Pakistani lawyers oppose judicial authority to discipline attorneys - in an emergency council meeting

In the United States of America, lawyers, court representatives who may have to challenge judges, voluntarily forked over control over their professional independence and livelihood to judges.

The judiciary can - and does - deprive lawyers of their livelihoods for so much as challenging judges with motions to recuse for misconduct.

That is happening in a country claiming to be democratic.

In a country that is far from being considered democratic, Pakistan, lawyers value their professional independence a lot higher.

Back in 2014, I presented to a New York court evidence that Pakistani attorneys claimed that regulation of the legal profession by the judiciary severely undermines the profession's independence, and stated that the current placement of regulation in the hands of those public officials whom attorneys may have to challenge as part of their duties, creates an unconstitutional danger of retaliation and loss of livelihood for attorneys.  That claim has been ignored.

Now, in 2016, Pakistani attorneys called for an emergency conference because - guess what - an attorney was, for a short period of time, stripped of his license by a court.

That incident caused Pakistani attorneys, once again, to convene an emergency meeting protesting that the judiciary does not have authority to strip an attorney status, and that only the professional association of attorneys may have a right to discipline their own, without interference from courts.

Yet, remember, in the U.S., licenses to practice law are issued and revoked only by courts - and no emergency meetings of bar associations are convened, instead, bar associations agree and embrace this setup in exchange for privileged positions for some of its elite members, to the detriment of non-elite members and consumers of legal services.

I guess, robust opposition to judicial control over attorney independence is more possible while such control did not get entrenched and become overwhelming and threaten a practically inevitable loss of attorney livelihood if the attorney challenges judicial misconduct as part of attorney's duties.

Pakistani attorneys are, from that point of view, at an advantage as compared to American attorneys.  They are not regulated by the judiciary, and they resist, continuously, systematically and vigorously, all attempts of the judiciary to exert such control over them.

And that includes COLLECTIVE protests by lawyers against suspensions of licenses of even ONE attorney - something that is totally lacking in the U.S.

In the U.S., instead, bar associations, instead of staging such protests, play the coward and deny membership to suspended and disbarred attorneys without looking into the circumstances of suspension or disbarment - assuming that courts cannot do wrong in suspending or disbarring an attorney.

Pakistani attorneys, on the opposite, are of the opinion that courts cannot do RIGHT by suspending or disbarring an attorney - and fight vigorously against any attempt of courts to grab the power to restrict professional activities of attorneys or strip attorneys of ability to practice law.

Apparently, Pakistani attorneys have true professional solidarity, fighting to protect their professional independence by challenging court authority to block individual attorneys from practicing law - while American attorneys usually hide under the rock and never provide support for their suspended or disbarred colleagues, for fear of being found "guilty by association" and losing their own livelihoods.

I wonder whether professional solidarity of Pakistani attorneys and lack thereof in American attorneys are related to the level of wealth guaranteed by the judiciary through protection of the legal profession from lower-priced competition.  In other words, it is possible that the lack of solidarity with those members of the profession who were struck down for fighting judicial misconduct, is not only chilled through intimidation, but also bought.

Since American attorneys voluntarily got themselves into this mess of being kept prisoners of their licenses to practice from the judiciary, they cannot complain it is difficult to extricate themselves from this stifling dependence.

They owe it to themselves, their families and to consumers of legal services whose interests they are sworn to protect, too.

Difficult, it is.

But necessary, nevertheless. 

Otherwise the supposedly honorable profession of American attorneys is reduced, unlike the vigorous, independent and courageous Pakistani lawyers, to cowardly "defensive lawyering" only in ways pleasing judges, and to always looking over their shoulders at all times not to offend a judge or somebody having the judge's ear.

To live a cowardly life is not so honorable - is it?

A novel defense invented by a Cuomo lobbyist - that's my bribe, and you ain't getting it back

Recently, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Preet Bharara charged several business people, lobbyists and public employees (or former public employees) close to Andrew Cuomo, but not Andrew Cuomo himself, in yet another public corruption scandal.

One of those charged, lobbyist Todd Howe, pled guilty to corruption charges and is cooperating with the prosecution.

At that point, the Cor Corporation had nothing better to think of than to sue Todd Howe to return to Cor Corporation $85,000 as if it was a loan.  Maybe, the Cor Corporation was trying to elicit from Todd Howe the contents of his secret plea deal with the prosecution through this litigation, but generally, such a move, filing a civil lawsuit about the same occurrence as a pending criminal proceeding, is dangerous and ill-advised.

