Public records should be public - and free. The newly proposed policy of the U.S. Justice Department for access to records and opposition to it.

I wrote on this blog previously of the artificial barriers, and severe punishments, imposed by various governments across the United States upon people trying to get access to public records, from threats, revocation of the requestor's right to earn a living (that's my case) to unlawful incarceration and even murder.

While the government pays lip service to the fact that when a member of the public (and part of the popular sovereign in the United States - "We the People") seeks records of its public servants, the government, to verify how they do their jobs, that's supposed to help the country remain democratic, and not autocratic.

And, when a member of the public, a taxpayer, whose money was already used to create those public records, is seeking access to those public records, such access - my opinion - should be given for free, since those records were already created using that public records' money.

This year, President Obama has signed an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act creating a presumption of disclosure to public records.

Now, the U.S. Department of Justice offered a policy, and - allegedly - sought public comments on it, that when a certain type of information is released to one member of the public, it must be published for all the public to see - a "release to one - release to all" policy.

Of course, the U.S. Department of Justice only gave two weeks for public comment,

see start date of December 6, 2016

and end date of December 23, 2016

and sought public comment on such an important issue right before Christmas, when people are concerned with pre-holiday preparations and not with public comments on access to public records - which is a very questionable approach.


I think that the policy is reasonable and should have been introduced long time ago.  There is no reason why documents released under public access requests under FOIA (and any other access to public records statute) should be made available only to the requesting party, and not to all members of the public - and I do not see why such information should be provided for a fee. 

If our government, claiming that it is acting on behalf of us, as taxpayers and members of the U.S. popular sovereign, and claiming that it is acting within its authority and in our (public) interest, created those documents, there is no reason why the government should charge its boss - the popular sovereign - for seeing those documents, if only and simply to check on its performance. 

If such requests are deemed to be under the law (as they are) in the public interest, the government should not be able to charge fees for release of such documents, and deter the public from seeking public records.

Yet, many comments that were posted during this very short window of comment before Christmas, are opposing the policy.

In this comment, let's call it Comment # 1, for example, the unnamed author (I wonder why comments were allowed to be unnamed - making me, as a member of the public, reasonably question whether the comment was from a member of the public, or from the agency's insider) raises 2 questions:

1. that the policy will discourage requests by "journalists" and "companies" to file FOIA requests - and will reduce the amount of fees agencies will receive; and
2. that the policy will create another "unfunded mandate", that the requirement to post all documents on the Internet will be a "tremendous burden" - which, of course, it won't be if effective posting technologies are implemented.

Of course, Comment # 1 is inherently contradictory because it claims that posting some information once and for all will eliminate the need for "journalists" and "companies" to seek that same information once again (and, thus, will reduce the burden on the agency) - but, at the very same time, claims that posting the information "once and for all" creates more burden than serving requests for the same information over and over again.

That inherent contradiction in Comment # 1 is addressed in Comment # 2.

Comment # 3 nd Comment # 4 address the perceived problem that journalists will be discouraged from seeking public records from the government if the government does not allow journalists to benefit from the sensation produced by some of public records.  The comment suggests allowing, on request of journalists, a delay in release of public records to the public to allow journalists in order to benefit from a sensation does not appear to me proper - or even legal.

Public records belong to the public, and nobody - nobody - should be allowed, for any purpose, and especially for purposes of profit, to delay the public from being informed about performance of its own government.

The "remuneration for effort" that the  alleged journalist mentions in Comment # 4 above, can be worked in a different way - members of the public may be remunerated for obtaining a public record by being paid a certain fee for obtaining such record - this will quickly encourage agencies to put all of their public records online, to avoid paying those fees, and the problem with both remuneration and public access will be solved, but public records will not be allowed to be treated as property of the requestor as "remuneration for efforts".

An interesting, and valid, in my opinion, issue was raised in Comment # 5 - that the government's artificial designation of a public record as being "in public interest" (as opposed to other public records that are supposedly not interesting to the public), simply by the frequency of FOIA requests - is flawed, and may lead to less transparency and less access to records.

For such a huge country, for such an important issue of public concern, this handful of comments is obviously not enough to have a meaningful public discussion of the issue.

