Did Indiana Judge Michael Hensley deny an arrest warrant of a dangerous stalker (that resulted in the victim's death) because the victim was the stalker's estranged wife? $500.00. That's how much Laura Russell's life was valued at by an Indiana court.

In August, a man in Indiana was arrested and criminally charged  with "with strangulation and domestic battery for allegedly attacking his wife".

A stay-away order of protection was issued at that time.

The man violated the stay-away no contact order of protection by continuing to stalk his estranged wife.

The estranged wife reported his stalking to the police.

When court orders are violated, that is contempt of court, a separate crime.

When a stay-away order of protection is violated, that is a separate crime, and is especially dangerous in view of the August charges - strangulation and battery.

Imagine that the man strangled and hit somebody other than his wife - a stranger, a co-worker, a neighbor.

And, that the man would have violated the order of protection and continued to stalk that co-worker or neighbor.

He would be immediately arrested and brought before court.

But here, the victim was his wife.

And the male judge decided to go easy on him - and simply issue a "summons" to appear in court, based obviously on the wife's report.

That brought the man over the edge - and he stabbed his estranged wife to death.

That blood is on the hands of #JudgeMichaelHensley.

Judge Hensley did not apologize, but he issued a statement expressing condolences to the victim's, Laura Russell's, family, and stated that in the future he will hold a hearing as to the arrest warrant the same day the application is made, to prevent similar tragic consequences.

Those condolences will not bring the 44-year-old mother of a young daughter back to life, to her child, her family and her friends.

On August 20, 2016, a month and a half before her death, Laura Russell reportedly escaped the strangulation attempt and beating at the hands of her abusive husband, fled to neighbors and reported the crime.

Criminal charges were brought against the husband.

It is a wonder why the husband was not kept in jail in view of dangerousness of his behavior.

Allegations were made by the victim already then indicating that the husband was a dangerous control freak:

" The woman also told police she called 911 for help, but Anthony Russell disconnected the call. When dispatchers called back, Anthony Russell said everything was fine.

Laura Russell told police that morning that she attempted to use someone else’s phone, a second phone she owned and attempted to get her car keys to leave during the incident, but her husband took away the phones and keys."

It was unlikely that a "no contact" order of protection would deter such a determined control freak who obviously looked upon Laura Russell as his property.

Of course, the husband claimed that the wife was drunk, came home late and was the aggressor.  The question is, why would a "drunk aggressor" run away to neighbors trying to escape from the husband?

The husband was released on a $500 bond and a no contact in August of 2016.

In September of 2016, "a Level 5 felony count of criminal confinement and misdemeanor counts of interference with reporting a crime and battery were added to the case by prosecutors."

And, the husband was still not arrested and was not kept locked up to protect the victim.

Laura Russell specifically asked the court "that Anthony Russell not be allowed to possess guns, knives or other weapons that could cause bodily injury."

That is the usual requirement for an order of protection.

I am not sure whether that request was granted or not, but for some relentless control freaks, such as Anthony Russell showed to be, an order of protection, and even an order not to possess knives or guns, is nothing but noise.

In June of 2016, the husband filed for divorce, but then quickly withdrew his filing, and the divorce case was dismissed.

After the strangulation episode on August 20, 2016, Laura Russell reportedly filed for divorce on August 24, 2016 - which also was not taken into consideration for purposes of protecting her from her stalker and abuser.

There were multiple witnesses who saw Anthony Russell, on multiple occasions, violating the no-contact court order of protection - following Laura Russell from lunch with friends, from the school where she picked up her daughter, to the gym - and Anthony Russell left before the police arrived, so the police did the right thing and applied, through prosecution, for an arrest warrant - which Judge Michael Hensley denied without a hearing.

Here is what the prosecutor reportedly said about what happened:

If everybody knew that Laura Russell was at risk of BEING KILLED, for God's sake, because she was leaving her abusive partner - why didn't the police start surveillance of Anthony Russell, even if the arrest warrant was denied?

Wouldn't that have saved Laura Russell's life?

Now everybody involved can "express condolences".

But the woman is dead.

And I cannot shake the nagging feeling that she is dead because everybody involved did not exercise the same amount of caution which they would have if Laura Russell was not Anthony Russell's wife.

