where a limited attorney monopoly after an American model was transplanted in 2002, and an absolute attorney monopoly is planned to be introduced in 2021.

For a scholar of the history of attorney monopoly in the U.S. the history of American-brought attorney monopoly in Russia is a Godsend.

I was too late to be born to witness the time when attorney monopoly in the U.S. was taking its death grip upon the public access to justice (which currently resulted in a dire crisis, the "justice gap" when the majority of Americans, as judges and scholars alike acknowledge, cannot afford access to professional help regarding their legal problems).

Moreover, over the century when American attorney monopoly was weaving itself into the fabric of public life and workings by the government, it has developed myths about itself serving to brainwash population at all levels as to its true nature, purposes and whether it does or does not fulfil its declared purpose - helping the public in protecting it from, supposedly, incompetent or dishonest attorneys.

Also, American attorneys have a multitude of disciplinary gag rules, viciously enforced, prohibiting them to speak out about conceptual and constitutional problems in regulation of their own profession, and especially when it concerns problems with integrity of the profession's regulator, the judicial branch of the government.

Taboos of this type are only starting to take a grip upon the legal community in Russia (transplanted from the US), and at this time there is still a possibility to see a lot of information showing corruption and conflicts of interest within the regulatory system of attorneys in Russia - which statistics is simply not kept, or is held strictly under wraps in the U.S.

There is no point looking at what "legal scholars" say about attorney monopoly in the U.S. - mostly, because there is no such thing as academic freedom of thought and of research in legal academia in the United States, as shown, on the issue of attorney monopoly, in my discussion of the issue with American law professor Carl T. Bogus on Twitter where he repeated the 3 tired myths that are being embedded into Russian lawyers, too, judging by the heated discussions in Russian-language legal forums and media:

1/ attorney licensing is not a monopoly (denying the nature of attorneys' grip on public access to justice and judges' grip on attorneys in the same);

2/ comparing doctors and lawyers - which, a professor if law must know, is comparing apples and oranges, and

3/ referring (falsely) to the supposed traditions, to the Founding Father Alexander Hamilton supposedly having passed the NY State bar sometime back in 1700s, 200+ years before attorney monopoly was imported into the US - from Russia, as a matter of sad irony.

Don't try looking for this information in American official "legal scholarship", this is a taboo subject.

Lack of independence of thought in American legal scholars is not surprising since the only way a legal scholar can make a good living is in a university (called "law school") in the U.S. which depends for its financial vitality upon the certification from a non-profit corporation from the State of Illinois, with foreign membership and financial support, the American Bar Association (the ABA).

It is obvious that a scholar may not produce independent research if the scholar's ability to earn a living depends heavily and exclusively upon the object of his/her research - and it does so depend, since, as job posts on Indeed.com (as an example) show, U.S. law schools refuses to hire as legal scholars those of legal scholars - no matter how good their scholarship is - who have stepped on the toes of the attorney monopoly and were cast out of it ("suspended" or "disbarred").

Yet, there appear, here and there, some bits and pieces of information that show - to me, as a comparative legal scholar of attorney monopoly in the U.S. .and in Russia - that corruption schemes in Russian and American attorney regulatory systems are birds of a feather.

One of such pieces is the 2-part documentary posted on YouTube in 2014, The Scandal in the State Bar.

As much of information the documentary provides, it was still extremely skittish as to not to step on the toes of some people and did not highlight a lot of points that could be highlighted based on the facts it was introducing.  I will try and remedy those omissions in my comments, and in my research I call a spade a spade.

I will publish my comparative commentary - in the shape of articles on my English-language and Russian-language blogs, as well as law review articles on Academia.edu, but, first I would like to create and publish the transcript of the documentary.

Here, I am publishing a partial transcript from Part I of the 2-Part documentary.

When you are told that attorney monopoly (licensing of attorneys by attorneys and prosecuting by attorneys of non-attorneys who have dared to help people who cannot afford attorneys with people's legal problems) is somehow good for the people, recall this, and recall that every dollar that the State Bar exacts from individual attorneys for their lavish "junkening" is laid as a burden upon the end consumer in the way of attorney fees - with a markup.