Moreover, with the currently available technologies, there is no reason why the drafters of the policy would not be made available to the public in a live videotaped streamed question-and-answer format - on Google Hookups, for example, through Facebook Live, Skype, or through any other publicly available real-time videoconferencing or texting (chat) Internet application.

The fact that so few comments were posted is because there was no proper notice given to the public about the draft, no publicity was attracted to the issue of public comments.

The way the government approached the "public comment" requirement is not an effective  technologically up-to-date 2016 approach.

It is a shame that the government swept public discussion of this important policy under the rug by improperly restricting the time for public comment to two weeks immediately before Christmas - and by allowing to make comments anonymous, raising the issue whether it was the agency's own insider's posting those various public comments, and not the actual members of the public.

The discussion could have been a lot more fruitful had it been longer and had the public been allowed to post under their own names.

What I do know from many years of experience with seeking public records from both state and federal agencies, the uniform "policy" existing now is NOT to release records - to try and stall release, pretend misunderstanding of clearly made requests, pretend privacy in public records where no privacy is allowed by law, trying to exhaust the requestor with petty denials and forcing the requestor to either consider costly litigation or give up.

So, at least announcement of a policy that, if a certain public record is asked for three times, it must be posted for all - is good, since, at least practically, it is not difficult to have three people agree to file FOIA requests for the same public document - in order o satisfy the policy.

Public records should be made available to the public - it is an axiom.

And, access to public records should not be either costly, or cumbersome, or made by the government into a game of jumping through fire hoops, with risks to one's livelihood, liberty or life, or into a game where the winner is not the public, but a media source having the most money to pay the fees or to hire an expensive lawyer to sue the agency for access to records - and providing information to the public for money.

There should be laws in place severely punishing for any attempts of the government to stall disclosure of public records, and especially to punish those requesting public records, in any form of punishment or adverse action, for seeking or making such records public for the public - pun intended.

There should be laws in place providing benefits - monetary benefits - to members of the public who seek public records and post them, or make governmental agencies post them, for access of all the public.

I also suggest that we as members of the public put pressure on our governmental representatives to put enforcement of such laws not into the hands of the government, but into the hands of special grand juries where any member of the public can directly file his or her grievances with the grand jury, and where the grand jury is not controlled or directed by any member of the legal profession or by any government official.

I suggest that such special grand juries are vested with powers to hear grievances directly from the public, without any "filters" in the shape and form of government officials like prosecutors and courts who are interested not to allow grievances about themselves to be heard and properly prosecuted.

Then, possibly, we will have FOIL/FOIA laws - and other laws ensuring government accountability - properly enforced.

Beware of Greeks (from the Delaware County, NY, Sheriff's Department) bearing gifts, or Merry Chritmas in Delaware County, New York

It was still "ha-ha-ha, we are above the law" in Delaware County on October 28, 2016 when Sharon O'Dell, Delaware County Clerk against whom I filed a criminal complaint for knowingly filing a multi-thousand-dollar fraudulent money judgment was allowed by judges Gary Rosa and Richard Northrup the use of a courtroom (the grand jury room) in the Delaware County courthouse to celebrate her abrupt "retirement".

The "ha-ha-ha" was complete with sushi - which Judge Northrup helped himself to, balloons and pictures of laughing Sharon O'Dell next to the laughing Delaware County Sheriff Thomas Mills, featured in prison garb, behind bars and against the word "LOCKDOWN" painted in blocks on the brick wall behind them.

Sending a message to all the public that Sharon O'Dell is above the law and that Sheriff Thomas Mills - who was charged with criminally investigating Sharon O'Dell - will never do anything against her, being such a good buddy of hers, and that the court system, all fed sushi and entertained with balloons and food, will never do anything to her too, being the great buddies of hers that they are.

In December of 2016, the Delaware County Sheriff's Department suddenly started a "Random Acts of Kindness program", soliciting donations and distributing gifts and gift cards to, as Delaware County Undersheriff Craig Dumond claimed, "unsuspecting" residents of Delaware County - I filed a FOIL request for the list of the lucky recipients of gifts and gift cards from Delaware County Sheriff's Department.