The perception remains that our court system, especially male judges, like it was in this case, continues to act on implications that

• wives are husbands' property,
• husbands can do whatever they want with them, and that
• wives are not to be believed when they are claiming physical abuse and danger of death at the hands of their abusive husbands.

Just like it was not so long ago - when women were, in fact, the husband's property.

While prejudices die hard, one thing can be done about the situation - and that is not "changing procedures".

Judge Michael Hensley should be removed from the bench.

He would not have denied that arrest warrant, without a hearing, had the alleged victim been male, and a stranger to the defendant.

And that bias is not just a simple lapse of judgment.

How occupational licensing can turn a democracy into a theocracy: Great Britain yanks a medical license for dissemination of the "wrong scientific belief"

In a religion, adepts of that religion are expected to believe doctrines of their religion blindly.

That's again, in a religion.

Science progresses by putting to the test of proof-by-evidence any hypothesis offered in any specialized field of knowledge.

In a democratic society, people supposedly have freedom of speech on issues of public concern, and nobody is expected, much less mandated by the government to hold certain beliefs.

A requirement that a citizen must hold certain beliefs on the fear of penalty from the government is the feature of a tyranny, not a democracy.

Enters occupational regulation.

In the United States it has become routine to punish people for contents of their their opinions, whether professional or political, by yanking their occupational licenses - and depriving them of their ability to earn a livelihood for themselves and their families.

I wrote on this blog about the epidemic of sanctions against attorneys for their criticism of judges, including criticisms made as part of attorneys' professional opinions, in pleadings.

If you want to practice law in United States, you must keep your mouth shut as to judicial misconduct being committed in front of you, or you will be made to starve - because not only your law license will be yanked but, according to information that I have from various disciplined attorneys, you will be denied or made difficult to receive certification or licensing in other regulated professions, from taxi driving to insurance agents.

And, I wrote about the recent petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court of a financial advisor in Nebraska who was fired because of his political statements, so the Nebraska State Department of Banking and Finance put pressure on his employer to regulate his out-of-office political speech, or fire him.  He was fired, with no recourse from the courts so far.

So, if you want to earn a living as a financial advisor in Nebraska, you cannot hold political views such as Robert Bennie had, and especially you cannot express those views publicly.

Great Britain now jumped into the fray with a shameful decision to revoke license to practice medicine from a well-known and experienced doctor - because she dared to claim that the so-called "Shaken Baby Syndrom", the way doctors diagnose babies as having suffered from being shaken by their caregivers - is not based on evidence.

Of course, as of 2011, experts in the U.S. were still debating whether the "Shaken Baby Syndrome" as a diagnosis is, indeed, scientifically valid.

And, as of 2015, scientific evidence emerged that symptoms associated with the Shaken Baby Syndrome, the so-called "triad" of symptoms:

1. bleeding on the brain’s surface,
2. swelling of the brain and
3. bleeding behind the eyes -

may be caused not only by the Shaken Baby Syndrome, but also by other causes, such as:

• long-ago injuries;
• stroke in utero (before birth).

Yet, the SBS diagnosis, and expert testimony about it, has been cause of many convictions, child abuse adjudications and the resulting loss of liberty, parental rights, jobs of many parents in many countries, including the United States.

When there are doubts among experts as to causation of the "triad" symptoms, such symptoms cannot be definitively attributed to intentional misconduct of the caregiver - not beyond the reasonable doubt, not even by preponderance of the evidence.

That is what science says, using scientific methods: there is not enough proof to deem the "triad" symptoms attributable exclusively to the Shaken Baby Syndrome, and thus to convict or yank parental rights of parents whose children are diagnosed with such symptoms.

Now, can this "triad" of symptoms, in a specific case, actually be caused by shaking the baby, a definitely criminal conduct?

Of course, it can.

The only thing the experts say is that the "triad of symptoms" cannot, APART FROM ANYTHING ELSE, used as exclusive proof that the baby suffered from shaking.

All that is needed is more evidence, evidence other than the "triad" symptoms.