THE PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT:

" Meanwhile, in October of 1995 Governor Pete Wilson has signed into law Senate Bill 60.  The bill required the State Bar to conduct a new plebiscite of its members to find out that they would still want to keep the unified bar.


State Senator Quentin Kopp was the author of the bill.  He explains why he introduced it.


Hon. Quentin L. Kopp, former State Senator & Judge, Ret.:


“It wasn’t so much any failure of performance of the State Bar respecting the admission procedures, and that procedure is, essentially, the state bar examination.


There was some disgruntlement respecting discipline.


There was disgruntlement based upon the length of time of any proceeding to finish, and, secondly, the laxity or weakness of discipline imposed for conduct.


That wasn’t so much a glaring cause of… at least, my discontent, because it’s similar to people who claim that a judge hasn’t properly adjudicated the sentence for a convicted felon, or even a misdemeanor sometimes, or a district attorney isn’t pursuing a particular case with affinity, energy and enthusiasm.


It was, more genuinely, the expansion of the State Bar into non-core activity.”


Joining Senator Kopp in his battle to abolish the Bar was Peter Keane, who is today a Professor at the Golden Gate University School of Law.


Professor Keane explains why he came to oppose the unified bar.


“In the early 1980s I’ve started to get involved in the local bar association, the Bar association of San Francisco.


I became a member of the Board of Directors of the Bar Association of San Francisco, and then I became… I got elected President of the Bar Association of San Francisco in 1988.


A… and during that time… I had an interchange with lots of people regarding the State Bar of California, and I was involved with a number of activities having to do with the State Bar of California.


And it became very apparent to me that the State Bar of California was, at best, a very dysfunctional organization.


It was an organization that really didn’t fit the role that it was designed to play.


Essentially, the State Bar of California was designed to play 2 roles.


It was to be the professional association of lawyers, essentially, the lawyers’ union, which means looking out for lawyers’ economic activity, welfare activity, doing all great things for lawyers.


At the same time, it was supposed to police the conduct of lawyers in order to make sure that lawyers acted ethically and didn’t do anything to harm the public.


So, there is a built-in tension in that role in terms of the fox guarding the chickenhouse.


So, in the early 90s I ran for the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California.


And I ran for the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California on a very simple platform, and that was to abolish it.


And, I made that very openly my platform, and I got elected as… as a Governor, member for the State Bar of California from San Francisco, one of 2 Governors.


And, when I was on the Board of Governors, during the 3 years I was on the Board of Governors, in my 3^rd year I was Vice-President of the State Bar of California, I saw an organization, really, which was, indeed, dysfunctional, and was an enormous bureaucracy, very expensive, which had the staff in its own kind of crystal palace, very high salaries, doing what they wanted to do.


At the same time you had this group called “the Board of Governors” that, supposedly, had oversight over the State Bar of California – which was a fiction.


All of us were in for 3 years, and most of the Governors spent their first 2 years politicking with the other Governors, so that they get elected President in the 3^rd year.


So, it was all sort of this … “don’t rock the boat” thing, “let’s everybody be nice” and see me as the nicest guy in the world, so that you elect me President in my 3^rd year, and I’m become… have an extra year as President.


I didn’t do any of those things, I knew I wouldn’t get along to be President, so I didn’t have to be involved in that.

·        Board of Governors/Trustees State Bar Presidential Election 2011: “Ok, so, if everybody would, please, take your pile of paper and… write the name of your vote, the last name, the first name of your… selection”….

The people who owned and ran the State Bar really were the executives on the staff who were giving the marching orders to the people who were the worker bees in the State Bar.


There were some very good people working in regular staff positions on the State Bar, to, pretty much, keep the Governors happy, but keep the Governors away from seeing anything … or doing… or getting involved in it, that might have any meaning.


So in our meetings we get this agenda:

====
(An incomplete document is shown - T.N.):

Board of Governors Meeting

Agenda

The State Bar of California

180 Howard Street Board Room, 4^th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

Friday, January 07, 2011

1:00 p.m.

