The succession of brain-dead judges in Chenango County, New York - the anti-Semitic Dowd is out, the racist Revoir is in.

According to my sources, the anti-Semitic and brain-dead Judge Kevin Dowd of Chenango County Supreme Court who harassed a Jewish litigant by subjecting him to illegal searches and force of a court-attendant/Nazi sympathizer and escaped liability only by claiming "absolute judicial immunity" has finally left the court - retired.

He mentored and left behind a twin younger copy of his own self - Judge Frank B Revoir who claimed in 2014 that making constitutional argument is an equivalent of lying to the court.

I will not be surprised if Revoir will try to ascend to Dowd's thrown of the Supreme Court Justice by running for his seat this year.

Revoir already made a necessary step towards that coveted goal.

While I personally know that Revoir is frantic about his personal safety as a judge - in his chats at attorney conferences he boasted of the new courthouse in Chenango Courthouse with a separate entrance and elevator for judges, so that judges would not have to "mix" with the mere mortals - Revoir has just appeased the racist all-white local law enforcement community of Chenango and surrounding counties by acquitting a white correctional officer charged with a racially motivated attempted murder of all charges.

Let's remember, in a neighboring Otsego County, a mentally disabled teenage boy was recently sent by a judge to prison for attempted murder of an African-American boy

while the judge denied him a youth offender status simply because the judge was pissed with the boy's father who wrote to the judge asking him for mercy to his son.

The African-American boy was wounded in the arm.

Yet, in Chenango County, when an adult white corrections officer, spouting racial slurs, shoots an African-American point-blank with a Glock gun in the abdomen, a judge first dismisses the charges, and, after the prosecution appeals and three out of 6 charges are reinstated on appeal, punishes the prosecution and the People of Chenango County for appealing his decision by acquitting the perpetrator of a violent hate crime of all charges.

Here is how the Appellate Division 3rd Department described what happened in the case:

After the shooter, a white corrections officer, was - naturally - indicted by the grand jury, Revoir DISMISSED the hate crimes for - guess what? - "insufficient evidence"!  Just re-read the above portions of the appellate court's decision.  That evidence was insufficient for a white judge to charge a white corrections officer with a racially-based violent crime against an African-American who he intentionally shot calling him a "nigger", a "monkey", a "jungle bunny" and promising to kill him.  That's some judge!

Defense attorneys in New York routinely make motions to dismiss an indictment based on insufficient evidence before the grand jury, but obtaining such a dismissal is nearly impossible, and the reason is - by New York law, grand jury proceedings and transcripts are secret from the defense (but not the prosecution), only a judge may review grand jury transcripts, and does it without revealing them to the defense.

Therefore, judges routinely use that advantage to deny such motions off-handedly while claiming that they reviewed the transcripts (even if they didn't) and did not find anything lacking.

In this case, Revoir, the judge who considers human rights, constitutional rights as a form of "lying to the court", bent over backwards to find fault with the indictment - and dismissed hate-crime charges where not only no reasonable judge, but no decent human being could do that.

The prosecution appealed, the appellate court, the just-retired "honorable" Presiding judge Karen Peters, remanded - without changing the obviously biased judge, knowing what will happen next.

District Attorney McBride, knowing what happens to attorneys who file motions to recuse biased judges - even in criminal cases, even to prosecutors who are usually never disciplined - did not file a motion to recuse.

That allowed Revoir to do what he wanted to do anyway, punish prosecution for embarrassing him with an appeal, and put the last nail into the coffin of the criminal case.

The defendant predictably waived the jury trial that would never have acquitted under the circumstances and chose the biased judge.

The biased judge acquitted the racist shooter of all charges, and double jeopardy attached.

Congratulations, people of Chenango County.

You have a real ascending star, a gem of a judge on your throne.

He outdid even his anti-Semitic teacher, Kevin Dowd.

At least, Dowd did not let a violent racist shooter go free.

On retirement of the "honorable" Judge Karen Peters, regulator of the legal profession. Happy New 2018 year to American attorneys and the public they serve.

In 2009, a judge decided a case in a weird and unlawful way in favor of an attorney.

The attorney happened to be the Vice-Chair of Commission for Judicial Conduct.

The Vice-Chair left the case, but was sending letters exerting pressure upon the judge not to release bail the way the law required the bail to be released.

The judge succumbed to the pressure and issued a bail-release order in such a way that it denied release to the person named on the receipt for the bail, despite requirement of the law to the contrary.

The decision was made by the judge after an ex parte communication of the judge with the County Attorney, the judge's former boss of nearly 30 years and a long-time friend who came to his office to discuss the issue of bail without participation of anybody else, behind closed doors.

That was clear judicial and attorney misconduct for both of the long-time friends.

The new attorney in the criminal case, who happened to be the much-younger wife of the criminal-court judge's life-long successful competitor and former law school classmate, complained about the judge's misconduct in that case (and in 9 other cases, with documentary evidence) to the Commission for Judicial Conduct, not knowing that she is complaining to the Commission about misconduct of its own Vice-Chair.

The Commission dismissed the complaint without even attempting to investigate it, despite documentary evidence attached to the complaint.  