But, since, having lived in Delaware County for a long time and having worked against its government as a civil rights, criminal defense and Family Court attorney, and knowing that all Delaware County officials know is corruption - I smelled the rat in their "random acts of kindness" - and the rat did not linger in making its appearance.

Apparently, not only I filed a complaint against a Delaware County public official - County Clerk Sharon O'Dell.

The New York State police also lodged a complaint against the former Delaware County Commissioner William Moon (who quickly resigned recently amid claims of self-dealing, rigging of public contracts and misconduct).

First, in 2012, Richard Spinney, the alcoholic, misogynist and potty-mouth Delaware County Attorney and a bosom friend of William Moon and assistant county attorney-turned-Family Court Judge Carl F. Becker retired with an "honor plaque" for "services".

The one on the left is Spinney, the one on the right, giving out the "honorary plaque", is James Eisel, the longtime Chairman of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors, see Eisel (center) being sworn in in January of 2014 by O'Dell (right), with the help of Delaware County Board of Supervisors' Clerk Christa Schafer (left), the staller of FOIL requests - out of the three, only Schafer currently remains in her position:

Then, at the end of 2014 Delaware County Commissioner of Social Services William Moon resigned  - at the time New York State Comptroller was investigating the Department of Social Services for the use of County cars like it was their own, and giving out no-bid contracts for millions of dollars.

Then, just at about the time when the Comptroller was to release his report, Moon's and Spinney's bosom friend, the former Delaware County Department of Social Services attorney, and then Delaware Family Court Judge fixing Delaware County DSS cases Carl F. Becker

announced he will "retire" - and "retired" at the end of July of 2015, after just having been elected in 2012 (by fraud upon voters) for a coveted 2nd 10-year term, then Becker quickly put his house up for sale and, reportedly, disappeared from Delaware County.

At the end of October, 2016, Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell abruptly "retired" less than 3 weeks before the election and while not announcing her retirement in advance, so that somebody could run for her elected position in 2016 elections - and "retired" right after my criminal complaint against her was filed and a request to impeach her and take her off her position.


In December of 2016, Delaware County Sheriff Thomas Mills, the one that is supposedly investigating Sharon O'Dell, suddenly engaged in "Random Acts of Kindness" giving gifts and gift cards to undisclosed "unsuspecting" recipients in Delaware County on a massive scale - considering the alleged list of donors at the very least:

When the police is given gifts of money by businesses, and when the police then gives out gifts to individuals, under any pretexts - which is what is happening, combined with giving away, by the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, of gifts and gift cards allegedly bought with those "donations" from businesses, to an undisclosed list of recipients, raises the following issues:

1. Did businesses give to the police voluntarily or was the publishing of the list of "donors" just a front to avoid accusations of racket-for-protection by the Delaware County Sheriff's Department - at the time when the Sheriff's Department is supposed to investigate the same public official (William Moon) who the FBI is also investigating, and the Sheriff's Department is not sure whether the assignment for them to investigate is just a litmus test of how corrupt they are - as if there is any doubt about that... 
2. Especially that many, if not "donating" businesses on the list deal with cash, what kind of violations, if any, Delaware County Sheriff's Department may have promised not to prosecute in exchange for donations?  I am not saying that DID happen, but what I am saying is that there is an APPEARANCE, when the police collects money from businesses, that the police then owes those businesses favors - and that smacks of corruption, which is unacceptable.
3. Who are the people who received gifts from the Delaware County Sheriff's Department?  What was bought by the Sheriff's Department with those gifts? Past and future silence from witnesses of misconduct of public officials in Delaware County? A strong appearance of that exists when the police rides around distributing gifts and gift cards, at the time an FBI investigation is looming over the County.