Todd Howe already pled guilty to corruption, and, the Cor Corporation executives have a right to remain silent in the criminal proceedings, in a civil proceeding started against Todd Howe, Cor Corporation executives have no right to remain silent - so I wonder about the "wisdom" of even starting such a lawsuit.

The lawsuit claimed the $85,000 was a loan given by the Cor Corporation to Andrew Cuomo's lobbyist Todd Howe.

To make the bizarre lawsuit even more bizarre, Todd Howe's lawyers came up with a "brilliant" and "novel" defense - it wasn't a loan, it was meant as a bribe, and thus Todd Howe is keeping the $85,000.

Great, isn't it?

First, the U.S. Supreme Court - after the previous, successful trial of corrupt public officials in New York - changes the rules on public corruption, making bribing public officials much easier than before. 

Now, a lobbyist pled guilty in order to get a lenient sentence, and is keeping the loot, adamantly acknowledging it as being the loot and a bribe received in a conspiracy scheme to deprive the public of honest services of a public official (Governor Andrew Cuomo).

Shame does not play a role in these schemes.

Only money, connections and keeping the right people out of the reach of the "rule of law" matter.

Former Arkansas #JudgeJosephBoeckmann - but not his accomplices - was criminally charged, by the feds. State prosecutors feared for their livelihoods to charge a criminal in black robe and his friends

I wrote previously about misconduct of Arkansas judge Joseph Boeckmann, in May and June of 2016.

The judge resigned from his post during investigation that he traded lenient criminal sentences for nude and otherwise sexually suggestive pictures of male defendants - and forged court papers accordingly.

Some 4,500 pictures were involved - that "wealth" of pictures does not accumulate in one day.  Or one week.  Or even one year.

Some pictures, reportedly, involved a nude criminal defendant, handcuffed and in the courtroom - so multiple people had to be present or know about that - leaning forward, with pictures taken from the back, as a close-up.

The judge reportedly took some pictures as "betting with friends".

Back in June of 2016 I asked disturbing questions -

• with 4,500 pictures, this behavior had to go on for a very long time, with a lot of people knowing about it - so why those people kept quiet?  They were afraid to lose their jobs?
• why the 70-year-old Judge Boeckmann allowed to quietly resign (and keep his pension), and was not criminally charged?
• why the sexual predator Judge Boeckmann's law license was not pulled?

As it often happens with criminal behavior of state judges, Judge Boeckmann was not criminally charged by state prosecutors - instead, the feds had to step in to prosecute him.

Now former Judge Boeckmann - but not his accomplices - was reportedly arrested, charged in a federal grand jury indictment with wire fraud and witness tampering, and booked in jail, in protective custody and on a suicide watch, until his Wednesday "detention hearing".

I must repeat that the monster of Judge Boeckmann could not emerge and exist for such a long time without:

1) the culture granting judges absolute immunity for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench;

2) the culture where attorneys, including prosecutors, who are supposed to report judicial misconduct, have their livelihoods in the hands of the judiciary - and are afraid to do their jobs as reporters of misconduct and as prosecutors;

3) the culture where judges are gods who can do no wrong - even when they are very obviously committing crimes - where court personnel prefers to rather be silent or complicit in criminal conduct (who undressed and kept that criminal defendant in handcuffs in the courtroom for the judge to take his nude pictures?)

4) the culture that provides minimal, if any, accountability for judges - even now Judge Boeckmann was allowed to simply resign, without any discipline, to obscure facts of his sorry case, and state prosecutors, having plenty of evidence, were afraid to touch his case, instead letting the feds to indict him instead.

I continue to ask the question - with so many people aiding and abetting judge Boeckmann, and soliciting his crimes (the "betting friends") - why only Judge Boeckmann was charged?

And why Judge Boeckmann is only charged for "wire fraud" and "witness tampering" and with no counts of sexual misconduct - to prevent the sorry facts to be aired in open court before the jury?

That's not the way to clean the judicial stables in Arkansas and elsewhere in this country.

And, by the way, even if federal criminal charges were filed, that does not prevent state prosecutors to file parallel state charges, there is no double jeopardy involved when state and federal prosecutors prosecute state and federal crimes stemming from the same fact pattern in separate criminal proceedings.

 So, why state prosecutors did not file any charges against Judge Boeckmann?

Because they, too, were intimidated?