The Vice Chair of the Commission did not recuse from dismissing the case the basis of which was his own misconduct.

The other person who did not recuse from the complaint was the judge from an appellate court of the jurisdiction where the appeal from the criminal proceedings was supposed to be heard.

Later, that judge became the Presiding Justice of that appellate court.  That appellate court is also functioning as the regulator of the legal profession and attorney law licenses in the jurisdiction where the controversy with bail was happening.

In the same 2009, the new attorney asked that same judge to recuse from a Family Court child neglect case because of a conflict of interest - presiding without a jury over a case where the party-petitioner (Commissioner Moon) was the judge's friend and client of 27 years before the judge came to the bench.

The motion caused a furor amongst the local attorneys who secretly advised the new attorney that "everybody knows it, but nobody makes motions", and that the new attorney "is a fresh breeze in the local courts", but that "she should not burn her bridges".

Within 10 days of the motion, Commission Moon, friend of the judge, brought child neglect proceedings against the attorney and her husband, also an attorney.  The judge recused from that case, but was seen advising the presiding judge in the case.

The child neglect case was litigated for 2 years, but was dismissed after the presiding judge was caught in collusion with the friend-of-Commissioner Moon (and friend-of-County Attorney and friend of Vice-Chair) judge attempting to arrest the new attorney in the courthouse in order not to let her co-chair a criminal trial together with her husband-attorney.

The friend of the criminal-court judge refused to abide by the law and release bail and instead sued the defendant and the law firm of the Vice-Chair.

In the new litigation where the Vice Chair was a party, initially the presiding judge was not the judge from the criminal proceeding who participated in a collusion with the Vice-Chair and the judge's long-time friend, the then-County attorney.

The initial judge expressed bewilderment as to what has driven the criminal-court judge to make a bail-release order the way he did it, but still ruled for the criminal-court judge's friend and for the Vice-Chair.

The attorney who complained about the criminal-court judge and the Vice-Chair to the Commission for Judicial Conduct appealed the decision.

The criminal-court judge's friend, the then-County attorney and a representative of the Vice-Chair threatened the attorney that bad things will happen to her if she proceeded with the appeal.

At the same time, the attorney's husband, also an attorney, filed an appeal of the criminal case raising there the same issues of misconduct of the criminal-court judge as his wife raised in the civil appeal.

The assistant district attorney and the undisclosed former law partner of the criminal-court district court judge approached the attorney-husband and transparently hinted to him that he should not be "burning bridges".

The attorney-husband persisted with the criminal appeal.

The attorney-wife won the appeal of the civil bail case, and the case was remanded back to the civil court.  

Then, the initial judge in the civil litigation about the bail somehow disappeared from the case, and the criminal-court judge whose misconduct and whose wrongful bail-release order was the whole reason for the litigation, got self-assigned to the case - despite his prior recusal from the case brought against the attorneys, husband and wife, for bringing a motion to recuse the judge in a child neglect case of a client.

The attorney-wife asked the criminal-court judge for recusal from the civil case because of his personal involvement with the actors of the case (County Attorney, Vice-Chair), and because of the history of dependence of his decisions on the will of the Vice-Chair.

The attorney-wife was not present at the hearing regarding her request for the judge to recuse, the attorney-husband was.

At the hearing, on record, the County Attorney admitted to the ex parte communication with this long-time friend and former subordinate, the criminal-court (and now civil-court) judge.

The judge went pale.

After being outed in the ex parte communication and fixing the order of bail the way the Vice Chair and the long-time friend, the County Attorney, wanted, the judge did not recuse from the case.

Instead, he initiated a proceeding against the attorney-wife, the complainant against him to the Commission for Judicial Conduct which was so handily dismissed by his accomplice the Vice-Chair, and the judge from the Appellate Division.

While the criminal-civil-Family court judge was deciding the frivolous-conduct proceedings against the attorney-wife for daring to point out his misconduct and conflict of interest, the attorney-husband who neglected to abide by the warning of the judge's former law partner, the assistant district attorney, was disbarred. 

The disbarment was without a hearing and based on a decision in the case where a non-existing cause of action (interference with prospective rights of inheritance) was rehashed as an existing cause of action (fraud and fraud upon the court) in order to provide a recovery consisting exclusively of legal fees for a crew of a former judge and his son who committed similar crimes of fraud in the past, but nobody dared to touch them because of their connections (a former judge + renting a building to New York State Senator James Seward + being under "protection" of Seward's former counsel administrative, and then appellate Judge Robert Mulvey).

The appellate judge who, as a member of the Commission for Judicial Conduct, helped the Commission's Vice-Chair dismiss a complaint against he judge based on the Vice-Chair's own misconduct, participated in the disbarment decision.

Meanwhile, the friend-of-the-Vice-Chair judge proceeded with a "frivolous conduct" proceeding against the attorney-wife.

In that proceeding, initiated by the judge, the judge acted as a victim (alleging that the attorney-wife is harassing him with her "frivolous" criticism), investigator, prosecutor, witness and adjudicator and, predictably, found the attorney-wife guilty of "frivolous conduct".