But more evidence is not what the lazy social services or criminal prosecutors want - they want easy convictions, or easy adjudications of child abuse and neglect, and for that they need experts rubber-stamping whatever "syndromes" that are necessary to bring about those convictions and child abuse adjudications, whether the "syndromes" are based on science or not.

Many careers of experts, budgets of social services are based on quick and plentiful adjudications of child neglect, yanking children from parents, placing them into foster care and then adopting them out of foster care.

The industry of child protective services is a big industry and it will not yield easily to somebody who want to undermine their livelihood - by, for example, putting in doubt the "sanctified snake oil" theory such as the Shaken Baby Syndrome.

And, when the government controls the livelihood of the expert through professional licensing, it is easy to at least try to put the unruly science into the necessary grove.

But wait, didn't the government, the religious government, try to control science this same way in the past?

In 1642, the great philosopher, astronomer and engineer, Gallileo Gallilei, died in prison at the age of 77, condemned by Catholic church for heresy.

The heresy was, among other things, denying the fact that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Not only Gallilei was condemned during lifetime and died in prison, but his body was not allowed to be buried where people wanted it - in the front of a cathedral - because of disapproval of the "heretic" by the Pope.

Yet, the Earth revolves around the Sun, whether the Catholic Church - or anybody else - disapproved of it, then or now, or not.

Eppur si muove (and yet it moves) - the words attributed to Gallileo - came to mean simply that scientific theories must be judged on the facts, not beliefs.

Yet, recently, Great Britain has yanked the medical license of a well-known and respected physician, Dr. Waney Squier, simply because she, based on 15 years of personal research, put in doubt that the "triad" of symptoms allow to exclude other causes and definitively diagnose the "Shaken Baby Syndrome".

Reportedly, 350 doctors, scientists and lawyers are protesting revocation of Dr. Squier's license.

The interesting part is that the license was revoked because of alleged "dishonesty" - meaning that the British government now claims to hold the ultimate truth on the scientific issue of whether the "Shaken Baby Syndrome" is or is not supported by scientific evidence.

350 experts say it doesn't.

The Medical Council in Great Britain says it does - and yanked Dr. Squier's medical license, so that she would not be able to look into the ACTUAL causes of the "triad" symptoms instead of rubber-stamping child protective and criminal investigations and prosecutions against parents.

And, the interesting part is that those experts who deny scientific validity of the Shaken Baby Syndrome no longer give evidence in court because they are "afraid of possible consequences" - which says a lot about impartiality of such court proceedings when the government requires a scientific expert to testify in the vein favoring the prosecution, or lose their licenses and livelihoods, as it happened to Dr. Squier.

It all boils down to three things:

1) the actual cause of the "triad" symptoms will not change because prosecutors want them to mean misconduct by parents or caregivers, and bringing about wrongful convictions will not help either the society, or the parents, or children who suffered such symptoms - possibly, not because of misconduct by parents or caregivers, but for other reasons;

2) occupational licensing is supposed to protect consumers of services, and channeling a doctor into having to diagnose a cluster of symptoms the way expected by criminal prosecutors in order for the prosecutors to win cases, does not help the patient to obtain the proper diagnosis - and proper treatment;

3) a government that mandates BELIEFS of any kind, including the belief in the validity of the Shaken Baby Syndrome (as the Catholic Church mandated belief that the Sun is revolving the Earth in Galilei's time), is not a democracy, it is a theocracy.

Overpopulated American prisons and finality of wrongful convictions, illustrated - the New York case of People v Drayton

On October 11, 2016 the County Court of the Dutchess County, Judge Peter M. Forman,

made a decision refusing to vacate the murder conviction of a person with a name Omnipotent Unique Drayton for the killing in 2003 of Dennis Brown Jr.

Here is the decision.

In the decision, Judge Forman ruled for the office of the Dutchess County District Attorney where he himself worked for years in the past - on the basis that, even though the conviction could not have been obtained the way it was, under the new law, the new law "does not apply retroactively".

Here is the portion from Judge Forman's decision:

"In 2014, almost ten years after sentence was imposed by the trial court, Defendant moved for an order vacating his judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL §440.10. Specifically, Defendant moved to dismiss his judgment of conviction on the grounds, inter alia, that his right to due process was denied when the trial court charged the jury to consider the intentional murder and depraved indifference murder counts in the conjunctive, rather than in the alternative."