And because, for them, charging a judge, even a former judge, with a crime, may be career suicide?

If that is true, then we need to seriously change the way attorneys are regulated in this country and take that regulation away from the hands of the judiciary.

Otherwise, prosecutors will continue to let a sex predator prey upon his victims for years and, possibly, decades - simply because the predator belongs to the class that can yank the prosecutor's livelihood.

On the one hand, we consider prosecutorial independence so important that allegedly that is because judges (not our elected public officials) gave prosecutors absolute immunity for MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts in office.

On the other hand, we value prosecutorial independence so low that we keep prosecutors' own livelihood in the hands of the very people who prosecutors may have to investigate and indict.

Immunity for illegal acts of prosecutors in office, but no protection for doing their jobs.  Very logical.

And, the question remains.

Who are Judge Boeckmann's betting friends that the state and federal prosecutors are protecting?

With such friends as Chris Cuomo, Clinton does not need enemies

Supposedly, CNN was supporting Hillary Clinton.

And, supposedly, Chris Cuomo, the "golden boy" from the family of 2 New York Governors (Mario Cuomo, father and Andrew Cuomo, brother), was made the mouthpiece of that support.

With these results.

Cuomo made sure that voters realized that 

• "possession of stolen property" means that the source information is authentic;
• that CNN sucks and should not be believed as a media source - not that it was believed before; and
• that Hillary Clinton is concerned that voters might read something on their own and make up their minds - and then indict and lock her up, according to law.

Also, Cuomo drew attention to documents published by WikiLeaks more than the publication itself.

I wonder - does Chris Cuomo work for Trump, after all?  A brilliant move - to deflect from the scandal with Trump's alleged statements and the interestingly-timed allegations of sexual misconduct with an even more interesting claim that Clinton News Network is now the official priest interpreting the contents obtained by other investigative journalists - for the public to digest.

When media sources employ golden boys, they think of prestige, but one cannot cure stupid...

And especially when the stupid is with a law license.

With such friends as Chris Cuomo and CNN, Hillary Clinton hardly needs enemies.

One thing I am glad about is that the American public, at least as I can see on social media, refuses to accept the assigned role of dumb cattle.

These elections, I bet, will be very interesting, whichever of the Clumps are elected.

And - will Chris Cuomo, as a commentator on Twitter suggested, be as much of a helper to his brother as he was to Hillary?

Scrap your WikiLeaks documents, listen to Chris Cuomo, supporter of slavery - and of Hillary Clinton

This is not a Twitter page of a self-aggrandizing teenager.  Looks like it, though.  But, this is a Twitter page of a supposedly serious CNN journalist, son and brother of two New York State Governors, Chris Cuomo.

I wrote on this blog about mental abilities of Chris Cuomo, brother to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and mouthpiece for CNN (a media network supporting Hillary Clinton).

Chris Cuomo showed himself as a shining star of intellect, as well as integrity when he tried to corner Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore with claims that he is disregarding "the Law of the Land" (a U.S. Supreme Court precedent on gay marriage). 

Of course, had Chris Cuomo actually and truly read the U.S. Constitution that he is sworn as an attorney to obey, uphold and enforce, he would have learnt that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions are not part of the Supremacy Clause and are, thus, not the "Law of the Land".

Roy Moore actually came out with the upper hand over Chris Cuomo, intellectually and as a matter of integrity, when he instead cornered Chris Cuomo with a question whether Chris Cuomo, had he been a judge during the times of slavery, would have followed the shameful Dred Scott decision where the U.S. Supreme Court blatantly upheld the status of African Americans as not human beings, but property.

Chris Cuomo admitted that he would have followed the Dred Scott decision because, in his view, it was "the Law of the Land" at that time - which it wasn't, for the same reason as U.S. Supreme Court decisions are not the Law of the Land today, they are not part of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Let's see what exactly did Chris Cuomo, an attorney sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, said he would have followed as "The Law of the Land".

Here is the Dred Scott decision, in all its stark glory.

Here is the procedural history of the case:

"Prior to the institution of the present suit, an action was brought by Scott for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, (State court,) where there was a verdict and judgment in his favor. On a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State, the judgment below was reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court, where it was continued to await the decision of the case now in question."

So, the lower court actually GRANTED Dred Scott and his family freedom.

