Secret alleged temporary restraining orders from Obama and Clinton appointees out of three federal courts: a gross violation of public transparency in the government paraded as a victory of transparency and human rights

There are a lot of reports about federal judges - I've counted three so far - imposing "temporary restraining orders" (TROs) upon immigration authorities not to enforce President Trump's Executive Order, you can read the text of the order here.

I have found in the press announcements about 3 (three) such temporary restraining orders, made by judges in:

1) New York;
2) Virginia; and
3) Massachusetts.

The texts of the orders were posted online by major news media sources.

The Massachusets TRO was posted by the Boston Globe and by the American Bar Association on its Facebook page.


The Virginia TRO was posted by New York Times, case name and number is:

Tareq Aqel Mohammed Aziz and Ammar Aqel Mohammed Aziz, by their next friend, Aqel Mohammad Aziz, and John Does 1-60, Petitioners v. Donald Trump, President of the United States, et al, Respondents, case No. 1:17-cv-116 in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division,

there is no judge's name on the document posted by NY Times,

but there is on the same TRO re-posted by bloggers:

The U.S. District Judge who has ALLEGEDLY issued this "letter TRO"

(because the above mentioned case DOES NOT appear on Pacer, and there is no such thing as secret civil court cases in the United States)

is Judge Leonie M. Brinkema,

a Bill Clinton appointee who could expect handouts had her benefactor's wife Hillary Clinton been elected President.

There is no explanation in the restraining "letter order" as to the basis of the order.

There is no way of verifying on Pacer whether the case exists, whether the order was issued or not, and what was the contents of the genuine TRO if it was issued.

The reason why there is a presumption of openness of court files is for the public to be ruled by law that is verifiable, and not by what the mob (oops, the press) thinks it is.

It is not enough for me, for example, that pro-Clinton newspapers still bitter over Donald Trump becoming the President of the United States, claim that some court issued some order.

If a court order is not openly published where it is supposed to be - on Pacer.gov, it does not exist as a matter of law, and it is not enforceable.

Here is the TRO order from Massachusetts on the same subject, in a case:

Mazdark Pourabdollarh Tootkaboni and Arghavan Louhghalam, Petitioners v Donald Trump, the President of the United States, et al, Case No. 1:17-cv-10154 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The order was published by the American Bar Association on its Facebook page,

and by The Boston Globe.

The order was allegedly signed by two judges:

• the U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, a President Obama appointee,

and

• a U.S. Magistrate Judith Gail Dein,

who was first appointed to the bench in 2000, under President Bill Clinton who served as president until 2001:

Same as with the TRO in Virginia, there is no such case listed on Pacer.gov, no petitions, no applications for TROs and no TROs.

So, as of now, the alleged TROs exist only in the imagination of the reporting sources, and of the celebrating protestors.

As a matter of law the Massachusetts TRO does not exist - because there are no secret court orders in this country, such orders are not legal and not enforceable.

The ALLEGED TRO from a New York federal court was posted on the website of ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), but, before you get to read that TRO on that site, ACLU attempts to get you to donate to it because now it is "time to fight":

The New York ALLEGED TRO

was allegedly signed by the U.S. District Judge Ann M. Donnelly, a hereditary judge (daughter of two judges, Mary Donnelly and Jack Donnelly) an Obama appointee.

The case name and number is Khameed Khalid Darweesh et al v Donald Trump, President of the United States, et al, Case No. 1:17-cv-480 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

There is only one case shown on Pacer in New York with such case number, not in the Eastern District of New York, but in the Southern District of New York, filed on January 23, 2017, before the Executive Order was signed by President Trump, and before the plaintiffs were detained, so, it is a completely different case with a different name, Abadia v Colvin:

So, same as in Virginia and Massachusetts, there is no open court case about detention of immigrants in New York, and any TROs that are paraded in the press are non-existent, as a matter of law - once again, because there is no such thing in this country as a secret court order.

So, who is the New York judge who has allegedly signed this secret - and for that reason, obviously illegal - order, the Obama appointee Judge Ann Donnelly, former career prosecutor of 25 years and daughter of two judges?


Here's Judge Ann Donnelly's mother Judge Mary Donnelly and Judge Ann Donnelly's husband Michael Toth helping Ann Donnelly put on her judicial black robe for the first time:

And here is Judge Ann Donnelly's support group present at her swearing-in ceremony:

• Judge Dora Irizarry - Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York;
• Judge Michael Obus - a criminal judge from New York City and a former Administrative judge in the New York State Office of Court Administration which is famous for its corruption and white-washing misconduct of "their own":

• Judge Rena Uviller, who allowed a violent felon to be uncuffed while listening to his conviction - which resulted in an assault and injuries to three court officers, and in a court officers' union asking to remove Judge Uviller from the bench;
• Former prosecutor Robert Morgenthau, Donnelly's former boss, who was the New York County District Attorney from 1975 to 2009,
• Senator Chuck Schumer.

The supporter, former employer of 25 years and mentor of Judge Amy Donnelly is New York County DA Robert Morgenthau against whom there was a complaint of targeting minorities and lack of diversity (racism in employment):

"He faced questions about diversity in his office and attention to minority communities in the 1980s, culminating with public complaints in 1990 from a group of black legislators that included then-state Sen. David Paterson, [at the time of the article] New York's governor."

A defense attorney was cited that Donnelly's mentor DA Morgenthau's office was "overconfident" because of DA Morgenthau's "stature and tenure" and "loath to consider evidence of wrongful convictions".