...

"By Decision and Order dated August 6, 2014, this court summarily denied that motion. Specifically, this court found that Defendant's claim that the trial court should have charged the intentional murder and depraved indifference murder counts in the alternative could have been raised on direct appeal."

...

"When the August 6, 2014 Decision and Order was handed down, existing precedent in the First, Second and Fourth Departments held that a trial court could charge intentional murder and depraved indifference murder counts in the conjunctive, rather than in the alternative, when the intentional murder count was based upon a theory of transferred intent. [see e.g., People v. Henderson, 78 AD3d 1506 (4th Dept. 2010); People v. Douglas, 73 AD3d 30 (2d Dept. 2010); People v. Page, 63 AD3d 506 (1st Dept. 2009)].

On April 7, 2015, the Court of Appeals abrogated that Appellate Division precedent [see People v. Dubarry, 25 NY3d 161 (2015)]. Specifically, the Court of Appeals held that, when a defendant kills one victim in the course of attempting to kill someone else, "that defendant cannot be convicted of both depraved indifference murder and intentional murder on a transferred intent theory in a case involving the death of the same person." [id. at 165]."

In other words, the conviction, the way it was obtained against defendant Drayton, cannot be obtained under the current law.

And, naturally, defendant moved to vacate his conviction - which would seem logical.  If TODAY the law in New York is that a conviction may not be obtained the way it was obtained against the defendant, the defendant must be retried to apply the new law.

Judge Forman, relying on the decision of New York State Court of Appeals said - NO.

"Defendant now seeks leave to renew his motion to vacate his judgment of conviction on the grounds that Dubarry represents a change in the law that will change this court's prior determination. However, this argument is based upon the flawed premise that the rule announced in Dubarry will be retroactively applied to collateral attacks on final judgments of conviction.

"Courts are not generous in applying new rules of law to collateral proceedings given the underlying considerations of finality.'" [People v. Jean-Baptiste, 11 NY3d 539, 543 (2008), quoting People v. Favor, 82 NY2d 254, 261, n.2 (1993). See also People v. Jackson, 78 NY2d 638, 647 (1991) (finding that society's interest in the finality of judgments of conviction "is formidable")]. Drawing a "sharp distinction" between cases that are on direct appeal and cases that involve collateral attacks, the Court of Appeals has "recognized that to allow retroactive application of existing law to final convictions would mean that every defendant to whose case it was relevant, no matter how remote in time and merit, would become a beneficiary.'" [Id. at 543, quoting People v. Pepper, 53 NY2d 213, 222 (1981)]."

Translation into plain English:  if you are convicted under the old law that was changed after the conviction, and after you exhausted all your appeals, your conviction remains "valid", even though NOW nobody else can be convicted the way you were.

Because "courts are not generous in applying new rules of law to collateral proceedings given the underlying consideration of finality".

Yet, it is not the point of whether the court is going to be "generous" or not when the law changes.

When the law changes, the court must apply the new law to all, it is called "Equal Protection of Law" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that every judge is sworn to obey.

And it does not matter whether the conviction "became final" by that time or not.

Imagine that a criminal defendant is a gay man instead, and is moving to vacate his conviction for being gay under Lawrence v Texas, a U.S. Supreme Court case that declared, only 15 years ago, by the way, that the law of the State of Texas that criminalized homosexual relationships, is not constitutional.

Imagine that the same Judge Peter M. Forman is presiding and says that "courts are not generous" in vacating convictions that became final before Lawrence v Texas.

I wonder how long Judge Forman would remain on the bench after such a ruling - Chief Judge Moore in Alabama lost his judgeship for opposing U.S. Supreme Court gay marriage precedent just this month.

Yet, the law must apply equally notwithstanding the subject - whether the change in law affects the theories of presentation of how to convict for murder, or how to convict for any other crime.

If a law is changed, if it is not possible to convict a person under that law today, nobody can continue to sit in jail convicted under that same law - that is pure logic, common sense, and how all other laws, civil laws operate.