On appeal that the attorney-wife filed from the sanctions, the appellate judge who participated in fixing the complaint by the attorney-wife against the sanctioning judge and his friend the Vice Chair of the Judicial Conduct Commission, who had extrajudicial knowledge that attorney-wife's arguments in the motion to recuse were true, and who had a personal extrajudicial involvement in the case and was a witness in the case, instead of recusing herself and her court from the appeal, got herself assigned to the appeal from the sanctions, presided over the judicial panel and affirmed the sanctions of the judge she saved as a member of the Judicial Conduct Commission by fixing the complaint about him.

Then, the now-presiding appellate judge's court, as the regulator of the legal profession, sought to disbar the attorney-wife, as they already disbarred the attorney-husband.

The disciplinary commission of the court, "the arm of the court", appointed and regulated by the appellate judge, brought disciplinary charges against the attorney-wife based on sanctions imposed upon her by the friend-of-Vice-Chair judge, where the presiding appellate judge helped the Vice-Chair fix the complaint of the attorney against the friend-of-Vice-Chair judge.

The attorney removed the case to federal court under a removal statute used when a fair adjudication in a state court is impossible.

It was impossible, based on personal involvement of the presiding judge of the regulator court in the controversy and her fixing of three cases before the removal:

1. a complaint against the friend-of-Vice-Chair judge in 2010,
2. a disbarment after the friend-of-Vice-Chair judge's former law partner threatened the attorney's husband not to criticize the friend-of-Vice-Chair judge in a criminal appeal,
3. affirming, as a presiding judge of the panel, sanctions imposed by the friend-of-Vice-Chair judge upon the attorney for pointing out the judge's misconduct and personal involvement in two court cases - civil and criminal, and the judge's fixing the bail order in the criminal case the way the Vice-Chair wanted, even though that way was against the statutory law.

After the case was removed, the presiding appellate judge fought tooth and claw to return it back to her court, arguing that the case had to be returned because the attorney-wife is white, and thus is not entitled to remove the case based on a statute, 28 USC 1443, because supposedly, that statute could be used only in cases of racial discrimination. 

No such restriction was in the text of the statute, but the federal judge, whose own state law license was in the hands of the state appellate court judge, decided that it is safer to sacrifice the attorney than to lose his own law license and seat on the bench - and remanded the case.

After that, the attorney sued the presiding appellate judge for a declaratory judgment asking to reveal her involvement in shadow secret-membership organizations where judges and select attorneys meet behind closed doors and get to fix cases - American Inns of Court and New York State-Federal Judicial Council.

As soon as the presiding appellate judge was served with the lawsuit seeking documents of her involvement in a system of case-fixing through a shadow quasi-judicial organization (Neroni v Peebles filed in NDNY in 2014), she immediately transferred the case to another court and hid the allegedly existing motion by its "arm of the court", the disciplinary committee, asking for the transfer. 

The presiding judge refused to release that document, the motion, even though it was part of the record of a court case, to the new court or to the parties in the disciplinary case, until her retirement at the end of 2017.

After his retirement, another judge of the same disciplinary court, Judge Mercure, who participated in disbarment of attorney-husband, acknowledged that he was, for years, part of the State-Federal Judicial Council.

One single document that the attorney-wife was able to obtain about that organization was from New York State court system indicating that:

1. Such an organization exists.
2. Appointments to that organizations are made by Chief judges of the New York court system on the state side and by the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit on the federal side;
3. the Chairperson of the organization is federal judge Mae D'Agostino who dismissed the federal lawsuit that the attorney-wife brought against the friend-of-Vice-Chair judge for a declaratory judgment that retaliatory sanctions violated for the contents of attorney's speech violated the 1st Amendment.  

The 2nd Circuit refused to provide any documents as to membership of the Council, its agenda, composition of its "attorney advisory council" or any other documents.

Attorney-wife was suspended without a hearing, the only basis for suspension being "frivolous conduct" - for sanctions imposed by friend-of-Vice-Chair judge for public criticism of that judge.  Attorney's constitutional challenges that such criticism was protected by the 1st Amendment, as well as her demand for an open public hearing was rejected by the court.  Moreover, a (failed) attempt was made to create a criminal record against attorney-wife and put her in jail for discussing misconduct in the disciplinary case in a blog.

Constitutional motions were denied without an explanation, constitutional appeal as of right to the New York Court of Appeals was denied,  certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied without an explanation.

Judges do not like attorneys who criticize judges.

The bottom line of the story.