Judge Donnelly was part and parcel of that office.

The "fighter for justice" Ann Donnelly is featured during his first day in office as getting to play with a giant "justice gavel" passed to her by another judge,

but has a career that has nothing to do with fighting for justice, and everything to do with drumming up wrongful convictions:

25 years as a prosecutor in New  York County District Attorney's office - what do you think she was doing there? Very possibly, locking up the same immigrants that she is so ardently (and falsely) protects for political gain, for articles like this,

and for Twitters like this:

Yet, Donnelly is a political animal that had a long climb to power by conduct that had nothing to do with fighting for human rights - just imagine how many wrongful convictions are on her conscience, first as a prosecutor, and then as a judge, and how many civil rights lawsuits, including those filed by immigrants, she dismissed - and nobody is protesting in the streets, and nobody is writing articles about it in the pro-Obama and pro-Clinton media, because there is no political gain to be derived from it.

Here is what is uniting the TROs from the 3 federal courts:

1) in Virginia,
2) in Massachusetts, and
3) in New York:

the absence of legality.

First, there is no such thing as a secret court order in the U.S.

We do not have "Star Chamber" courts in this country, and we do not have secret court orders, secret court orders are unconstitutional.  So, one cannot try to enforce one set of laws, helping refugees, by obtaining, through secret procedure, in a secret case, a secret court order.

These acclaimed TROs are posted by the media only - and whether they exist, is unverifiable, because such cases are not available for review on Pacer.gov.

Since existence and sources of such "court orders" are unverifiable through the usual official procedures - filing for public access on Pacer.gov, so that members of the public could review those documents first-hand - such orders do not exist, and are not enforceable.

So much for the "heroic" efforts of Obama and Clinton appointee-judges.

Next, as to several main questions that is prominently lacking in all three alleged TROs.

Entry into the U.S. on a visa or green card is a privilege, not a right

Judging by the slogans and protests in the pro-Clinton media and in the streets, one could presume that entry into the U.S. with a visa or a green card is some kind of a constitutional right.

It is not.

It is a privilege.

There is no law providing that a country cannot deny entry do anybody for any reason, without an explanation.

Otherwise, people who were turned down for visas or green cards, will sue the U.S. en masse.

Moreover, even issuing of a visa or green card, does not constitute a promise that the entry will be granted at any given time - there is always an opportunity that the entry will be denied, and then the remaining question will be - a refund of the money paid for the visa application.

Dispensation of the privilege of entry into the U.S. is within the discretion of the U.S. President, and the executive branch of the federal government

The executive branch of the U.S. government is vested with the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.

A person who is located within the territory of the United States, has a right to due process and a hearing before he or she is removed/deported from the United States.

"Within the territory" means that the person, whether a legal or an illegal immigrant, visa or green card holder, has passed through the immigration checkpoint at the point of entry into the country, and is now official in the United States.

People who were denied entry while being visa or green-card holders, were denied entry before they passed through immigration checkpoints.

They are, therefore, not officially in the United States, and are not within the jurisdiction of American courts.

The maximum that the court can tell the authorities to do is to release the detained immigrants and put them on the next place to the country they came from.

When I am saying this, I am not taking sides.

I do not say whether it is fair or unfair, humane or not, cruel or not.

If I take sides, I will say that it would be inhumane to deny entry to a person like Hameed Khalid Darweesh (New York TRO) who, reportedly, was approached by the U.S. military forces in Iraq and worked for the U.S. military forces, thus exposing himself to danger.  It will be only a responsible step to do to provide protection to those that the U.S government exposed to the risk of harm.

That said, the law should be applied even-handedly, and its application should not be motivated by publicity or politics, like it is in this case, otherwise it is no law.

In any civil rights case - and I mean, any case not involving publicity or snubbing Trump - the same judges would rule that the discretion of the executive power was not exceeded by a discretionary denial of entry for any reason.

Moreover, in cases like this, where people were detained before they even entered into the U.S., they would be denied even standing to sue in federal court on civil rights grounds.

Will it be cruel?  Yes, it will be.

Yet, how would the same judge rule on a case where a judge had a discretionary decision to send a person to prison for 1 year or 20 years, and sent him to prison for 20 years, tearing him from the deathbed of his dying child, or wife, or mother, for example?

The judge had a discretion, so be it.

The President had a discretion to issue that Executive Order.

What will happen now is, because the pro-Clinton press and outlets like American Bar Association (whose clients invested big money into Clinton, and lost) or ACLU who fights only for cases that promise publicity, but turns down any cases against social services, prosecutorial or judicial corruption (I know that for a fact, from people who were actually turned down by ACLU) - President Trump will simply give an order to deny visas in the embassies, to prevent the circus at the airports and in courts, with Obama- and Clinton-appointed judges pretending that their attempts to strong-arm the President on a matter of discretion is somehow the law of this country.

So, does a judge have authority to overrule a discretionary decision of the President of this country?

In the Virginia TRO, the judge provided no grounds at all for such overruling.

In Massachusetts TRO, the only statute mentioned was that the President and those acting under his command, should abstain from "secondary screenings" of visa- and green card-holders in compliance with 8 USC 1101 (a)(13)(C), which states:

QUOTE:
=======

(C) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for purposes of the immigration laws unless the alien—

(i)

has abandoned or relinquished that status,

(ii)

has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days,

(iii)

has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States,

(iv)

has departed from the United States while under legal process seeking removal of the alien from the United States, including removal proceedings under this chapter and extradition proceedings,

(v)

has committed an offense identified in section 1182(a)(2) of this title, unless since such offense the alien has been granted relief under section 1182(h) or 1229b(a) of this title, or

(vi)

is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.