The concept of "finality" is the concept of collateral estoppel.

Collateral estoppel applies to factual issues and does not apply to issues of new law.

Moreover, finality of criminal conviction should not triumph over fairness - and it is clearly not fair to keep a person in jail based on a conviction that could not be obtained under the present state of law, which is true in Drayton's case.

Let's remember presumption of innocence.

Let's remember that presumption of innocence cannot be overcome by unlawful means.

Let's remember that presumption of innocence of Defendant Drayton, under the present state of law, was overcome by unlawful means.

That means that the conviction is void, and Defendant Drayton is still presumed innocent, and must be tried under the new law.

I understand it is costly to retry a case.

But isn't it costly to keep in prison a person whose conviction would not have been possible under the present state of the law?

Isn't it costly to use the taxpayers' money to monitor such people on parole, and to have them as outlaws, denied not only voting rights, but rights to reintegrate in society and be employed.

Defendant Drayton was charged with murder and robbery.

Yet, principles of "finality" applied by Judge Forman, an attorney of 34 years,

are applicable to all criminal cases where the change of law occurred after all appeals went through.

It is upon these principles of "finality" that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty (figure! - Effective Death Penalty) Act is based, contributing to mass incarceration of Americans, including mass wrongful incarceration, given that most cases are resolved in plea bargains, and in most cases overworked and underpaid assigned defense attorneys spend 7 minutes per defendant on misdemeanors, and not much more on felony case.

By the way, ineffective assistance of counsel even in death penalty cases fall upon deaf ears even of the U.S. Supreme Court - see the dissent of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg in the recent case where the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a death penalty case, condemning to death a person who was represented at a capital case by an attorney who has never before tried a death penalty case and did not do any investigation for his client.

I wrote on this blog about a federal judge Richard Kopf who blogged about not one, not two, but three reasons why he would authorize EXECUTING a person even if the judge knows the person to be executed is INNOCENT:

1. where no federal legal remedy is available to stop the execution;
2. where the petitioner could resort to speedy and fair PARDON process prior to execution (this one is decidedly British - Great Britain just pardoned gays convicted for being gays because it is no longer a crime - so if you are innocent, you can just as well ask to be forgiven, or else it would be ok to execute you, federal judge Kopf says);
3. where petitioner "sat on his rights" - did not raise the issue of his innocence early enough and fast enough in the process (that same finality issue).

So, Judge Kopf also claimed finality as a defense not just for refusing to vacate the conviction, but to carry out the sentence of death and executing an innocent because, as Judge Forman now says, "courts are not generous" to vacate final criminal convictions, no matter what, it seems.

But, courts must be doing their jobs and applying the new law equally to all, those who were already convicted under the previous, now changed law, and those who remain only charged.

It is a gross injustice when it is not possible to convict a person at present, but it is somehow fair and proper to keep a person in jail under the already abolished law.

Such a "theory" does not rest well in the head of any reasonable person - only in the head of a judge who was a career prosecutor before coming to the bench, as the majority of judges in this country, unfortunately, are.

The triumph of finality over fairness that is currently the order of business in American courts is not legal.

Judges do not and should not have power to be "generous" or not generous where the new law is concerned.

Because otherwise, wrongful convictions will never be able to be reversed - they are final after all, and that they were obtained through application of laws that were wrong, or were changed, does not make a difference.

Right?

Great Britain to gay people convicted for being gay - it is not a crime, so you are forgiven

Imagine that a certain behavior is considered a crime under the law of a country.

Imagine that a person is convicted of that crime.

Imagine that at some point the country declares that that specific behavior is no longer a crime.

Imagine that the country in question has many people convicted of that crime.

No, what do you think the country will do about it?

After all, the crime of conviction is no longer a crime.

Shouldn't the country completely exonerate people convicted of that crime which is no longer a crime, cleaning up their criminal record and restoring completely their good name?

That is not what Great Britain did.

Great Britain PARDONED 50,000 deceased (dead) gay men convicted for being gay, and allowed the 15,000 gay men convicted for being gay to remain alive to apply for such pardon.

Pardoning means that Great Britain acknowledged that these men did commit a crime, but that Great Britain magnanimously forgives them for having done that.