Yet, the State Supreme Court reversed that judgment, and Dred Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is what Dred Scott, a black man, alleges against John F.A. Sanford, a white man:

"The declaration of Scott contained three counts: one, that Sandford had assaulted the plaintiff; one, that he had assaulted Harriet Scott, his wife; and one, that he had assaulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, his children."

Eliza was age 14, and Lizzie was age 7, according to the case.

Straightforward, isn't it?  A white man assaulted a black man, his wife and two daughters.

So, what does the white man have to say in his defense?  Does he deny the assault on four people?

Of course, not.  Because, for John F. A. Sandford, Dred Scott, his wife Harriet Scott, and his daughters Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, are not people.  They are property, no more.

"And the said John F. A. Sandford, in his own proper person, comes and says that this court ought not to have or take further cognizance of the action aforesaid, because he says that said cause of action, and each and every of them, (if any such have accrued to the said Dred Scott,) accrued to the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction of this court, and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Missouri, for that, to wit: the said plaintiff, Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, because he is a negro of African descent; his ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brought into this country and sold as negro slaves, and this the said Sandford is ready to verify. Wherefore, he prays judgment whether this court can or will take further cognizance of the action aforesaid."

John F. A. Sanford actually admitted to the assault, in this way:

"That the plaintiff was a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendant, and, as such, the defendant gently laid his hands upon him, and thereby had only restrained him, as the defendant had a right to do.

3. That with respect to the wife and daughters of the plaintiff, in the second and third counts of the declaration mentioned, the defendant had, as to them, only acted in the same manner, and in virtue of the same legal right."

Remember, Chris Cuomo would have upheld the "lawful right" of John F. A. Sanford to assault (no, to "gently lay hands upon") a man, a woman and two children.

Chris Cuomo is lucky that he is white.  The question that Roy Moore asked was skin-color-specific.  Because, had Chris Cuomo been black, he would not have had a choice of whether he AS A JUDGE would have followed Dred Scott.

He would be in the position of Dred Scott, and on the receiving end of "gently laid hands" upon Chris Cuomo and his family members.

In Dred Scott, the decision that Chris Cuomo would have followed as the "Law of the Land", the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Taney, asked themselves a question:

"The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution."

And, the court spoke of citizenship status not only of African American slaves, but also of free African Americans, descendants of those who were brought into the U.S. as slaves:

"The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves."

Interestingly enough, in Dred Scott the U.S. Supreme Court gave a definition of "People of the United States" as a popular sovereign - the definition that, if you raise it in federal courts today, saying that People and not the government are the sovereign in the U.S. (I tried, personally), you will be sanctioned for frivolous conduct and ordered to pay your opponent's legal fees (was done to me).

Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott case said about people as the popular sovereign of the United States:

"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives."

Then, the U.S. Supreme Court engages in the following discussion as to whether Dred Scott, his wife Harriet Scott and his daughters Eliza and Lizzie Scott belong to "people of the United States":

"The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."

THAT is what Chris Cuomo would have followed as "The Law of the Land".

Here is another question that was reviewed and resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott - which Cuomo would have enforced had he been a judge at that time, as "the Law of the Land":

"whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent?"

And this is the answer of the glorious jurists of the U.S. Supreme Court, all racist white men:

"The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts."

And there was, mind, a long excursion into the "history and tradition" - of slavery - and as to "intentions of the founders":

"In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument."

This is what Chris Cuomo admittedly would have upheld had he been a judge at the time of Dred Scott.

And that's not all. Here is the whole sordid "history and tradition" that the U.S. Supreme Court was not ashamed to use as a "legal basis" for its decision - the one that Chris Cuomo said he would have followed.

"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa, and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use; but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world.

The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence, and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies, as slave labor was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time."

And, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a sordid list of laws from a variety of states supporting the above "opinion", as a basis of its decision, and put many, many, many, many words into the case in support of the principle - African Americans are not people, and do not have rights like other people.

I wonder if Chris Cuomo has actually read the case - it is long.  Yet, when cornered by Judge Roy Moore, Cuomo admitted he would have followed the ruling of the case, as "Law of the Land".

Even though it was not the Law of the Land - never was.

A good principle announced by Chris Cuomo, brother of a governor and son of a governor - cower before power.

But, in the United States, before you cower before power - you first elect people into that position of power.

And you can just as well not do that.

Like, you can just as well not elect Hillary Clinton, the one that Chris Cuomo and CNN are supporting.

And, there is good reasons not to vote for her - like her e-mails published by WikiLeaks recently.