Open Session

1 Guest Section

Patti White – CIC Implementation (special set 1:00 pm)

10 minutes

September 26, 2010 Minutes (regular meeting)

November 19, 2010 Minutes (regular meeting)

December 16, 2010 Minutes (special meeting)

30 President’s Report

40 Staff Reports

               41 Executive Director

               42 Secretary

50 Consent Agenda

               50-1 Financial Resolution

100 Reports of Board Committee

               110 Board Committee of Operations

111        Conflict of interest Code for Designated Employees 2011 re year 2010, Return for Public comment

               120 Regulation, Admissions and Discipline Oversight Committee

                              121        Rules of Professional Conduct Proposed New and Amended, Reconsideration of

                                             Proposed Rule 7.5(c) re Restriction on the Name of a Public Officer in a Law Firm

                                             Name

                              122        Adjustment to Cost Assessment Formula – Business and Professions Code

                                             Section 6086.10

               130 Member Oversight Committee

                              ===

                             

The agenda would be made up by the staff, and it would have all of this crap on it that was just made core that the Governors would be put upon a Committee, and he was supposed to be doing this, and doing this…


But, it was meaningless stuff.  It was just like running around in circles, to meet and debate various things, and the stuff we were meeting about, the stuff we were debating about was trivial.


And, it had nothing to do with the real needs of lawyers, responsibilities of lawyers to the public, the things that should be done in order to improve the legal profession, and also the things that should be done to help lawyers.


So, I saw tremendous outlays of money on parts… on behalf of various things like retreats for the Board of Governors, sinecures at very expensive places like NAPA… country clubs.

(A sign is shown: "Welcome to this world famous wine growing region NAPA VALLEY")

One of the things that amaze me, a little of story that kind of amaze me and kind of sets the tone for the kind of waste of money that was… that I saw at the State Bar of California during my time from the beginning was that the staff… one of its big functions was … sorta… keep the Board of Governors happy, give them whatever they wanted, so they wouldn’t look what the staff was doing.


Whatever they wanted.


You want a party? – You have a party.


You want booze? – We have booze.


You know, you wanna do this, you wanna travel, eh, we will have it all.


And, when I was on the State Bar, after … when the first meetings was gonna come up… they would meet alternately, monthly, one month in Los Angeles and one month in San Francisco.


And the first meeting that was coming up was a San Francisco meeting, and I live in San Francisco, half a mile from where the State Bar had its headquarters then.


And, I got a call saying… from this clerk of the State Bar saying: “Ah… we go… we need to know – would you like us to make your hotel reservations at the Clift Hotel?”  A fancy hotel in San Francisco, for Thursday night, and Friday night, and Saturday night.


And I said – “why would I want that?”


“Well, because you are on the Board of Governors”.


I say – “I live in San Francisco, you know, I… I… I travel by bus, so I am gonna get on the # 5 Fulton bus, put in a quarter, and I am at the State Bar building within 15 minutes from my house.


Why, the Clift Hotel is even farther away on the other side, why would I want to stay there? 


“Well, the reason you want to stay there is because everybody is junkening there, for 3 days, 3 nights - nights of partying, wonderful time, great rooms, great food, whatever you want.  And, you bring your wife – and it is a terrific company”.


I said “No, I don’t need that, I live here, I’ll get there on my own, I don’t need that”.


And that sort of set the tone for me of this waste of members’ money that was done by the staff – not just in regard to, sort of, keeping the Governors happy, but also in regard to huge salaries that many of the staff members (31:00) had, particularly the executive staff members.


Very big salaries.


We had one guy who was in charge of the discipline section of the State Bar, he was supposed to … he was the one who was in charge of all of the investigation and discipline.


And, his office … wh… when the State Bar moved to Los Angeles, his office was in Los Angeles, everything that he was doing was in Los Angeles, but he didn’t want to move to Los Angeles.

So, what the State Bar did is – he stayed here in San Francisco, and every morning they paid for his flight, and then in the evening – back.


And this guy earned more frequent flier miles than, probably, anybody in the country.

So, that was, those were a couple of… sort of… emblematic incidents about the State Bar that showed me that it… it was extremely dysfunctional."