And, as far as the deceased are concerned, the pardon will mar their memory, all over again.

It is no longer a crime, so you are forgiven, says Great Britain to gay men.

Forgiven of what exactly?

Pardoning was, of course, safer than vacating their conviction because of the change of law. 

Vacating the conviction could invite lawsuits for wrongful conviction, and the country cannot have that. 

It is better to give a pardon for no crime - as a new slap in the face of people convicted for who they are.

Not all "pardoned" convicted gay men in Great Britain are accepting the pardon though.

For example, George Montague, convicted in 1974 for "gross indecency with a man" is not having it - he wants an apology, not a pardon, and rightly so.

George Montague, apparently, did not read the piece of Professor Jonathan Turley on the law where the professor claims that giving a "royal pardon" to people who did not commit a crime is "represents an important public apology for the prosecution of people due to their sexual orientation".

Forgiving those whose lives, as Professor Turley correctly admits, were shattered because of such a conviction, and who committed no crime - FORGIVING them for the wrong done TO them - is no apology.  It is a slap in their faces.

An apology is just that - an apology.  From the government.  To those wronged.  An apology and an exoneration.

But, you know what is worse than the hypocrisy of forgiving those the government has wronged?

The laws of the United States which "collaterally estop" vacating "final convictions" based on new laws under which such convictions would not be possible.

As to those laws, and the newest case in New York produced under those laws, I will run a separate blog next.

Stay tuned.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court gives a preelection carrot to voters - and the carrot is rotten

On September 15, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the court ridden by multiple scandals

• (refusal to discipline the Kids-for-Cash judge until the feds convicted him and sent him to prison for 27 years,
• the Porngate where there was no discipline imposed on anybody but the whistleblowers;
• suspending the license and convicting the Pennsylvania Attorney General who tried to hold judges accountable,
• the recent U.S. Supreme Court reversal of a death penalty case in Williams v Pennsylvania with a scathing criticism of the now retired Judge Donald Castille who sat as a judge on cases where he signed the death penalty applications as a prosecutor)

made a press release announcing to the public that now the court makes it easier for the public "to express desire to serve" on multiple committees, councils and boards that "help the court" in its business.

The press release confirmed, of course, that only some of the appointments will be for non-attorneys, and that "many" "volunteer" positions require "legal training" or "expertise" - in other words, are reserved for attorneys only, and, remember, attorneys are people whose livelihood is in the hands of Pennsylvania Supreme Court, because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regulates law licenses in the state.

Remember how quickly they yanked the license of PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane when she started to investigate judges for misconduct in office?  One of the judges who Kane investigated actually sat on the panel that suspended Kane, and only after suspending his "enemy", he recused.  An extremely honorable man.  "Honorable" is part of their job titles, so that makes them all very honorable, you know.

The press-release claimed that volunteers "serve" as part of "independent agencies" helping the court, but, seriously, when the majority of such "agencies" are populated by lawyers, people whose livelihood is in the hands of the court, people totally dependent on the good grace of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, how can such agencies be "independent"?

The press-release said that:

And, the first "volunteer vacancies" were supposed to be published by October 3, 2016.

Today is October 20, 2016, so I decided to look, which "volunteer vacancies" were published, and how many of them are for non-attorneys.

The Committees and Boards are on the far bottom right of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court website:

Of course, when you click on the "Committees, Boards and Advisory Groups" in the bottom right, you are immediately discouraged from further applying for "volunteering" in such "Committees, Boards and Advisory Groups" by this announcement/warning:

So, there is no independence in these "groups" where MOST "volunteers" are - admittedly - attorneys, people whose livelihood depends on the whims of judges of that court.

If after that warning, the reader still wants to waste time on these "boards", further listed are "available positions" for two "boards":  Continuing Legal Education Board, and Orphans' Court Procedural Rules Committee.

So, I clicked on "more information".

Here are the requirements to apply for "volunteering" on the Continuing Legal Education Board:

Why only attorneys are allowed to set rules as to how attorneys should be taught and, especially, taught about ethics - nobody knows.  Doesn't law licensing - and CLE is part of it - exist to protect consumers of legal services?  And don't consumers of legal services, those allegedly sought to be protected, have a right to see how exactly they are being protected?  And set rules of how attorneys must be educated?  With the help of experts, if a need arises?