So, Cuomo, faithful to his employer who pays him for what Cuomo says to viewers and voters, made one more blunder.

Now Chris Cuomo tells its readers - do not read the original documents exposing Hillary Clinton published by WikiLeaks, because possessing the original is - according to Chris Cuomo -  unlawful.

That's Chris Cuomo's who would have supported slavery and followed "the law" deeming African Americans as cattle, not people, who now supports Hillary Clinton who, in her turn, desperately tries to win black voters.

Good grief, do these people keep track of what they are saying out loud on camera?

So, Chris Cuomo who would have supported slavery as "law of the land" had he lived in 1854, says to CNN readers now - believe me, as interpreter of documents against Hillary Clinton, do not look at the actual documents themselves, because it is illegal TO LOOK (for you, not for Chris Cuomo, obviously). 

 Here it is, from the horse's - oops, Chris Cuomo's mouth.  With innocent eyes Cuomo says something not only stupid, but legally wrong and appearing to seek to defraud voters, close to elections.

Believing somebody to read something correctly and to interpret it to you correctly, in order to inform your voting decisions requires quite a bit of faith in that person.

Of course, no person can claim even basic integrity if he tries to influence voters by blocking them from access to the original documents exposing misconduct of the candidate that that person adamantly supports.  It is just another form of rigging elections.

But, Cuomo's integrity went down the drain even earlier than this "don't read WikiLeaks, believe me instead" stupidity.  His integrity went down the drain much earlier, with Chris Cuomo's "Dred Scott" admission.
Did Chris Cuomo, an attorney, just engage in unethical conduct by giving legal advice - and incorrect legal advice at that - to multiple viewers?

Let's look at it in detail.

Chris Cuomo, a licensed attorney, told voters that they have no right to read WikiLeaks' materials exposing Hillary Clinton because it is illegal to possess them - and for the same reason the voters must inform themselves from CNN and Cuomo's interpretations of what is in those WikiLeaks materials.

First, one does not have to possess the document in order to read it online.

Second, Chris Cuomo did not exactly explain why it is illegal to possess documents exposed by WikiLeaks.

Because those materials were obtained through hacking?

But, once they entered the public domain, there is nothing illegal to have a copy of those materials - and Chris Cuomo did not specify what was the point of illegality in it.  So, that was legal advice, and wrong legal advice at that, and legal advice given by a licensed attorney and brother of New York State Governor in support of the presidential candidate exposed in materials Cuomo tried to divert voters from.

Third, under the principle of equal protection of law and the rule of law, if it is illegal for one to possess anything, it is illegal for CNN and Chris Cuomo, too, unless CNN and Chris Cuomo, same as Hillary Clinton who they support, are above the law - but they are not formally so, not yet at least.

And, fourth, to believe CNN and Chris Cuomo to correctly interpret compromising material against the presidential candidate CNN and Cuomo supports requires a collective lobotomy. 

Does CNN think that its readers are that stupid?

Is it worth it for CNN to keep in its employ the brother of a powerful (even if corrupt) New York politician - even if he produces, to put it politely, intellectual blunders - one after the other, one worse than the other?

Here is how Cuomo's intellectual abilities are characterized by anonymous commentators to the news about Cuomo urging not to read documents leaked by WikiLeaks:

Another question, probably, a rhetorical question given Cuomo's Daddy's and brother's last name that can cover anything, same as Clinton's last name - will Chris Cuomo be subjected to attorney discipline and criminal investigation for giving misleading legal advice to voters, and thus rigging elections for Hillary Clinton?

And, I am not the only one to ask that question:

Chris Cuomo, most likely, did not read the entirety of Dred Scott case before he blundered that - had he been a judge in 1850s, he would have to follow it as the "Law of the Land" (which it wasn't).

I bet that Chris Cuomo never read documents exposed by WikiLeaks, he instead bowed to the idea that CNN, his employer, supported Hillary Clinton, and interpretation of any documents against her may cost him a job.

So, the motto is "cower to power" which is Chris Cuomo's and many other people's modern understanding of "obeying the law".

Only, please, remember, that people who would have endorsed assaults upon a man, a woman and two children because they were not people, but cattle - according to the LEARNED opinion of several racist white males - those same individuals would have cowered to another "rule of law" ordered by another leader who LAWFULLY came to power:  Hitler.

Kill all Jews, Gypsies and Slavs.  And they killed.  A lot.  Following "the law".  And following the logic just like Chris Cuomo did.