=====================

1. The attorney-wife, Tatiana Neroni, was able to do her duty, obtain for her client the multi-thousand-dollar bail wrongfully released to the Vice-Chair of the Commission of Judicial Conduct - and was suspended for the effort, while her husband was disbarred.
2. The Vice-Chair of the Commission of Judicial Conduct - Albany attorney Stephen Coffey - was never disciplined and is still a licensed attorney.
3. The County Attorney who participated in ex parte communications and case-fixing on the issue of bail - attorney Richard Spinney, quickly retired before pending audit of the county by the New York State Comptroller and the FBI, but was never disciplined and remains a licensed attorney.
4. The friend-of-Vice-Chair judge Carl F. Becker quickly retired just 2.5 years into his 2nd judicial term during the above-mentioned investigations, under circumstances suggesting forced retirement so that not to be taken off the bench, but was never publicly disciplined and remains a licensed attorney.
5. Commissioner of Social Services of Delaware County, New  York, William Moon who helped friend-of-Vice-Chair to try to distress, discredit and harass attorneys, wife and husband, and their children, with fabricated child neglect proceedings, quickly retired, and an FBI investigation into his wrongdoing was announced, but he was never prosecuted.
6. The federal judge Norman A. Mordue who betrayed his oath by knowingly remanding a federal lawsuit into the waiting hands of a judge personally involved in the controversy for fear of losing his own law license, remains on the bench, his law license is intact and he was never disciplined - as an attorney or as a judge.
7. The former law partner of the friend-of-Vice-Chair judge, John Hubbard, was elected a District Attorney of Delaware County.  His law license is intact and he was never disciplined for trying to threaten a criminal defense attorney to withdraw criticism of a judge with whom John Hubbard had a personal (and never disclosed - until Judge Becker retired) connection.
8. The Presiding Judge of the New York's Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Karen Peters who participated in fixing cases in order to protect the friend-of-Vice-Chair judge Carl Becker from discipline since 2010 (that caught up with him still in 2015) and disbarring his critics, was retired on December 31, 2017 based on her age. 

3 months before her retirement, while Karen Peters was still hearing cases from Albany County lawyers, Albany County bar association through a party in her "honor".

Remember this woman whose efforts eliminated the only free round-the-clock legal clinic that operated in Delhi, NY for several decades, for the only reason that attorneys of that clinic dared to catch a local judge and Peters herself, red-handed in misconduct.

Much, much, much honor.

Will a U.S. Supreme Court case be decided by just one unconflicted judge? The frenzy in the U.S. Supreme Court - how to fix the fallout from a motion to recuse 8 judges out of 9 based on their undisclosed material conflicts of interest?

Here is the entire docket of a case filed by Linda Shao shown on the website of the U.S. Supreme Court.  

Linda Shao is actually attorney Yi Tai Shao from Pleasanton, California.

Docket 17-613 shows a motion to recuse filed by attorney Shao.

The motion is to be heard on January 5, 2018.

That motion has sent the court reeling and into a frenzy of activity, mostly unlawful, judging by correspondence of attorney Shao with the court, which she gracefully allowed me to publish.

Because the motion is deeply embarrassing for the U.S. Supreme Court.

First, while the so-called liberal press continues to beat up on President Trump's nominee Justice Neil Gorsuch as the bad boy of the court, the motion singles out Justice Neil Gorsuch as the only judge of the court untainted by a huge material undisclosed conflict of interest that marred the denial of attorney Shao's petition for a writ of certiorari by the court earlier - now she is seeking a rehearing.

Second, the case of attorney Shao is the first known case that challenges in the U.S. Supreme Court participation of attorneys and judges in the brain-child of that same court,  so-called American Inns of Court, a secret-membership organization of attorneys and judges created at the behest of Chief U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burgher.


Here are excerpts from attorney Shao's "questions presented" part of the petition for the writ of certiorari and table of contents.

I wrote a lot on this blog about American Inns of Courts and the conflicts of interest they create when attorneys pay - and judges don't - for monthly wining and dining receptions, for trips of judicial clerks overseas, for trips of judges and their families overseas, and when attorneys have an opportunity to engage in ex parte communications and fix court cases behind closed doors of these, once again, secret-membership organizations.

I have challenged the secrecy of membership of American Inns of Court and sought a declaratory judgment that membership in AIC and in similar organizations where attorneys and judges "socialize" must be open and transparent to the public, and must be disclosed by judges and attorneys alike in cases where the presiding judge and attorneys appearing in front of him are members of Inns of Court.

The lawsuit was reviewed by a judge whose colleagues are themselves members of AIC and another secret-membership quasi-judicial organization where attorneys and judges mix - State-Federal Judicial Councils, also created at the request of Chief U.S. Supreme Court Justice Burgher.  The result of that review was predictable - the case was dismissed before defendants had an opportunity to appear in the case.  The case name was Neroni v Peebles in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York filed in May of 2014.


Here is the Amended Complaint in Neroni v Peebles and here is the order of dismissal.

Note that judge Peebles was assigned as a judge to a case where he was a defendant, and that the motion to recuse him was denied as "moot".

I did not appeal the dismissal to the U.S. Supreme Court, I was busy with other cases which took more of my time.

But, my law license was suspended within a month from publishing a blog exposing conflicts of interest of the U.S. Supreme Court judges whose clerks (those same people who, not being U.S. Supreme Court judges, illegally decide instead of judges who are otherwise busy globe-trotting, making speeches and writing books, which cases out of the "certiorari pool" will be fully heard by the court and which will be dismissed) travel to England each year for a month's long all-expenses-paid trip sponsored by American Inns of Court, at the request of individual U.S. Supreme Court judges.

Attorney Shao went further than me and filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court - in a case involving an attorney opponent who was a member of American Inns of Court, and in a case where such membership in the American Inns of Court was the issue in attorney Shao's appeal (disqualification of a judge).