Here is a tentative timeline of what was occurring in Delaware (and Otsego) Counties from September to December of 2016:

• In September of 2016, a much more informed Otsego County (because of its connections to the top of New York State Judiciary through its County Attorney Ellen Coccoma, wife of Chief Administrative Judge of Upstate New York Michael Coccoma), hedged against accusations of improprieties by striking an agreement with Onondaga County that I obtained though a FOIL request 

(Onondaga County is within at least a 3 hours' drive across from Otsego County, and is the seat of Chief Administrative Judge for the 5th Judicial District James Tormey, sued for mysoginistic misconduct three times, all three times by females - an court attorney, a court interpreter and a private attorney, once resulting in a $600,000 settlement, and the seat of the head of the National District Attorney's Association, law school buddy of Tormey William Fitzpatrick who engaged in a scheme to extort, intimidate and retaliate against a judge, but was never charged or prosecuted for it, and seat of U.S. "magistrate" David Peebles, former prosecutor who now tosses civil rights lawsuit in NDNY).

Through the agreement, Onondaga County now acts, without public approval or public bidding on contracts, as a "purchasing agent" for Otsego County.  I will run a separate blog analyzing this cozy deal, but that was happening during the FBI investigation of no-public-bidding contracts, including purchasing contracts in Delaware County;

• On November 10, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (judges Brenda Sannes, whose nomination was first voted down and then forced through by the "cloture" procedure/David Peebles, a known corruptionist and hater of civil rights plaintiffs whose reappointment to the position of magistrate was never reconfirmed after his term expired in May of 2016) denied an indigent inmate suing Delaware County for two unlawful (and dismissed) prosecutions, the indigent status, requiring him to pay the $400.00 filing fee - and thus, making it impossible for him to proceed and putting his lawsuit against the Delaware County beyond the statute of limitations, judging by the contents of the complaint;

• On December 12, 2016, the Delaware County's insurance company has settled, for an undisclosed amount and at Delaware County taxpayers' expense, the use of force lawsuit against the former (and illegally hired, without meeting educational, civil service, residency or certification requirements) Deputy Sheriff Derek Bowie, nephew of Delaware County DA's investigator (who for years worked for Moon) Jeff Bowie - without bringing criminal charges against him for assault against two look-alike women, naturally, because his uncle worked for the Delaware County DA Richard Northrup (who is now Judge Richard Northrup, in gray suit and glasses, shown helping himself to food/sushi supplied to him by a subject of pending criminal felony investigation who may appear in front of him as a defendant in a felony proceeding - showing others the way to buy their way out of criminal prosecution)

• At about the same time, two scathing articles by local media exposing improprieties in conduct of Delaware County Department of Social Services (Moon), Delaware County District Attorney's Office (Northrup and Jeff Bowie) and their improper connections were erased from the Internet (I have preserved them on file);

Here are the full texts of the erased articles, one and two.

• On December 14, 2016, Richard Spinney's successor, and Becker's and Moon's friend and confidant Delaware County Attorney Porter Kirkwood suddenly resigned from his $127,917 a year position claiming that, after he has lost his bid for Delaware County Family Court judge - in which losing, I am proud to say, I helped Porter Kirkwood a lot with my blogs (just run his name in the word-search window on this blog to see all my blog articles about him that "helped" him not to be elected) - claiming that he is resigning from a complete sinecure paying $127,917 for doing nothing because ostensibly the Unified Court System of the State of New York for the Southern Tier offered him more;

• on December 20, 2016, a criminal complaint was filed for investigation of the Delaware County Sheriff by the New York State Police against the former Delaware County Department of Social Services Commissioner (and friend of the previously "retired" or resigned Spinney, Becker, Kirkwood and Eisel) - which triggered the Delaware County Sheriff's Department, on December 23, 2016, to announce its "Random Acts of Kindness" campaign - taking what appears to be massive bribes from a list of businesses in Delaware County and redistributing them to potential witnesses who could testify against Spinney, Becker, Kirkwood, Eisel, O'Dell - and the corruptioners from the Sheriff's Department;
• on December 21, 2016, a day after criminal charges were filed with the Delaware County Sheriff's Department by the New York State Police against the former Delaware County Commissioner William Moon, his friend the long-time Chairman of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors James Eisel - the one who gave the "honorary plaque" to Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney in 2012 on his quick retirement and who has given out millions of dollars worth of contracts for public money without public bidding - has reportedly also resigned.