Such people have a simple definition.

They are cowards.

And you do not listen to cowards when deciding who will run your country for 4 years to come.

You read the damned thing yourself.  And then vote.

Disciplinary proceedings against Judge Kreep of San Diego, California - a political retaliation?

While reporting on judicial misconduct, I came across bad judges with pretty telling names.  I already reported on judges by the name of Free, Best and Real.

Now is the turn to report on Judge Kreep.

Judge Gary Kreep, of San Diego, California, was recently charged with 11 counts of misconduct, some valid, some not and some really petty.

Judge Kreep's behavior, as charged, is crude, on occasion improper, sexist and racist.  And, Judge Kreep engaged in ex parte communications and did not represent facts correctly during his election campaign.  Yet, the timing of the charges - 4 years after the election, the pettiness of some charges, and the fact that this particular judge was the target of blanket peremptory challenges by criminal prosecutors suggests selective enforcement of judicial discipline against Judge Kreep.

After all, he did nothing that other judges do not do - on a regular basis. Not that it is right, but, once again - anybody appearing in American courtrooms, after looking through the charges, can find that "their" judges behaved in the exact same manner, as to one, more than one, or all charges of misconduct against Judge Kreep.

Here is the description of the charges.

Judge Kreep likes to crack a joke - like this:

And he joked again with a public defender.  Like this:

And, also jokingly, of course, Judge Kreep called attorneys appearing in front of him by nicknames - just as retired Delaware County (New York) Judge Carl F. Becker did (he called an attorney a clown and a Santa Claus).  Here is Judge Kreep's jokingly invented nicknames for attorneys:

JudgeKreep also joked about an attorney's pregnancy - that the opposing counsel needs to wrap up the arguments shorter so that the pregnant attorney can go home and have her baby:

And Judge Kreep openly joked about how good a friend he was to a disabled personal friend:

I wonder how many friends Judge Kreep will have left after that particular disclosure, and how many of them will ask Judge Kreep for help - or offer help, for that matter.

And #JudgeGaryKreep joked yet again - with a criminal defendant:

Judge Kreep is a judge in San Diego, California.

The Bunny Ranch is a brothel in Nevada, which also has an online sexually explicit content.

Apparently, Judge Kreep had personal knowledge (and, maybe, experience?) of this brothel - which he readily shared in an open courtroom, jokingly of course, while accepting a plea from a young woman for prostitution and giving her a fatherly advice as to how to turn her life around.

Judge Kreep's jokingly humiliated young attorneys:

Judge Kreep jokingly - of course - referred to criminal sentences he imposed on people as "gifts":

Judge Kreep referred to cases by ethnicity of criminal defendants involved - and connected that ethnicity with attorneys appearing in front of him:

Judge Kreep is accused of using crude language in the courtroom:

Jiudge Kreep stressed Latino ethnicity of defendants and attorneys:

Amazingly, while lawyers are usually very submissive to judges, Judge Kreep was, apparently, so bad that lawyers boycotted his courtroom.

Of course, I do not know how that can technically be done without hurting clients' cases if the judge is assigned to the case - but a boycott by lawyers was reported, and, reportedly, on the day of the boycott the judge threatened a public defender that "they" will come "for her" if "they" "came for" the judge.

Here are the charges against Judge Kreep in full.

Judge Kreep is also charged for:

• misrepresentation to voters - and thus being elected by fraud (which reminds me of Albany County (New York) Supreme Court judge Christina Ryba ["ryba" means "fish" in Russian, by the way] who was FIRED from her job in the Appellate Division 3rd Department because she engaged in election fraud, but the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct refused to find anything amiss in Ryba's behavior):

• running for judicial public office without resigning from another public office, as required by law:

• opposed a candidate for a public office (the President of the United States) while running for another public office (this charge I find questionable since a candidate for public office does not lose his voting rights by running for a public office)

(3 lengthy examples are included into the charges, you can see them fully here);

• failed to report certain expenses during his election campaign;
• used his personal credit card and his personal bank account to finance his election campaign, instead of the campaign contribution account;
• remained for six weeks as counsel of record in a federal case after taking office as a judge;
• issued reimbursement checks in a way creating an impression that the judge continued to practice law after Judge Kreep took the bench

• pre-judged a case without a hearing and while refusing to allow an evidentiary hearing that was scheduled (Count 6);
• made improper remarks about people's ethnicities - be it Latino, Mexican, Chinese (described above), or Phillipino

• obtained legal advice for cases from attorneys who did not represent any parties, and then made rulings based on that advice

• delegated authority to parties to decide cases instead of himself

• during a trial, while being a fact-finder, injected his personal experiences into the trial (4 examples are contained in the charges, Count 10);
• presided over a motion scheduled in an ex parte manner and granted it (Count 11).