Naturally, as the U.S. Supreme Court usually does, none of the judges disclosed their conflicts of interest, their long-term personal involvement in American Inns of Court of which they are quite proud, as demonstrated by admissions of retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (upon whose request several of her law clerks travelled for free to England),



Donald V. Lemons, judge of the Supreme Court of the State of Virginia,

Of course, as Judge Lemons explained, the "concern" of Chief Judge Burgher was that "the American Bar was somehow waning in civility, professionalism and excellence in work product".  As you know, nothing helps civility, professionalism and excellence in attorney work product better than wining and dining behind closed doors with judges, sponsoring judges for freebies and ex parte communications between attorneys and judges.

When attorney Yi Tai Shao's appeal challenging membership of her opponent in litigation and the presiding judge in this supposedly benign organization for its opportunities for ex parte communication and case-fixing reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court did not disclose its conflicts of interest and predictably denied the certiorari, while likely many of the "cert pool" law clerks were candidates for the next trip to England sponsored by American Inns of Court at the request of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

Attorney Shao then filed a motion to recuse 8 judges of the U.S. Supreme Court and for rehearing of the case by the only U.S. Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, whose sponsorship efforts for law clerks of the court to go to England at the expense of Inns of Court was not publicized. 

By the way, links to cites of AIC where all expenses paid trips overseas for judges and their spouses were advertised which I interlinked from my blogs about AIC, now lead nowhere, so the AIC knows that what it is doing is wrong and is destroying evidence of its wrongdoing.

The U.S. Supreme Court, apparently, did not expect such an audacity from an attorney - to challenge the deities!  The U.S. Supreme Court Justices!  For conflicts of interest!  For misconduct!  It is truly unheard of.

And, attorney Shao was challenging not only the conflicts of interest in sending law clerks of judges at the expense of AIC (while reviewing a case challenging impropriety of participation in AIC of the presiding judge and one of the attorneys of record in a case), but the existence of an Inn of Court in one of the judge's names: the Ginsburg Inn of Court.

First, filing clerks were changed.

Second, the new filing clerks tried to duck and not file the motion at all.

When attorney Shao threatened criminal prosecution and a civil lawsuit against such clerks and pointed out that filing clerks are not covered by judicial immunity when they refuse to file full documents into the court docket, some of the motion was filed - but still not the entire motion, the clerks still omitted a material part of it.

Here are some excerpts from correspondence between attorney Shao and the U.S. Supreme Court.

And another one.

After witnessing - as an attorney, litigant, legal researcher and journalist - open judicial disdain to any rule of law in this country wherever personal interests of judges or those close to them are concerned, I do not have much faith in the integrity of this court - that they will "do the right thing" and will recuse, as the situation obviously required.

In the unlikely event that they do, in the first of a kind precedent Justice Gorsuch will be the only unconflicted judge to decide a U.S. Supreme Court case.

Shouldn't a mechanism be created to

• regulate conflicts of interest of judges of the highest court in the country,
• allow for appointment of alternative judges if judges of the court are conflicted out, as it happened to 8 out of 9 judges in the case (if Judge Gorsuch also is not involved as a secret member in some Inn of Court, which cannot be excluded either), and
• allow for an effective mechanism of discipline short of impeachment of judges of the highest court by disinterested parties (not attorneys and not judges).

Because when judges of the highest court, who must be role models in honorable behavior, are role models in misconduct, that corrupts not only the legal profession, but also access to justice.

Let's wait what the January 5, 2018 conference of the U.S. Supreme Court will return.

I will continue to follow this case and report about it on this blog.

Stay tuned.

ABA got snubbed by President Trump for lack of neutrality. Bravo, President Trump, that's a good start. Will you now make the next step and support deregulation of the legal profession that stifles access to justice?

This was an interesting year.

The appearance of the "bad boy" Donald Trump in the White House has worked as a litmus test of the claim that the U.S. is governed based on the rule of law.

Fired and ired by the loss of the presidential seat and the graft that accompanied it, the losing opponents of Donald Trump and his policies started "The Resistance".

Judges, prosecutors, attorneys general of states joined that "Resistance".

And, in view of "The Resistance", the law stopped mattering (or, more precisely, it has become more clear that the law never mattered in the first place).

Lawsuits by foreigners located outside of the U.S., as well as by people suing on their behalf - all of them lacking standing under U.S. statutory law and precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court - started to get sweeping court "victories" with nationwide judicial injunctions against the President forbidding him to exercise his discretionary powers.

Judges started to question the President - including in online direct debates, with access to the debates from any point in the world through the Internet - about bases of his national security decisions, while having no clearance to know those bases, and while such bases constituted a matter of national security.

Judges started to forbid the President to withdraw discretionary federal funding of states because states refused to comply and actively interfered with enforcement of federal statutory immigration law.

Judge Ruth Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court who openly and viciously opposed Trump, expressed her personal animosity to him, and undertook an all-expenses-paid-by-an-antiTrump-litigant trip (who bribed her and her husband for all-expenses-paid vacations in Hawaii before) likely in order to fix a lower-court case against Trump, continues to stick like glue to cases where Trump is a party, refusing to recuse from those cases despite a letter from 50 senators based on her publicly expressed personal animosity towards the President, and makes decisions against Trump (see also here), and the press cheers her on as a "role model in troubled times".