UNQUOTE
---------------


8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(c)(vi) - I wonder whether Judge Burroughs and Magistrate Dein, in their zeal to get publicity and approval by the "right people" read that far - clearly indicates that if a green card holder "has not been admitted to the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer" - for whatever reasons the immigration officer did that - the court has no authority to interfere.

And that statute is applicable to Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders), so, if green card holders can be turned away at the border "after inspection or authorization by an immigration officer", there is no question that visa holders can be turned away at the border.

Where immigration officers cannot be made to disclose why they did not authorize entry.

So, the only thing that is being challenged is that the immigration officers denied entry to people because of President Trump's executive order.

They can either re-inspect the same people trying to gain entry and still deny them entry - lawfully, or the court will have to ultimately rule on the merits of the case, that executive orders of the President are lawful grounds, for national security purposes, of exercise of discretion.

So, what is going to happen now?

We have 3 secret allegedly existing orders from 3 secret allegedly existing court cases by which 4 judges, appointees of either President Obama, or President Clinton, try, unlawfully,  to make President Trump's administration "more transparent" in its discretionary immigration decisions that are based on national security considerations.

Why did all three judges hide the entire files of these cases?

Because they are afraid of public scrutiny?

That people will actually review their rulings and see that they are based not on law, but on raw politics?

Then, these judges are not heroes, as they are portrayed in the pro-Clinton press.

When a person violates the oath of office that person took to enforce, not break the law of the country that pays that person's salary, such persons, all four judges, are subject to impeachment, not praise.

So far, protestors were able to strong-arm the President into taking some steps back in his position - at least outwardly.

On Sunday night, President Trump and the head of Homeland Security issued a clarification, that the executive order does not really target the lawful permanent residents (green-card holders):

"...I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest,” Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said in a statement. “Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.”

8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(c)(vi) did not mandate the President to make such a policy announcement - so, it is either a significant show of weakness, or, appeasement of the public, because, when the Homeland Security will receive "significant derogatory information" and turns away a green card-holder at the border, it will not have to disclose what that derogatory information was - no law requires the President or immigration authorities to do that.

The Immigration and Nationality Act gave a very wide discretion to the President to deny access to the country to aliens, whether resident aliens or not, and strong-arming the President in refusing to apply all power of his discretion to protect the country is not a good idea - it is a political campaign to snub anything the President is doing, because he is not who the business elite (that supports the protests) wanted and paid for.

Let's think - how could "thousands of lawyers" who have expertise in immigration law emerge, flock into airports, and find money and time to do cases pro bono? 

Do we even have so many specialists in immigration law in this country?

And, how come that people in immigration detention centers linger for months, in completely inhuman, crowded, humiliating conditions (I had a case where I got a woman out of such detention, she looked 20 years older than she actually was, and than she looked prior to detention, because of the conditions she was kept in), without any attorneys, if there is such an abundance of do-gooders in the legal profession as showed up in the airports?

Or, was it a concerted, and paid for, PR action? With the purpose:

1. to snub the President, no matter what he does, and frustrate his work;
2. to boost donations to ACLU, and
3. to redeem the image of the legal profession at the time attorney monopoly is breaking at its seams, as the reason for the growing "justice gap" in this country, the reason why Americans do not have court representation of their own choice, that they can afford?

I already saw multiple comments on Facebook praising lawyers, stating that "they take back all the bad lawyer jokes", claiming that lawyers are heroes etc.

Where is all that flock of pro bono lawyers for the basic needs of indigent and low-income Americans, and why, with such an army of pro bono do-gooders in the legal profession, at the very same time, a huge "justice gap" is reported across the country, and when the majority of Americans cannot afford a lawyer for their basic needs - to protect them from

• eviction,
• foreclosure,
• wrongful criminal prosecution or conviction,
• wrongful removal of children by social services,
• to secure their disputes with IRS,
• disability claims,
• workers compensation claims,
• employment discrimination claims?

Just try calling ACLU and asking for their help in a lawsuit against social services.

Most likely, you will be denied help.

When I was practicing in rural New York, I had several calls a day from people asking for representation in civil rights actions (good cases, only I could not take so many pro bono, I had to pay my bills, too) which ACLU, according to them, turned down.

Where are those army of lawyers for all these people?

Why does this "justice gap" exist in this country - where there are such crowds of lawyers willing to help, for free, non-citizens that the immigration authorities stopped from entering the country?

Because helping those people, without fanfare or solicitation of donations to ACLU, in a truly pro bono, invisible way, without creating publicity, and while representing people on cases that can find a lawyer stepping on government's toes and risking retaliation, is not what those lawyers are after?

Because, when the President is the favorite boy for beating by the media supported by Clintons' frustrated donors, it is safer to work under protection of that media, while getting publicity, and promoting their careers in the process?

But that is not fighting for justice, is it?

Because, where were those same "fighters for justice" when President Obama blocked refugees from Iraq from being admitted to this country?  For 6 months?

When, at President Obama's command, children died from U.S. drone strikes in those Muslim countries?

Wasn't it Senator Obama supporting a bill to build a fence along the Mexican border in 2006?  With no protesting crowds, or rallies?

It is a dangerous delusion that mobbing airports - and thwarting the airport security officers in their efforts to ensure safe travel - has anything to do with fighting for justice.