Well.

All of the above, with the one exception I noted (as to voting rights of a candidate for public office) is bad.

But, I bet that readers who have any experience with American courts would say that all judges that they appeared in front of are exactly the same - and are doing exactly what Judge Kreep was doing.

• Assigning nicknames to attorneys;
• Making inappropriate, crude, sexist, racist jokes in and out of court;
• engaging in ex parte communications;
• pre-judging cases;
• injecting their own experiences into cases - same as Charges 1 through 11, with specifications, allege against Judge Kreep.

And, judges who do all of that, do not get any discipline - the absolute majority of complaints against judges are dismissed without discipline or even an investigation, in all states, including the blessed state of California, home to Judge Kreep.

Moreover, charges were filed in 2016 against Judge Kreep for his alleged misconduct in 2012 during his election campaign, 4 years after the fact.

Why Judge Kreep?  Why now?

Is it a belated revenge against Judge Kreep for being what was characterized a "legal activist" and a "high profile birther", questioning authority of President Barack Obama to be re-elected to office based on claims that he was born outside of the United States?

Also, even though charges to mention that Judge Kreep made inappropriate comments about a public defender, the bulk of the charges were because of the boycott by the City Attorneys - who usually act as prosecutors.

And, back in 2013, when Judge Kreep was just elected, by a narrow margin, it was mentioned in a high-profile legal blog that Judge Kreep "earned the ire only of prosecutors", while public defenders had no problem with the judge.  The ire that Judge Kreep somehow drew from the prosecutors resulted in a "blanket challenge" - through the use of statutory peremptory disqualification - from all criminal cases, I described what is a peremptory challenge to a judge more than 2 years ago, here.

Not to mention that Judge Kreep's opponent in his election campaign, Garland Peed, is reportedly working in the city attorney's criminal division that is boycotting the judge.

And, many Counts of the charges are outright petty.

You just don't charge a judge with an ethical violation simply because he complimented a female attorney or employee in the courtroom for being pretty.

That is really, really, really petty.

By the way, one of the counts was that Judge Kreep had ex parte communications with public defenders.

I bet that Judge Kreep would never have been charged if he did what other judges are usually doing - having ex parte communications with the prosecutors.

I can recall another case that I recently reported on - of New York judge Thomas Keefe who was forced to resign because prosecutors were not happy with him.

If defense attorneys were not happy with a judge, he would, probably, be given a badge of honor, no matter how crude, rude, sexist and racist he would be with defense attorneys.

And that is the whole problem with disciplinary prosecution of Judge Gary Kreep in California - as well as with the disciplinary prosecution of Judge Thomas Keefe in New York.

Occupational licensing continues to be used by the government to stifle political speech. Now of a financial advisor in Nebraska.

I regularly write in this blog about the use of occupational regulation, attorney regulation in particular, to stifle free speech and especially criticism of the government.

In a recent post, I covered statistics of attorneys sanctioned for criticizing judges,  about the general trend of retaliation by the government against members of the public for so much as seeking public records, and about my current petition for a writ of certiorari raising the same topic is pending with the U.S. Supreme Court (the U.S. Supreme Court required me to add to the Appendix the decision that I already included into the Appendix, and delayed docketing my petition until I comply.  I will comply - I have no choice).

Interestingly, another petition for a writ of certiorari is pending at the same time in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the use of occupational regulation as a tool of political oppression, and that is the petition by Robert Bennie, a financial advisor who was forced to stop making political comments that he was previously making, in criticism of various public officials, including President Barack Obama, because regulators of his profession applied pressure to his company to silence him, and then fire him.

Robert Bennie filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming 1st Amendment retaliation in 2011.  The district court dismissed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal, with 2 judges in favor of affirming the dismissal, Chief Judge William J Riley

and Judge Jane Kelly (a prospective nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court instead of the deceased Antonin Scalia, whose nomination failed simply because the judge was a federal public defender in the past)

and one judge, the 86-year-old Judge Clarence Arlen Beam, 

most strongly dissenting.