Prominent constitutional law professors argue that the President does not have authority to give pardons, even though such authority is reflected in clear text of the U.S. Constitution (see those arguments here, here, here and here).

Illegal immigrants are marching in the streets protesting against a discretionary decision of the President to cancel a discretionary deferred deportation program illegally created by his predecessor over the head of the U.S. Congress - and sue the President, asking the court to make the President take bake the cancellation of his predecessor's discretionary order, even while the President asked the U.S. Congress to do its job and pass the law in that particular area.

In other words, illegitimate exercise discretion of one U.S. President to legislate in the area of immigration law through executive orders is cheered while the legitimate of another U.S. President to cancel that illegitimate legislation and ask the appropriate branch of the government to legislate in that area, is sneered and is the subject of lawsuits.

The Attorney General of the state which has bled a million people since 2010 because of high taxes and high corruption in the state, who is defending and uses enormous amounts of taxpayer funds on defense of violators of the U.S. Constitution and resists compensation to wrongfully convicted of crimes in his state, proudly announces that he turned his office into a "bastion of resistance" - to the U.S. President.

The American Bar Association that viciously - and unfairly - criticized Trump before his election as President for his protected by the 1st Amendment and fair criticism of a biased judge (see disqualifying information about Judge Curiel here and here), and that, due to that criticism, could not position itself as a "neutral expert" for nominations of judges by Trump, filibusters Trump's judicial nominees.

This surreal bacchanalia of lawlessness has, of course, nothing to do with the "rule of law", honor, ethics or professionalism of the legal profession, or the judiciary.

And then, the bad boy Trump threw yet another stick in the pond by undermining the cozy existence of the legal establishment, possibly showing that he would later go further and be open to the idea of supporting deregulation of the legal profession, at least where all federal judges must be state-licensed attorneys.

At this time, Trump made the first step in that direction.    

What the ABA failed to consider while filibustering judicial nominees of the President is that the President's deferential consultations with the ABA for their "recommendations" and "seal of approval" of federal judicial nominees is not part of any laws.

It is a deferential practice started by President Eisenhower, which is not obligatory to any succeeding Presidents, including Donald Trump.

And President Trump ended that practice.

Of course, there is a lot of ire about the President snubbing the "venerable" attorney's association.

But, the President is the sole authority to nominate judges according to the U.S. Constitution, while the ABA that controls such nominations by its "qualified - not qualified" ratings, and controls access to justice of the entire country through the attorney monopoly, prohibition for people to pick their own court representatives and requirements that judges must be attorneys licensed by states (and graduates of an ABA-approved law school) has no place in the U.S. Constitution at all.

So - bravo, President Trump, on removing the lawyers' guild from nomination process of federal judges.

And - let's remove the lawyers' guild from control of the judiciary by removing the requirement that all federal judges be graduates from ABA-approved schools and be state-licensed (and state-controlled) attorneys.

That will be a start in the right direction - true separation of state and federal powers.

As the U.S. Constitution that every public attorney and every public official in this country is sworn to protect requires.

New York unconstitutionally strips inmate of unlicensed representation of their choice - by unconsitutionally prosecuting a "fake attorney" for unauthorized practice of law while not even having a definition of what the practice of law is

When I came to intern (clinical practice is a graduation requirements in Albany Law School) to Prisoners Legal Services of New York, I was put on intake of prisoners' letters.

And, as part of training, teaching me how to respond to various types of claims made by prisoners, I was told about policy and budgetary constraints of Prisoners Legal Services - a training which shaped my future law practice.

Because in my training I was told that, by policy or budgetary constraints, or both, PLS does not handle the following claims for prisoners:

• unlawful solitary confinement for less than a year and a half;
• criminal appeals;
• civil rights actions;
• parole hearings;
• violation of parole or probation hearings;
• appeals of denial of paroles;
• habeas corpus relief.

What we did handle was:

• administrative appeals for denial of medical or mental health help, and
• unlawful solitary confinement for more than a year and a half;
• abuse of prisoners by guards - through letters or Article 78 petitions (which happened extremely rarely, to the point of having that as a special event in the office when such a case was to be filed), but not through civil rights actions.

Having worked in an office of an attorney who handled the same case on all sides - Family Court (child abuse), the parallel criminal case, the parallel administrative "indicated report" proceedings, the parallel child support proceedings against parents, and other related legal matters for the same client - I saw the flaw of such an approach.

It does not really help an unlawfully confined petition to have only his medical issues addressed when what he needs is a criminal appeal, a habeas corpus petition and a civil rights action - to free him and get him proper compensation for a wrongful conviction.

But, PLS had policy and budget constraints, and nobody else represented such prisoners.

Their letters, many of them barely - if at all - literate, begged PLS, as a hope of last resort, to help them, because no other attorney is interested.

And I wrote rejection letters - as I was ordered to do.

When I was leaving, attorneys in PLS expressed a wish that, when I get admitted to practice law, I would undertake some of representation of the cases that they cannot take - because of the sea of unmet need.

But, PLS lawyers told me, if you do not do that - you will not be unique, because nobody does.