People are making money - and eliminating competitors - on these protests.

For example, Lyft pledged a million dollars to ACLU over the next four years "to defend our Constitution" and made an advertising out of it, because it allegedly boycotted innocent air travelers, and Uber, its competitor, didn't, continuing to provide services to people who would otherwise be stranded in mobbed airports for no fault of theirs.

Faced with a boycott of its company organized in social media, by its competitor, Uber caved in, joined the protests and even set aside $3 million for a "legal defense fund" against the ban - so, politically motivated extortion worked.

Yet, the justice gap remains where it was, and ACLU is unwilling to bridge in causes that do not offer publicity, or which are "sensitive", "controversial" and would expose ACLU to a risk of losing donations and causing disapproval from the legal establishment.

Violations of human rights in the U.S. remain where they were, and unavailability of effective remedies for those violations remain where it was, with federal courts (which, for political reasons, in violation of all existing rules of review, secretly - allegedly - granted a stay of a discretionary decision of the President simply because that was not the President those judges supported in elections). 

Judges who allegedly made the decisions (there is, once again, no confirmation that such decisions, or even court cases, exist - no trace of them on Pacer.gov) are no fighters for human rights - take Ann Donnelly, a career prosecutor of 25 years in the office that was accused of racism and refusing to even consider evidence of wrongful convictions it has spawned, the Ann Donnelly a hereditary judge, which, in New York, does not happen without dynastic connections and generations of mutual brown-nosing by the governmental elite families.

Once those same immigrants are admitted - and the judges have a nod from the "right" people who financed this whole "protest operation" - like they did the "Women's March" the previous weekend - if those same immigrants have their kids wrongfully taken away by social services, or become targets of wrongful criminal prosecution, or of eviction, or of foreclosure, or of court corruption, they will be on their own.  There will be no crowd of lawyers, no protestors in the streets, and no "justice for all".

It is not "justice for all" now either.

What is going on is a PR campaign to provide the necessary crowds for big business interests that bet on a different horse - and lost.

And - one doesn't get justice and transparency through secret court proceedings and secret court orders.

That is a return to the Star Chamber, and, no matter which side you are on in this "immigration" debate, or in any other debate as to what the current President is doing, Star Chambers instead of open court proceedings are not the answer.  They are dangerous, specifically because of their secrecy.

Those three alleged TROs are not valid court orders - because they are unverifiable through public records.

There are NO SUCH CASES on Pacer, and thus no way to verify whether these celebrated TROs that are published by the press, and obtained from unknown sources, EXIST.

Celebration of the re-emergence of Star Chamber secret court proceedings as beacons of democracy is ridiculous, as well as a dangerous delusion.

And, I have a question - the current President has been in office for a period covering, so far, two weekends.

Both weekends were marked with mobs of protestors, in well-organized protests that impair transportation and overburden police.

What kind of protests will be organized for the next weekend?

Just wondering?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and its "Wide is My Motherland" (oops, "Just-Us for All") brainwashing program for gullible youth

On January 23, 2017 (3 days after inauguration of President Trump), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit made the following announcement on its website:

The website interlinked in that announcement, http://justiceforall.ca2.uscourts.gov/, displays a slide show of solemn faces of young people that is supposed, I understand, to convey the message that the court is eager to open up to the public and teach the public about its operations, so that the public, and especially the young adults, the future of the country, would understand better the workings of the court (and thus trust and support judicial power of the court).

The announcement on the front page of the website says:

Programs included into this "civic education initiative" are:

1. Visits for school and college students to the courthouse;
2. "Civic education";
3. "Student contests";
4. "Reenactments"; - I do not think they include into that part a re-enactment of court-fixing that is going on even now, through the New York State-Federal Judicial Council, or the disdainful discussions of how to toss nearly 100% of civil rights cases without review on the merits, through summary non-precedential orders;
5. "Civic ceremonies";
6. ."Speakers" - where the busy judges somehow find time to come and speak to students about their own excellence and about the excellence of their system, while hiding its corruption through denials of FOIA requests, denial of civil rights appeals targeting judicial corruption and fixing civil rights cases involving judges or their relatives or friends behind closed doors, through the New York State-Federal Judicial Council;
7. "Adult education" - no, it's not pornography, it is much worse, it is stuffing the heads of adults with fake news about "integrity" of a corrupt court, to instill an illusion that there is "access to court" and there are remedies for human rights violations in this country, which is not true - so that people would not protest against corruption of the court, viewing it through pink glasses of illusions

Questions that I, as a taxpayer and citizen have in connection with this "program", are:

1) where did the money come from? Since then the government is allowed to run a fake self-PR campaign under the guise of "civic education", while hiding from the public the most essential information about its own operation?

2) where did the time come from? Isn't the 2nd Circuit so suffocated for time that it switched (illegally) practically all civil rights cases to a "certiorari" review, denying review on the merits with full opinions, to nearly 100% of civil rights cases, and instead, rubber-stamping district court decisions, whatever they say, in "summary", non-precedential, orders, despite the fact that all appellant pay the same filing fee, and despite the fact that procedural rules require from the court the same level of review for all appellants?  I am sure THAT little aspect of the Court's "operation" is not taught as part of this "civic education";

3) the next question I have is - why such an interesting timing?  Why pretend that the 2nd Circuit is the beacon of the "rule of law" just 3 days after the inauguration of President Trump?

There were no problems with the rule of law in the country before President Trump taking office?