While advanced age of judges may present a problem in clouding their judgment, the dissent of Judge Beam - same as the recent dissent of a 94-year-old judge Damon Keith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on the issue of racism - demonstrated flawless competence and logic.

The push of the majority - judges Riley and Kelly - was that a person of "ordinary firmness" would have persevered and would not have been chilled by the intimidating tactics of the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance that repeatedly insisted that Robert Bennie's employer regulate and stifle his political speech, criticism of public officials including the U.S. President - or fire him.

Robert Bennie was eventually fired, and stopped his criticism, for fear of his livelihood - after engaging in such criticism for several years.

What the majority is actually saying is that Robert Bennie is a coward - had he been stronger, he would not have stopped his criticism.

And that is a slap in the face not only to Robert Bennie, but to any whistleblower who stopped criticizing the government for fear of losing livelihood for his own benefit and for the benefit of his family and dependents.

So, for the government, 1st Amendment does not exist.

If the government violates it by retaliating - the federal court immediately obliges the government by creating a "test" which is nowhere to be found in the text of the 1st Amendment requiring the victim of government's retaliation to prove that his speech was chilled by the retaliation.

Even though the test itself is completely illegal, Robert Bennie met it by showing that his criticism was actually chilled, he stopped it because he was fired after repeated efforts of the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance to make his employer regulate his private out-of-office conduct.

Yet, the court now invents another test on top of the previous one - which is also nowhere to be found in the text of the 1st Amendment - that not only the speech must be chilled, but that the government's behavior must be of such nature as to chill political speech of a person of "ordinary resilience".

And, the 8th Circuit's majority claims, Robert Bennie is not such a person - in other words, they say that Robert Bennie is a coward.


Had he been braver, his speech would not have been chilled, even at the cost of losing his license and livelihood.

Yet, in the same breath the majority of the 8th Circuit actually claims that Robert Bennie is BRAVER than the ordinary person - and used his resilience prior to his self-censorship (Bennie started to self-censor after being fired for continuing to engage in political speech outside of his employment) as proof that a person of ordinary firmness would not have been chilled by retaliation directed at Bennie.

And that mentality of the majority met with scathing dissent of Judge Clarence Beam:

As of July of last year, president Obama's report claimed that regulated professions occupied over 25% of the U.S. labor market.

Here is an excerpt from the Executive Summary to President Obama's report:

It is obvious that when the Nebraska state regulator of financial market applied pressure on Robert Bennie employer to regulate Robert Bennie's private political speech, that regulation had nothing to do with the declared purpose of regulation to protect consumers of Robert Bennie's services from dishonest or incompetent providers of financial advice, because Robert Bennie's political speech had nothing to do with his work, and his competence or integrity as a financial advisor had nothing to do with his political beliefs, spoken or unspoken.

Thus, at least every fourth worker (every third, by other estimates - 7 years earlier 29% of workers in the U.S. were reportedly covered with occupational licensing) in the United States may be affected with a threat of having his livelihood yanked in retaliation for political speech.   In this case the speech in question was criticism of President Obama himself.

Using occupational licensing as a machine of political oppression and stifling of political speech is being increasingly used in the United States, and has become an issue of grave public concern.

Judge Beam, in his dissent, appreciated the importance of this issue.

I wonder whether the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the case of Robert Bennie worth of its precious time.

This is what caused the ire of the State to descend upon Robert Bennie, his statement comparing himself and President Obama and reportedly saying:

"I'm a freedom-loving American and he's a communist.  I'm an honest man and he's dishonest.  He didn't tell us all of what he's going to do.  I believe he's an evil man".

To that political statement of opinion the Director of Nebraska State Department of Banking and Finance reportedly answered with an e-mail to his subordinates:

"Bob Bennie is always seen wearing a cowboy hat, so I say 'Hang Him High'".

And they did.

Occupational licensing was introduced stealthily, without requests of consumers, and without evidence-based investigation of whether regulation is needed and whether the regulation is helping to actually protect consumers.

Instead, occupational regulation is increasingly used for purposes completely unrelated with the declared purpose of regulation - instead of protecting consumers, it is used to squash the livelihood of critics of the government.

Let's remember - the government is OUR SERVANTS.

And the government is hired to do their job - within the limits of the law.

The government has no right to "Hang Us High" for criticizing it.

We need to make sure those in the government who want to use their authority unlawfully are subject to effective measures of accountability.

I will continue to monitor this story and report on it.

Stay tuned.