When nobody does, and when the only organization in the State of New York - by policy, or budgetary constraints, or both - refuses to take certain types of cases, like post-conviction relief, including parole appeals, what kicks in is the constitutional prohibition to regulate the practice of law in this area.

Existing since 1969.

The case was Johnson v Avery, out of Tennessee, where the U.S. Supreme Court held the following:

"Held: In the absence of some provision by the State of Tennessee for a reasonable alternative to assist illiterate or poorly educated inmates in preparing petitions for post-conviction relief, the State may not validly enforce a regulation which absolutely bars inmates from furnishing such assistance to other prisoners."

The case was right on point as to lack of reasonable alternatives to assist illiterate or poorly educated inmates in preparing petitions for post-conviction relief, even though the case dealt with other inmates "practicing law without a license", and not unlicensed members of the public outside of the prison system.

But, the rationale of the ruling still applies:

the state may not regulate the practice of law in the area of post-conviction relief when such regulation leads to stripping people of any possibility of getting help with that type of relief.

Did New York adhere to that?

Of course, not.

As a dog in a manger, New York State Attorney General hopped on a case where, by ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, state could not regulate the "practice of law" (an activity which, by the way, The State of New York did not care to even clearly define before starting to regulate it, and regulating it for more than a century, undefined).

The big brave NYS Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, "protector" of human rights (see my blog from a couple of  years ago listing all court cases where he acted as - no, not as a protector - as an opponent against victims of civil rights on behalf of perpetrators of civil rights violations ), the kind of "protector" who strongly opposes recovery of damages for victims of wrongful convictions, jumped right into the fray.

To protect the public, of course.

Because - for your information - "protecting the public", a la Eric Schneiderman, is stripping poor and illiterate inmates of an ability to receive any help with their post-conviction relief.

The very conduct that the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited 48 years ago as being against the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Constitution that Schneiderman pledged to oppose.

The New York State Attorney General boldly claimed the supposed "fake attorney" Antonia Barrone, a/k/a Mario Vrendenburg (fake only because s/he does not have a license, not because of quality of services s/he provided to the public), defrauded the public - you know by what?

By practicing without a license, by the so-called "unauthorized practice of law.

So, now we have unauthorized practice of law as a type of fraud.

In other words, in criminal proceedings against a PROVIDER of legal services harm to the CONSUMERS of such services is presumed in New York.

Well, the same is happening in other states across the United States.

But, when CONSUMERS sue - in New York - for their RIGHT to choose an unlicensed provider, because they only trust a provider unregulated by the government when the government is an opponent in litigation, the consumer is denied that right of choice - and ordered into a mental health evaluation for even asking.  The case about it was filed in federal court in 2014, Townsend v New York, 1:14-cv-06079, (EDNY 2014), and decided against he consumer.

Moreover, in three states - California, Michigan and Texas - when a consumer was represented in a criminal proceeding by an unlicensed provider of legal services, courts refused to reverse the conviction, refusing to agree with the consumer that harm to consumer from representation by an unlicensed provider should be presumed.

So, states, without having a clear definition as to what the heck they are regulating as "practice of law", 

PRESUME HARM - to consumer - from "unauthorized practice of law", when prosecuting the PROVIDER; 

but

REFUSE TO PRESUME HARM - to the same consumer - from the same "unauthorized practice of law" - when suing the consumer, and when the consumer is represented by an unlicensed provider.

And, in New York, after announcing a victory for consumers, protecting them from the "presumed fraud" of unauthorized practice of law, you know what the "winner" of the case and "protector" of the public Eric Schneiderman started to do?

You will never guess.

On behalf of PRISON AUTHORITIES - that is, opponent's of the "fake attorney's" clients in litigation - attorney Schneiderman now started to review of all appeals handled by the "fake attorney".

Meaning - if the "fake attorney" WON such appeals, Schneiderman, on behalf of prison authorities, will contest the decision because representation was not by a licensed attorney.

So, who the state protects in prosecuting for UPL a provider of services to inmates for post-conviction relief, where licensed attorneys are not interested in such a representation, and where such representation is allowed for 48 years by the U.S. Supreme Court?

In one other recent case, decided in February of 2017, a New York prison inmate, Raszell Reeder, sued New York prison authorities for guard brutality and deliberate failure to record that brutality and provide copy of records to him.   A judge from Franklin County Supreme Court, S. Peter Feldstein, dismissed the case from a pro se litigant before "protector of human rights" Eric Schneiderman - representing prison authorities in that case, naturally - even had a chance to answer that lawsuit.

Because, in Judge Feldstein's opinion, the case was so badly drafted that it was an injustice to subject attorney Schneiderman to necessity to read it.  So Judge Feldstein obliged - and dismissed the complaint.  And told the likely illiterate complainant that, since it is the 16th of his complaint, he was supposed to know the law better by that time.  

So, see, LEGAL KNOWLEDGE in New York is presumed since February of this years, courtesy of Judge Feldstein - even in an illiterate person - simply because he had a lot of practice of filing.