The court does not totally lack transparency as to:

(1) communication with chosen attorneys appearing in front of the court through the Federal Inn of Court?

(2) communication with chosen attorneys and state judges through New York State-Federal Judicial Councils? The NYS FJC is a shadow organization that does not have any legal basis for existence, that includes federal judges appointed by the Chief Judge of the 2nd Circuit and by the Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, but no lists of judges are available on freedom of information requests to either courts:

• state FOIL requests are stonewalled because, allegedly, there are no such records with the office of New York Court administration - even though many attorneys and some judges (after retirement) boast in their advertisements that they have the ear of judges they appear in front of, by being part of "Advisory Committee" to that "Council", or being part of the "Council" itself, as did, for example, did in his advertisement for himself and his law firm the retired judge of the New York State Appellate Division 3rd Department Thomas Mecure, now "of counsel" with a powerful Albany law firm Carter Conboy

In his and his law firm's advertisement, "Justice" Mercure, advertising as a private attorney, claims that for 10 years (2003-2013), including the year when I sued him and his court on behalf of my husband in a civil rights action, he was "one of five state judges meeting regularly with five federal judges to facilitate the disposition of cases in both court systems".

So, at the time when my husband's motions to vacate his unconstitutional order of disbarment obtained to eliminate my husband as competition for son-of-a-judge Richard Harlem and his father, retired Supreme Court Justice, former Chief Administrative Judge for the 6th Judicial District of New York State, and a landlord of State Senator James Seward of many decades - and at the time when I was suing Judge Mercure and various other judges of his court for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief - Judge Mercure, without disclosure to me as his opposing counsel in litigation, was actually part of a group of "five state and five federal judges" who "regularly met" to "facilitate disposition" of "state and federal court cases" - in other words, they met to fix court cases in both state and federal court, and Judge Mercure is proudly announcing it on his website as part of his attorney advertisement.

"I fixed court cases as a judge, I still have connections as a retired judge, and I can do it for you now, my dear clients, for a fee, in both state and federal courts".

And that is exactly why

• the 2nd Circuit stubbornly refuses, for a long time by now, to even rule on my administrative appeal of denial of my FOIA request for the list of those beacons of democracy, members of the case-fixing criminal cartel, the New York State-Federal Judicial Council who met behind closed doors to "facilitate disposition" of court cases in "state and federal courts".

Because, such lists, and dates of their participation in the Council, will show too much - when compared with lawsuits where state judges, or their courts, were defendants in the very same cases they were "facilitating" behind closed doors with federal judges - with full permission and approval of the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit - which is an impeachable offense and a crime that the FBI should take up, but doesn't, because in this country, federal judges are untouchable, no matter what they do, from sexual assaults on court personnel to fixing cases behind closed doors.

Maybe, the young people who come to federal courts on tours must be forewarned that they can be preyed upon by judges who are sexual predators, and nothing will be done about it - because judges in this country are allowed to do ANYTHING with impunity?

The 2nd Circuit refused to even disclose the structure of the New York State Federal Judicial Council - which Judge Mercure so readily discloses in his advertisement (5 state judges and 5 federal judges), and from the only record that the NYS OCA agreed to cough up in response to my FOIL request, we also know that the state judges are appointed by the Chief Judge of New York State Court of Appeals and the federal judges are appointed by the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Given that NYS Chief Judge Janet DiFiore criminal endeavors before she took the bench was widely reported, but nobody dared to prosecute her, a close friend of the Governor (New York Senate also refused to investigate her, being thrown a bone of appointment of their own counsel Michael Garcia, friend of felon former NYS Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sol Wachtler, to the Court of Appeals) before she took the bench, and as soon as she took it, she

1. fixed a court case with a gross conflict of interest of her husband Dennis Glazer in May of 2016; and;
2. in July of 2016 she went so far as appointing her own husband Dennis Glazer - likely as a 35-year marriage anniversary gift - to co-chair a "Task Force" "researching" whether to advise New Yorkers to change or not to change their own State Constitution (lest they should decide to abolish judicial immunity for corruption, I guess)

I can only imagine how and for what benefits and promises Janet DiFiore is making her other appointments of friends and family, or of friends of friends, and how she is "appointing" judges to this shadow organization in order to fix civil rights cases against judges, police and prosecutors - those who were invited, as friends, to her swearing-in ceremony in February of 2016.

I am sure, the gullible youths who will come to participate in the "civic education program", will not be taught about case fixing, or that no matter what a federal judge does in regards to a court case, he or she is immune from lawsuit for malicious and corrupt acts from victims of his corruption, and the federal Judicial Disability Act does not allow discipline of such a judge - again, because his or her corruption was in regards to a court case, leaving as the only remedies:

• impeachment - which nearly never happens; and
• an FBI investigation - which never happens as to federal judges, no matter what they do.

This "civic education program" is Soviet-type brainwashing, and Soviet-type propaganda.

And, while the issue of court corruption is the MAIN issue in this country - because, with the rampant court corruption, as it exists now, without any effective mechanisms of dealing with it, and with the legal profession and the media in the grips of fear to even touch the issue - there is no hope of "justice for all".

But, that's not a "newsworthy" subject, and I do not see "thousands of lawyers descend" upon the 2nd Circuit and other federal and state courthouses in the State of New York (like they do to get into the limelight of "protests" against President Trump's executive order on immigration), boycotting, protesting, offering pro bono representation to victims of court misconduct and corruption - or no, self-preservation of the legal profession and of judges reigns supreme.