But no, the CLE Board is yet another secret society excluding ordinary people, the "nonlawyers", and decides (allegedly) how to protect those nonlawyers behind closed doors.

Here are the requirements to apply for "volunteering" on the Orphans' Court Procedural Rules Committee:

While there is no explicit requirement for members of this "Committee" to be attorneys, I wonder how many lay members will be allowed.

The answer is in the current composition of that Committee: there are NO lay members there.

So, the pre-election carrot to voters that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court does SOMETHING to clean up its stables turns out to be a rotten carrot.  It is, and is going to be - until and unless the public takes the appointment power to these "Committees" from the hands of the courts and make them into a really independent agencies, populated by non-attorneys - what it is now.

An attempt to deceive and appease the public before the elections.

A rotten carrot.

The U.S. Supreme Court precedents and the continued circus around their legal status. The case of Roy Moore and the apologies of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt

The U.S. Constitution that all attorneys and judges in the United States take an oath to support, obey and enforce has a Supremacy Clause which does not include U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Federal courts punish people left and right for saying just that.

Chief Judge of the State of Alabama Roy Moore openly stated that the U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage is not the Law of the Land.

Chief Judge Roy Moore was suspended without pay for stating, and adhering to the contents of the Federal Constitution that every judge and attorney in this country takes a pledge to obey, enforce and uphold.

By the way, Chief Judge Roy Moore, in an interview with the CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, son and brother of two New York State Governors, cornered Chris Cuomo with a question whether Chris Cuomo would have followed Dred Scott had he been a judge at the time Dred Scott was decided, and Chris Cuomo said "yes".

Now the circus continues with the Kansas State Attorney General first citing in a brief to a U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled that African Americans are second rate people and do not have a right to sue for assault, and then apologized for citing this U.S. Supreme Court case.

The Kansas attorney general cited the Dred Scott in a case where the state law banning 3rd trimester abortion was sought to be revived.

The Dred Scott case was cited by the Kansas Attorney General for the proposition (used in that case to support endorsement of slavery) that the announcement of "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence does not have any legal meaning and is just puffery, hollow words.

Then, the Attorney General apologized for citing Dred Scott and withdrew the motion where it was cited.

Nevertheless, Dred Scott remains a U.S. Supreme Court precedent which remains on the books and required to plunge the country into a civil war in order to undo that ruling - so many lives could be spared had the U.S. Supreme Court decided that case differently, but it did not.

The Kansas Attorney General finally apologized for citing to Dred Scott in support of his arguments.

Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Judge Roberts unapologetically relied on Dred Scott in his dissent in the same sex marriage case.

Chief Judge Roberts pointed out Dred Scott case, amazingly, as the first case where due process was used by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike state legislation, and thus, Chief Judge Roberts implied that Dred Scott was a foundation case for due process in this country.

In Dred Scott, as Chief Judge Roberts pointed out in his dissent in Obergefell v Hodges, the same sex marriage case, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck a state statute, a "Missouri Compromise" giving humanity to African Americans, whether they are slaves or free descendants of slaves, on the basis that that legislation "restricting the institution of slavery violated the implied rights of slaveholders".

Chief Judge Roberts acknowledged that Dred Scott it took a war to overrule that case:

Yet, Chief Judge Roberts blames the entire due process approach as "meddling" into the affairs of the state - putting on the same grounds Dred Scott that denied humanity to African Americans and the Lochner case which was simply enforcing economic freedom of bakery employee to work as many hours as they want without interference from the state.

Chief Judge Roberts was not punished for his views by suspension from office - the way Judge Roy Moore did by refusing to follow the majority opinion as "the Law of the Land" - which it isn't, according to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that both Judge Roy Moore and those who suspended him, are sworn to obey.