So.  The Delaware County, New York, experiences and extraordinary set of "coincidences":

1) articles about misconduct of Delaware County public officials who are subjects of criminal state and FBI investigation are getting scrubbed off the Internet;
2) three lawsuits against Delaware County, or its officials are, in quick succession, either:

• unlawfully dismissed - like Barbara O'Sullivan's lawsuit was;
• quickly settled, right before the jury trial, and after depositions exposing corruption in Delaware County that hired police officers with a history of violence despite their failure to satisfy residency, education, training and certification requirements, simply because they are relatives of longtime officials of Delaware County - as Kylie Smith's lawsuit was; or
• filibustered - as Edward Sherman's lawsuit was -

with a clear indication that pro se lawsuits, where litigants do not have funds to hire an attorney, are disregarded while lawsuits of represented litigants are settled;

3) the Sheriff's office that is supposed to investigate the culprits, instead runs a huge money solicitation and giveaway campaign masquerading it as acts of "random kindness", but what can very well be collecting bribes in return for non-prosecution for some violations of the law from one side and giving that money to witnesses against Delaware County officials in return for their silence or perjury on the other side; and

4) the Delaware County experiences a tremendous sudden turnover of its public officials - and all of that is happening at once.

Over 4 years - from 2012 to 2016, the large in territory and small in population rural Delaware County, New York, hidden up in the snow-belt of the Catskill Mountains, suffered an extraordinary loss and turnover of its elected and appointed long-term highest and highest-paid public officials, who retired or resigned from their highly paid sinecure positions in which they did not have to do any work, resigned abruptly, on pretextual reasons and during pending investigations into their misconduct:

• TWO County Attorneys - one (Spinney) "retired" in 2012 during investigation by the State Comptroller and the other (Kirkwood) resigned in 2016, in anticipation of a criminal prosecution of his former boss William Moon;
• One Commissioner of Social Services - Moon, in 2014, during investigation of his misconduct;
• One Family and County judge - friend of Spinney, Moon, Kirkwood, Eisel and O'Dell, in 2015, during investigation by New York State Comptroller (and, as my sources tell me, the FBI that has been working on Delaware County and its Department of Social Services for years, and continues to work now);
• One County Clerk (O'Dell) - in October of 2016, right after a criminal complaint was filed against her;
• One Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, from his super-lucrative position from which people are only "retire" into the grave, feet first - in 2016, right after a criminal complaint against his friend Moon was filed.

6 high-standing public officials abruptly resigned during New York State Comptroller, criminal and FBI investigations, and 3 out of 6, reportedly, already left (Moon, Becker - Moon left at least to work in Sullivan County, upon my information) or leaving (Kirkwood) the area.

Two elected (Becker and O'Dell) and 4 appointed top-ranking and top-paid public officials in a small county, all mutual friends, resign within the span of 4 years, pending investigation of their misconduct.

And, criminal misconduct of two of them (O'Dell and Moon) is somehow "investigated" by the Delaware County Sheriff, an insider in the case who is definitely disqualified from such an investigation - and the Delaware County Sheriff, instead of putting all of its resources into that investigation, suddenly engages in a campaign to collect funds from Delaware County businesses and to distribute those funds, in terms of "Random Acts of Kindness", to undisclosed recipients.

As I said, all that Delaware County officials know how to do is corruption, and more corruption - and they do it quite bluntly.

But, since the FBI is on the case, too, and the FBI is on the spot at this time after its royal blunder with letting Hillary Clinton and her cronies off the hook, with the new president coming in, I wonder whether the case will be allowed to be swept under the rug as it usually happens with corrupt public officials in New York.

Or - does Delaware County Sheriff, and his high-ranking subjects of investigation, have a real reason to worry - where they went very quickly from the

"hahaha, we are above the law"

to a frantic massive solicitation of funds, which appears to be a frenzy of activity to be able to timely pay off witnesses against them during a criminal and an FBI investigation (which, upon information that I received from different sources, went on for years in Delaware County).

Through "Random Acts of Kindness".

But, Delaware County residents - and taxpayers - have a right to know and to, finally, demand that this circus of corruption should stop and that those involved should finally get their due accountability, and are rooted out.