The "fake attorney" had an even more practice in law, he was accused of not doing enough in 23 cases out of 400 that he handled, and even those accusations could come as "buyers' remorse" - because some consumers cannot resist an offer of a freebie, and obviously, the New York AG made such an offer - you "expose" a "fake attorney" - we return, through restitution in criminal proceedings, what you paid, even if you received great value in services for your money.

So, here is the deal.

If you are a poor inmate, here is what the government does to you:

• It can subject you to all kinds of violations of your rights, including beating up (like in the case of Raszell Reeder); or sexual assaults (including forcing you to dance naked on the table to jeering of correction officers and inmates), or religious discrimination;
• it creates tricks like having the guards beat you up off the reach of security cameras - and then putting you in solitary confinement as if you beat the guards instead, I've read many, many such cases during my internship and then volunteering for Prisoners Legal Services of New York;
• it blocks you, through attorney regulation, from choosing a representative in court or before administrative authorities who are not a licensed attorney - like the "fake attorney" Schneiderman proudly "caught" and had convicted in New York, and as it was done in the Townsend case - where Schneiderman was also representing the OPPONENTS of the consumer, not the consumer;
• it makes, through regulation requiring super-expensive education, attorney representation so expensive that attorneys are not interested in representing the inmate;
• it ignores constitutional prohibition on regulation of nonlawyer representation for poor inmates - established through Johnson v Avery 48 years ago;
• it establishes through federal law, Prisoner Reform Litigation Act, 28 USC 1915, the right of the government to dismiss lawsuits if inmates did not "exhaust administrative remedies" before suing;
• it allowed states to invent super-short statutes of limitation for such exhaustion - under 15 days in general and from 2 to 5 days in 9 states to file the first grievance - and, while filing it, to choose between your right for access to court and your personal safety (see footnote 14 in Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion);
• it disregards inmate's rights to the point of executing inmates despite evidence of their potential innocence that the courts do not want o explore - claiming that inmates "failed to raise" that question earlier, even when inmates were illiterate or lacked legal education;

and, if you find a person who - even though he does not have a law license - represents you where nobody else does - 

• the government either blocks that person from representing you - as the government did in the case of Cory Townsend, before that representation began, or
• convicts him of a crime of HELP to you - while immediately utilizing the conviction to help ITSELF in undoing the results of your provider's successful appeals, like Schneiderman is doing now.

By the way - do you know what the State of New York, represented by the New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, answered the American Bar Association in 2015, in answer to the question if New York has a definitions of the practice of law and unauthorized practice of law?

No - and no.

But, if New York does not have a definition for the MAIN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME of unauthorized practice of law, it may not enforce that crime - because:

not only such a definition is constitutionally required to exist at the time of conduct that the government seeks to prosecute,  so criminal charges are JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE where the main element of the charge is - admittedly by the government - not defined,

such charges certainly cannot be proven at all, and especially beyond the reasonable doubt, as it is required in criminal cases.

So, New York, under pretenses of "helping the public", and unlawfully fabricating a criminal proceeding in the situation where the conduct was:

1. constitutionally protected - Johnson v Avery; and
2. where New York did not have a right to prosecute because it admitted that there is no definition of the main element of the crime of "unauthorized practice of law";

removed from the reach of consumers the person who was actually helping them, put him in jail, created a criminal record against him, and ordered him to return money for services he already provided.

After that, the state of New York proceeded "reviewing appeals" of the now-convicted "phony" attorney, while claiming, of course, that no cases that he appealed were approved for parole. 

First, I do not believe one word coming out of the mouth of New York prison authorities - who install security cameras in such ways that guards can beat inmates inside their cells or while putting them into their cells - and then claim that never happened, like the government did in Raszell Reeder's and multiple other cases. 

Second, if one judges whether a legal provider of appeals, and especially, administrative appeals (where the appeal goes to the same people who denied relief initially in the first place) is a good one or a bad one by his success rate, then all appellate attorneys are bad - because all appellate attorneys lose appeals, where, by policy of courts, majority of cases, and especially of criminal cases, are affirmed on appeal, and the same is true for administrative agencies who would not overturn their own decisions.

Moreover, an appeal - whether won or lost - constitutes an important procedural step, entitling the inmate to further legal relief, and the "fake attorney" was securing that step for his clients.

When will the public finally see the fraud against itself - all right - BY THE GOVERNMENT - in instituting and maintaining regulation and criminal prosecution of providers of services of consumers' choice, especially when such providers oppose that same government in litigation and provide good-quality services?

Your opponent in litigation knows better than you who YOU must choose a provider to fight that government - or else you can proceed pro se?

Like Raszell Reeder.

And have your case dismissed.

And have yourself branded as a "vexatious frivolous litigant".

And have ALL access to court blocked for you, as federal courts do under 28 USC 1915 for inmates complaining of guard brutality, sexual assault, lack of medical care and other human rights violations.

After all, when the government hurts you by stripping you of your right of choice of legal representation - and through the licensing restriction when you cannot afford a licensed attorney - of your right to be represented at all - the government actually helps you.

Schneierman said that, he is a known fighter for human rights - you saw above links about him OPPOSING civil rights lawsuits on behalf of civil rights perpetrators.

One might start believing in such "help". 

After a lobotomy, of course.

But not before.