It is better to employ a corruptionist like Judge Mercure as soon as he retires and use his connections for profit rather than fight corruption in court - and end up without a license.

Justice for all be damned.

At the end, I will offer a music piece for your entertainment, which very closely portrays what the 2nd Circuit is doing through its "Justice for All" program.

It is a song, which was very popular in the Soviet Union when I was growing up there - the song, created and instilled into the brain of every person in the country, broadcast by government radio stations, sung at "anniversary" of this or that concerts, sung at the time when:

• freedom of speech was suppressed;
• private enterprise was a felony;
• religious beliefs were persecuted, to the point of children taken away from religious families (of any faith), and people of faith losing their jobs;
• criticism of the government resulted in prison time, or punitive psychiatric lock-up where the dissident was turned into a vegetable by psychotropic drugs

at this very time this song was proliferated in the country and seeped into the brains of every person on the Soviet soil:

Wide is my Motherland,
Of her many forests, fields, and rivers!
I know of no other such country
Where a man can breathe so freely.
From Moscow to the borders,
From the southern mountains to the northern sea
A man stands as a master
Over his vast Motherland.

Throughout life, and freely and widely,
Just like the Volga flows.
The youth are always dear to us,
The old are always honored by us.

Wide is my Motherland,
Of her many forests, fields, and rivers!
I know of no other such country
Where a man can breathe so freely.

Our fields are too wide for the eyes,
Our cities are too many to remember,
Our proud word - comrade -
To us is higher than all fine words.

With this word everywhere we feel at home.
For us there are no "blacks" or "coloreds".
This word is familiar to everyone,
With it we always find friends.

Wide is my Motherland,
Of her many forests, fields, and rivers!
I know of no other such country
Where a man can breathe so freely.

At our table, no one is excluded,
Each is awarded on merit,
In golden letters we write
The people's Stalin's law.

These great and glorious words
Will live through the years:
A person always has the right To study, rest, and work.

Wide is my Motherland,
Of her many forests, fields, and rivers!
I know of no other such country
Where a man can breathe so freely.

Over the country, the spring breeze is blowing.
Every day life becomes more joyful,
And no one on earth could know
Our great ways of laughter and love.

But our brows shall frown sternly
If an enemy attempts to break us.
As a bride, we love our Motherland,
We protect her, as a gentle mother.

Wide is my Motherland,
Of her many forests, fields, and rivers!
I know of no other such country
Where a man can breathe so freely.

That's exactly what the 2nd Circuit is doing by broadcasting its "Just-Us for All" program.

Maybe, they should play this song in the courthouse.

Often.

Enjoy and "breathe freely".  And don't you dare wake up to reality.

The 3rd Department confirmed it lied to federal court in a civil rights case Neroni v Zayas when claiming that a suspended or disbarred attorney can never be prohibited to work as a paralegal - the case of #AttorneyGasparCastillo continues

In April of 2016, I wrote about criminal defense attorney Gaspar Castillo who was banned from representation of criminal defendants who chose him as their attorney.

While writing that blog, I wondered, what exactly was omitted in this aggressive persecution of a criminal defense attorney, what exactly did he do to the powers that be so that they were so viciously after him, and specifically were seeking to ban him from earning money and being employed by clients, even though he was never disciplined.

The powers that be immediately remedied that situation by suspending Gaspar Castillo - not once, not twice, but three times within the period from June 9, 2016 to December 1, 2016.

According to the final order of suspension of attorney Gaspar Castillo, the suspension happened after the Attorney Grievance Committee first called attorney Castillo to testify in the investigation against himself (while attorney Castillo was not given by the new disciplinary rules 22 NYCRR 1240 a matching procedural permission to call the Grievance Committee to testify in that same "civil" proceeding, and then used the contents of his testimony against him.

All orders of suspension are available here:

1) the interim order of suspension of June 9, 2016;
2) the interim order of suspension of August 18, 2016, on allegations of misconduct (neglect of two appeals) allegedly admitted by attorney Castillo;
3) the final order of suspension, of December 1, 2016.

Since I know, from personal involvement in several cases where I represented the attorney sought to be  disciplined (including myself) that this particular grievance committee is prone to lie in pleadings and hide records that would show their misconduct and fraud, to the point of either blocking access to them, even from party opponents in litigation - I will not believe anything in the order of the 3rd Department regarding anything bad that attorney Castillo allegedly did wrong, until I see evidence submitted to that effect in his disciplinary proceedings, and I will seek access to those records and will report whether such access will be given to me.

Under Judiciary Law 90(10), all pleadings in the disciplinary case that led to suspension or disbarment, are open public records.

But, the most interesting part came after attorney Castillo's suspension.

After he received his suspension, he made an interesting motion - which was even more interesting that attorney Castillo is a criminal defense attorney and should have known better than to make such motions.

Attorney Castillo asked the Appellate Division 3rd Department for an advance notice whether certain conduct, like working as a paralegal (unregulated occupation that does not require a law license) and another 25 occupations that do not constitute practice of law in New York, would constitute unauthorized practice of law for him, attorney Castillo, in violation of his order of suspension.

Why that was not reasonable?

Here is why (and that is, of course, my personal opinion).

Unauthorized practice of law (and criminal contempt of court, too) are criminal statutes.

In order to be convicted under those statutes, a member of the public must have clear notice through the text of those statutes, that certain conduct constitutes UPL or criminal contempt of court.

The court order of suspension prohibited attorney Castillo to "practice law".