That would be an act of kindness for Delaware County taxpayers - a long overdue one - to make this picture from mockery of justice a reality,




and to add to it these individuals:

A New York lawyer who lacks connections to the judicary denied reinstatement

A New York State lawyer who was disbarred for being convicted for a felony DWI was recently denied reinstatement by the New York State Appellate Division 3rd Department.

Of course, we are still to see judges convicted of felony DWIs and disbarred - usually, when judges are drunk, their cases are immediately reduced to misdemeanors or even violations, and nothing happens to them in the matter of discipline.

And, apparently, attorney Anya Mironova Tendler lacked connections to the judiciary that, for example, felon Solomon Wachtler, attempted kidnapper of children, sender of obscene material to a child and extortionist had - his law license was reinstated without even an explanation to the public what made the court system so forgiving about him, see my blogs about him here and here.

I am not saying that it is good to drink and drive.

What I am saying though is that there is a selective enforcement of discipline to attorneys who do have connections with (or are, or have been part of) the judiciary, and those who don't have those connections.  Judges who drink and drive - and who shamelessly use their position to get out of criminal prosecution, are not disciplined as attorneys at all in New York State, and criminal charges that are filed against them are never allowed to result in felony convictions, that would cause automatic disbarment, as it did for attorney A. Mironova Tendler. 

And, in view of the fact that attorney licenses are "regulated" (taken and given back) also by the judiciary, such a leniency towards their own smacks of corruption and undermines the whole purpose of regulation to protect consumers.

As I said in the lawsuit Neroni v Zayas in 2013 (which was conveniently dismissed without any in-depth analysis of selective enforcement issues by U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, and then was no less conveniently considered frivolous and used as a basis for an anti-filing injunction by the then NDNY Chief Judge Gary Sharpe) if attorneys working for the government, connected to the judiciary and part of the judiciary, the most powerful attorneys who can wield the most power and cause the most harm to the public, are not within the reach of attorney discipline, the promise of consumer protection through attorney discipline is a fake.

Who is the "attorney Daniel Goldstein" who harassed Ivanka Trump and her children on the JetBlue plane?

It appears that the person who has reportedly harassed Ivanka Trump, her husband and their three children on a commercial plane claiming that her father "ruined the country" and questioning why she is even on that plane and is not flying on a private plane - was reportedly a New York lawyer, Dan Golstein, who engaged in his harassment routine while having his own toddler in tow.

And, reportedly, Dan Goldstein's husband tweeted that Dan Golstein was "chasing them down to harass them".

There are 6 lawyers by the name of Daniel Goldstein registered in New York:

Here is the picture of "our" Daniel Goldstein made from the video in the airport in San Francisco where the plane arrived:

The individual tried to cover his face, so this is as good a shot as it could be - just a profile.

But, however he covered his face, a news article appeared showing his face - and his name - clearly: Daniel Jennings Goldstein.

And his husband has been identified as Hunter College professor Matthew Lasner - the two husbands prudently kept different last names that obscures the connection.

Professor Matthew Lasner is, reportedly, a Harvard-educated professor of "urban studies and planning".

There is a clearer picture of Daniel Goldstein, and his husband Matthew Lasner, on Twitter,

as well as a lot of indignant comments about attorney Daniel Goldstein harassing women and children, and his husband  professor Matthew Lasner supporting and documenting the harassment:

One comment, clearly on point, called Dan Goldstein's behavior child abuse

- which it clearly is.  Many parents in New York have been adjudicated as having abused their children for engaging in angry confrontations in the children's presence.

Also, such confrontation in the presence of other people's children - like Ivanka Trump's in this situation - may qualify for a crime of endangering welfare of a minor, a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail, and fines.

The interesting part though is to identify where attorney Dan Goldstein toils.

It should not be difficult at all - because attorneys in New York must register and show their office address in their public registration information.

But, there is no attorney Daniel Jennings Goldstein registered in New York as of today - and there are only 5 attorneys by the name of Daniel Goldstein (the last one, the 6th on the list is a woman by the name of Danielle Goldstein):

I checked out three Daniel Goldsteins out of the 6 registered - it appears from the picture that "our" Daniel Goldstein is young.