We really need to decide what is the legal of U.S. Supreme Court cases when it causes so much havoc in this country - where

• its precedents are cited in support of various laws, then
• people apologize for citing some precedents,
• are punished for disobeying other precedents,
• are punished for citing the U.S. Constitution, whether it is the Supremacy Clause, the 11th Amendment or the 1st Amendment, and where
• the U.S. Supreme Court precedents are used so selectively that
• people are punished simply for citing in their briefs those U.S. Supreme Court precedents that the particular lower court does not like to be used, because it interferes with their pre-judgment of the case. 

That most often happens in civil rights cases and in cases where attorneys are sanctioned for criticizing the government and especially judges, and cite in their defense the U.S. Supreme Court cases prohibiting content-based regulations of speech without "strict scrutiny".

We really need to decide for ourselves as citizens of the United States of America whether we as a country are actually ruled by the U.S. Constitution, or whether our government forced us to accept that the U.S. Constitution has become simply a necessary symbol to take public office and then be discarded and disregarded.

Not only this year's presidential elections are making this country into a laughing stock of the world - the circus with the status of U.S Supreme Court precedents cannot invoke respect to our country either.

If we are a constitutional democracy, then we, and all of our public servants, all public officials in all branches of the government, at all levels, local, state and federal, must follow our own U.S. Constitution and every part of it, including the Supremacy Clause.

Otherwise, we are not who we say we are, and are not the constitutional democracy.

We are a theocracy of the courts, where we are forced to believe and follow what the prophets in courts think the U.S. Constitution is - not what we the People think what it is.

Let me, without any apologies, quote Dred Scott on one other proposition - what constitutes a sovereign in 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. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty."

I am subscribing to every single word of this quotation.

We the People are the popular collective sovereign of this country, and We the People allowed ourselves to be ruled by our servants, whether they are legislators, prosecutors, police or judges only within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution, its text and not how it is interpreted by the group of 9 people, is the Law of the Land in this country.

In that Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court cases are NOT the Supreme Law of the Land.


What are they?

They are the last appellate decisions in a certain, separate, particular cases.

Not less, but not more.

Do attorney regulations apply to Hillary Clinton, lawyers working her and lawyers working to protect her, like Loretta Lynch and James Comey?

According to attorney Ty Clevenger (attorney who forced resignation of the sexual predator, federal judge Walter Smith, at the cost of exposing himself to retaliation by the D.C. bar), the D.C. bar refused to even investigate the disciplinary complaint against Hillary Clinton and her legal team for destruction of e-mails in violation of a court order.

South Carolina Rep. Tedd Gowdy publicly announced that Clinton's lawyers not only deleted several thousand e-mails from Hillary Clinton's server, but did that using software that prevents recovery, so the destruction of evidence was complete and deliberate.

Ty Clevenger also reported that disciplinary complaints were also filed against attorneys James Comey, director of the FBI, and Loretta Lynch, the U.S. Attorney General, and the complains were reportedly filed in New York State, where Comey and Lynch are licensed.

Of course, I wouldn't hold much hope that New York disciplinary authorities will be less corrupt than those of the D.C. bar - and especially because Hillary Clinton lives in New York State.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how the complaints against Comey and Lynch will go through in New York, where, according to the new rules of attorney discipline, the complainant is now entitled to at least some form of appeal if the complaint is not investigated or dismissed.

The D.C. bar is followed, in its corruptness, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that dismissed Ty Clevenger's disciplinary complaint against David Kendall, one of Hillary Clinton's attorneys, and threatened Ty Clevenger with contempt of court proceedings if he discloses the dismissal to anyone.

Well, Ty Clevenger disclosed that dismissal to the whole wide world by publishing an announcement about it on his blog, insisting, correctly, that it is a 1st Amendment issue and that the government may not order him into silence on this matter of public concern.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit is, in fact, very corrupt - and continues to hide the extent of how corrupt it is, by refusing to answer my Freedom of Information Act request for records of behind-the-scene meetings between state judges (defendants in civil rights actions before that court and federal district courts below) and federal judges deciding the state judges' cases.

There are claims that if Trump gets elected, it will be a disaster.

Will it not be a disaster if Hillary Clinton is elected and grants permission to all who protects her from criminal prosecution to be above the law?

If it is already happening now, imagine what kind of boons will be given out by Hillary Clinton to her "faithful" (to her, not to the law) supporters if she is elected.

Please, vote wisely.