What constitutes "practice of law" in New York is not defined by statute, thus giving attorney Castillo no notice as to what conduct was prohibited.

Thus, the order of suspension, for purposes of criminal contempt of court, was not legal and enforceable through a criminal contempt of court conviction, or through a UPL conviction.

If there is no notice of prohibited conduct in a statute, a person does not go to the government to ask the government to GIVE him that notice, so that the government then have a better chance of convicting him, claiming that the notice of what the government decides - for this person only - as criminal conduct (while the same government does not consider that same conduct as "practice of law" for thousands upon thousands of unlicensed individuals in New York working as paralegals).

But - attorney Castillo did ask.

Of course, criminal proceedings against Castillo for UPL or criminal contempt of court were not brought yet.

And, if they would be brought, the correct court to bring them in would not be the Appellate Division 3rd Department, but the lower criminal trial court.

And,  a court to decide a separate action for a declaratory judgment as to the meaning and scope of a statute, CPLR 3001, would be the lower trial court of general jurisdiction - the Supreme Court of New York State (not the Appellate Division 3rd Department).

And, NO COURT would be able to decide whether a certain conduct is or is not unauthorized practice of law, because - the "practice of law" in New York is not defined by statute, and without such definition, not conviction for UPL or for related crimes, for "practicing law", is possible on due process grounds.

Remember the recent Judge Aaron Persky's case?

Despite all petitions to take him off the bench and/of to discipline him, he was not disciplined - because, at the time he gave a rapist a slap on the wrist for having sex with an unconscious woman out in the street, the blessed State of California did not have on the books a criminal statute that would call such conduct "rape" and that would presume lack of consent from the victim's being unconscious during such sex.

The same principle - based on the ancient Roman principle "nulla poena sine lege" (no crime without the law), which was embedded, as a "notice" due process requirement, into our constitutional jurisprudence, would bar criminal prosecutions for "unauthorized" practice of law where:

1) what is "authorized" or not "authorized" is decided on a case-by-case basis by courts and constitute unconstitutional ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, and
2) when what constitutes "practice of law" is not defined by statute.

In view of all of the above jurisdictional problems, what the Appellate Division 3rd Department answered to attorney Gaspar Castillo, in its decision on motion, is especially interesting.

Here is that interesting decision.

In it, the 3rd Department:

1) first, acknowledged that it has no jurisdiction to hear the issues raised in the motion on the merits - because it was (a) premature, and (b)  would constitute an improper "advisory opinion";since the court acknowledged that it had no jurisdiction to consider the issues, it should have stopped right then and there.

Not a chance.

2) second, the 3rd Department, still decided the case on the merits - even after its acknowledgement that it has no authority to do so.

Here is what the court said:

 The 3rd Department specifically characterizes the work as a paralegal (and in 25 other jobs - without providing a list of those positions, which is totally in the tradition of the 3rd Department).

The only 3 positions that the 3rd Department branded as "practice of law" for attorney Castillo that the 3rd Department condescended upon the public to list are:

1. a paralegal;
2. a legal assistant; and
3. a law clerk.

Work of paralegals and legal assistants is not regulated in New York and does not require a law license.

Courts require a law license for positions of a law clerk - which is what attorney Castillo challenges as improper - because doing legal research for a judge is a paralegal job and is not "the practice of law".  Judges in New York of the level employing law clerks (County court and higher) are prohibited, by the New York State Constitution, to practice law.  Their research assistants, law lerks, full-time court employee, are not permitted to practice law either.

Judges McCarthy, Garry, Rose, Clark and Mulvey now are saying that law clerks ARE practicing law?  Who are their clients?  Judges?  But, judges are represented, by statute, Public Officers Law 17, by the New York State Attorney General and not by law clerks.  Judge Mulvey certainly knows that - NYS Attorney General already represented him in civil rights lawsuits that I brought against him, on behalf of myself and my clients.

Which brings me to the civil rights lawsuit Neroni v Zayas that I have filed on behalf of my husband, Frederick J. Neroni, in January of 2013, 4 years ago.

The same blessed 3rd Department and is Grievance Committee obtained a dismissal of that civil rights lawsuit, charging specifically that interpreting the criminal Unauthorized Practice of Law statute, in the absence of a statutory definition of what the "practice of law" is, as prohibiting employment as a paralegal or legal assistant, positions that do not require a law license or even college education from anybody else, would be considered by courts unauthorized practice of law for a suspended or disbarred attorney.

In their pleadings in Neroni v Zayas, on their motion to dismiss, they claimed that, if a suspended or disbarred attorney is employed as a paralegal or legal assistant, his prosecution for UPL is unlikely to the point that it was frivolous to even raise that issue.

Well, now the 3rd Department and its Grievance Committee backtracked on their own statements in their own pleadings in that civil rights lawsuit and revived Neroni v Zayas, re-defining, in arrears, the meaning of hundreds of orders of suspension and disbarment in New York, in violation of an ex post facto clause.


There is no cure for being stupid, and judges who are political appointees to appellate benches are no exception.

It is apparent that, through cases like attorney Castillo's and through decisions as stupid as the decision prohibiting to attorney Castillo to work as a paralegal or legal assistant as "practice of law" requiring a law license - while allowing anybody else, with or without a high school diploma or law license, to work in the same positions without any government regulation or control - courts demonstrate not only their own incompetence and dishonesty, but also the desperate struggle of the legal profession to grab onto the remnants of control in a situation where the illegality of "attorney regulation", where the government cannot even define through as statute, as the law requires, what the heck it is regulating - to hang onto its lucrative monopoly for the "practice of law", whatever that is.