There is another clear picture of "our" Daniel Goldstein and his husband posted here:

This is the registration and picture of one of attorneys by the name of Daniel Goldstein, one named Daniel Abraham Goldstein who works in a prestigious law firm Kaye Scholer, the law firm of the retired (and now deceased) New York Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals Judith Kaye:

The guy in the Kaye Scholer picture looks younger, but the outline of his face somehow resembles, if not matches "our guy" - even though he is listed with a middle name of "Abraham", not "Jennings".

The next Daniel Goldstein claims in his registration he works at the law firm Shulte Roth & Zabel LLP, at 919 3rd Avenue, New York, NY 10022-3902.

Yet, no attorney by the name of Daniel Goldstein is listed among lawyers working for that law firm.

The third Daniel Goldstein is definitely not our Goldstein:

"Our" Goldstein is, reportedly, "an employment lawyer in Brooklyn and graduated from Wesleyan University and from UCLA School of Law."

That information matches the Daniel Adam Goldstein who claims on his registration information that he is employed by Schulte, Roth & Zabel LLP - but who disappeared from their attorney roster:



Yet, his picture that I obtained from the cached - but since removed - page on the webpage of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP does not match the picture of "our" Daniel Goldstein, even though it matches his educational information - a California Law School:

So, "our" Daniel Goldstein does not clearly match registration information of the three attorneys by the name of Daniel Goldstein registered to practice in New York.

This "our" Daniel Goldstein:

And these are the three young attorneys by the name of Daniel Goldstein registered in New York:

The Daniel Goldstein (formerly) from Schulte, Roth & Zabel, who graduated from California's Berkeley School of Law in 2015

 the Daniel Goldstein of Kaye Scholer LLP who graduated from Columbia Law School in New York in 2011 (admitted in 2012), and

 the Daniel Goldstein from Shiboleth LLP who graduated from Brooklyn Law School in 2010 (admitted in 2011)

The remaining two attorneys do not fit the educational description or age:

there is a Yale-educated Daniel Goldstein, admitted in 1958 who must be at least 83 years of age:

and, there is a Harvard-educated Daniel Goldstein who was admitted in 1988, and thus is at least 53 years old - which does not appear to be "our" Daniel Goldstein's age, judging from the pictures:

So far from what I can see, from the official information, no attorney registered in New York matches the picture and education (UCLA Law School) that "our" Daniel Goldstein allegedly have graduated from.

The only Daniel Goldstein who graduated from UCLA Law School:



 is not "our" Daniel Goldstein.

Yet, maybe, "our" Daniel Goldstein's education, as well as middle name, was reported wrong - since "our" Daniel Goldstein resembles the facial features of this guy:

a Columbia graduate of 2012, employed at Kaye Scholl LLP.  Yet, he is an attorney specializing in "structured finance" and not employment, as "our" Daniel Goldstein is claimed to be.

So, "our" "lawyer" Daniel Goldstein continues to remain a mysterious figure - a Daniel Jennings Goldstein from Brooklyn specializing in employment without New York registration - or, somebody who simply claimed he is an attorney to put the press on a false track.

Anyway, WHEN THE Daniel Goldstein is identified, will he be disciplined as an attorney, charged criminally for stalking, harassment and endangering welfare of minors, and charged in Family Court for emotional child neglect and abuse?

Or, will the authorities shy away from applying the clearly applicable law because the guy is gay and Jewish and belong to academic elite and because he harassed Trump's daughter and grandchildren?

By the way, Trump's daughter and grandchildren are Jewish, too, so no claims of being against Jewish Daniel Goldstein be made as being anti-Semitic.

The stalking, harassment, endangering welfare and child neglect and abuse happened IN NEW YORK - on the plane while still in New York airport, as I understand, so New York has jurisdiction to charge.

So - do we have the rule of law here, or are some people, even the President-elect's daughter and grandchildren, below the law, while some other people, like "liberal-minded" Jewish gay couple, above the law?

To begin with, anybody else who would have caused a disturbance on the flight would have been not only booted off the flight, but also arrested and charged.