Note the 3rd Department's reference as to what constitutes UPL not to the statute, but to court cases, while courts are not allowed in New York to legislate and amend criminal UPL statutes by writing into them what is not contained in their plain text.

The 3rd Department refers in its support to: Matter of Brandes, of 2015 (I wrote about this case here), and Matter of Dudley, of 2002.

Matter of Dudley, by the way, was removed from the Internet - and even from the searchable database of the Appellate Division 3rd Department - but I was able to obtain a "cached" version of it, here it is:

==

MATTER OF DUDLEY

• Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.
• 296 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

In the Matter of RICHARD A. DUDLEY JR., a Suspended Attorney and Counselor-at-Law. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, Petitioner; RICHARD A. DUDLEY JR., Respondent.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.

July 3, 2002.

Mark S. Ochs, Committee on Professional Standards (Geoffrey E. Major of counsel), Albany, for petitioner.

Richard A. Dudley Jr., Canton, respondent pro se.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

---

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in 1965. He is currently suspended from practice until further order of this Court (Matter of Dudley, 282 A.D.2d 867). Prior to his suspension, he maintained a law office in the Town of Canton, St. Lawrence County.

As charged by petitioner, we find that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while suspended by writing a letter on behalf of a former divorce client to the client's spouse setting forth a proposed settlement of their pending divorce (see, 22 NYCRR 806.9 [a]; 1200.16 [b]).

Having heard respondent in mitigation pursuant to our rules (see, 22 NYCRR 806.5) but also considering his disciplinary record in aggravation (see, e.g., Matter of Dudley, supra; Matter of Dudley, 262 A.D.2d 864; Matter of Dudley, 250 A.D.2d 996), we conclude that respondent's current suspension shall continue for six months from the date of this decision after which he may file an application for reinstatement.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that respondent is found guilty of professional misconduct as charged and specified in the petition; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent's current indefinite suspension is continued for six months, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that, for the period of his suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; he is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court's rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys (see, 22 NYCRR 806.9). 

==

The interesting part in Dudley - and, possibly, that is why the text was removed from the Internet - was because it was inapplicable to Gaspar Castillo's case.

While trying to set settlement points on behalf of a client in litigation may be "practice of law" - if it is so defined (it is not), there is no indication in Matter of Dudley whether he acted as an attorney, a paralegal who wrote that letter as a secretary for his employer, or whether he wrote that letter under dictation of a friend.

And, another interesting point is how the 3rd Department scrubs the Internet so that people would not even be able to identify the "Matter of Dudley" case.

That case is referred by 3rd Department in Attorney Castillo's decision of January 26, 2017 as "Matter of Dudley, 296 Ad2d 651, 652".

Google search of such a citation brings to a "casetext" link which, when pressed, returns an "error".

(I was lucky I know to try to click underneath that link for a "cached" (preserved) version - that's how I got the text of the decision).

But, without the FIRST name of the disciplined attorney Dudley, the New York State Attorney Registration database of attorneys, searched by only last name, returns no records at all:

The database of decisions of the 3rd Department also returns an "error" as to "Matter of Dudley" decision.

So, the only way for me to learn the first name of attorney Dudley, and arrive to his actual page on NYS Attorney Registration website that does list orders of his discipline (one of which was cited by the 3rd Department in Gaspar Castillo's case in 2017) was through getting a "cached" version of the 2002 decision that was not yet scrubbed off the Internet.

Here is the history of attorney Dudley on NYS Attorney Registration website, which I could obtain only after I put in not only his last name, but also his first name - that I could only get from the "cached" decision.

The attorney's name is RICHARD ALBERT Dudley.  You can see his history by putting both first and last name into the attorney registration database.

Not only New York continues to regulate as "practice of law" and "unauthorized practice of law" what it did not even define by statute - which is a violation of due process of all people so regulated.

But, New York is doing it also by stealth, and by fraudulently using inapplicable cases, while erasing the track to those cases on the Internet, to defy verification.

So, I wonder what the 3rd Department will say now in Neroni v Zayas case - where I, on behalf of my husband, 4 years ago, put in the equal protection claim about their conduct that they claimed to the judge (falsely) they will never do?

They did, didn't they?

And, they now proclaimed 25 jobs as "unauthorized practice of law" for suspended and disbarred attorneys, but not for anybody else, while making 22 out of 25 prohibited jobs secret - which is not how notice in criminal proceedings works.

I filed a FOIL request with Attorney Grievance Committee of the 3d Department today, the "Petitioner" in the Castillo case, asking for copies of the motion and opposition that led to this interesting decision about "practice of law" by working as a paralegal, legal assistant, law clerk, and in other 22 positions that the court did not care to disclose.  I will post their reply when I receive it.

I wonder whether attorney Castillo, and all other suspended or disbarred attorneys in New York whose orders of suspension or disbarment were redefined backwards in this decision will file a class action on equal protections, due process and ex post facto grounds.

If they don't, the only reason why is - because a suspended attorney cannot file a pro se class action, there should be a licensed attorney doing it, and licensed attorneys, seeing how courts are doing whatever they want in breaking the law under the guise of enforcing it, would be afraid to do that.

Anyway, I will continue to monitor the interesting developments with regulation of "we do not know what it is, but we regulate it anyway" by New York courts, and courts in other American jurisdictions, and will report those developments here.

Stay tuned.