How the organizers of the "Women's March" lured vulnerable women with real discrimination issues into participating in an anti-Trump protest by telling them the protest was not against Trump

Yesterday, 1 day after the inauguration of President Trump, hundreds of thousands of women protested in the streets.

What they protested about, was not clear.

The President did not do anything yet to warrant protests.

Not that it mattered to protesters - they already made or bought their pink pussyhats and were not to be stopped, issues or no issues.

Double-amputee U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth, a military veteran pilot who lost both legs in Iraq, claimed that she did not lose her body parts for somebody to destroy our Constitution.  Which part of the Constitution Donald Trump managed to destroy in his 24 hour in office, she did not mention.  She simply used her veteran and amputee status to gain, by false claims, political capital - same as another military veteran did before her, Ronald Castille, who:

1. Got elected as a Philadelphia, PA, District Attorney using his status as a veteran who has lost his leg in the service of his country in the military;
2. Obtained multiple death sentences, some of them through fraud, as later came out in Williams v Pennsylvania (a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case);
3. Used those fraudulently obtained death sentences to get elected to the top court of the State of Pennsylvania, and then
4. Blocked habeas corpus petitions to vacate those fraudulently obtained death penalty sentences, presiding over at least one of the as a judge - and, obviously, an investigation is warranted as to how many more similar cases happened, and how many people went to their deaths with the military veteran and amputee Judge Ronald Castille acting as both a (fraudster) prosecutor and a judge in their cases.

Now yet another military veteran and amputee is using her disability status and military service to give credibility to her as-yet false claims.

Donald Trump did not yet do anything to women, and the protests were planned before he even took office, so the protests  were not about anything he did, it was about "who he is" - which is a discrediting to women's and human rights movement.

I was following the media coverage very closely.

I saw both the so-called mainstream media, and the crowds:

• attack the President's wife for being an immigrant, a non-native speaker of English, for marrying a rich man, for posing before her marriage in the nude (while not trying to similarly attack a federal judge for posing for Playboy during her law school  years), for having her teenage son allegedly not wanting to walk with his mother holding hands (a natural behavior for a boy his age), for not making enough speeches because she is allegedly dumb or not being able to speak English - you name it, every crass thing about the First Lady was out there;
• attack the President for the size of his penis - that is a qualification for office that I was not aware of;
• asking the Presidents to get out of their uteruses and underpants - while the President did not make any attempts on either so far;
• harass the President by besieging his residence in New York City and even getting access to the building, the Trump Tower;
• mock the physical qualities of the 70-year-old president, from the size of his penis, with slogans that I refuse to republish, to the color of his hair,

and insinuating that Donald Trump is bald;

• having celebrities like Madonna not only use foul language about the President, but inciting the crowd with the fighting words by sharing her dreams of blowing up the White House - for which, in my opinion, Madonna should be locked up, and it has been reported that the Secret Service will investigate Madonna for her claims to the crowd.

By the way, what Madonna said was only following what CNN said the day before, speculating about how ex-President Obama will shape the new administration if President Donald Trump and his Vice-President would be assassinated during the inauguration ceremony.

And, I saw a lot of real and virtual pussy-hatters making comments in the media, viciously attacking the women who dared say that the protests are not in their name, and are not a real fight for women's rights.

Such dissenters were speedily dealt with by grandstanding sermons that the pussy-hatters are allegedly out there to fight for all women's rights - in fact, they said, "for your rights", and that we, those women who said that the protests are premature, silly, unnecessary and a waste of time and money, including taxpayer money - on the necessarily enhanced security for any contingency that such a large crowd can result in (people collapsing from health issues, an act of terrorism, a stampede, a riot, as it happened the day prior in the same Washington, D.C.) - do not understand what the issues are, should educate ourselves, and will thank the pink pussy-hatters in the future for their one-day stint in the streets.

Even in the God-forsaken neck of woods of Delaware County, New York, the land of rampant corruption where people are afraid to take the corruption head on because of the real possibility of retaliation, because critics of government corruption in Delaware County so far:

1. had their occupational licenses revoked (at least 3 I know);
2. were charged with fabricated crimes;
3. their dogs were killed;
4. their houses were burnt down, without an investigation;
5. they were assaulted by police with police vehicles - with nobody wanting to investigate the assaults, and courts dismissing lawsuits about the assaults without legal grounds,

and where, as a result

1. attorneys are afraid to speak up or make motions to recuse corrupt or biased judges,
2. readers who write to my blog with tips with requests to have their names not mentioned for fear of retaliation (which requests I honor),
3. the local press who ignore issues of corruption until it erupts into an FBI investigation, and then write only sparingly and only about people who are no longer in a position of power - in that Delaware County, NY,

that same "courageous" local press published pictures of pink pussy-hatters lining the Main street in front of the courthouse - no, not facing the courthouse where the corruption is taking place, but facing the street and the oncoming near-non-existing traffic (on a Saturday, in winter, in Delhi, NY) to "fight for women's rights".

Here it is, the "courageous" protest for women's right in Delhi, NY:

Right.

How about protests against Social Services (the building that the pink pussy-hatters are facing, across the road) ripping newborns from the breasts of their breast-feeding mothers, in order to

1. get the federal grant money for adoption out of foster care; and
2. to give jobs to friends, the foster care parents;
3. give jobs to friends and relatives employed in DSS-friendly pet non-profits, and non-profits spawned by DSS officials; and
4. to have friends and relatives of DSS officials adopt a baby who does not remember his or her parents yet.

I didn't think so.

Too sticky a topic, too scary to risk retaliation from the local authorities.

Protesting the size of the President's penis on his 1st day in office is safer.

I posted an answer to one such sermonizing pussy-hatter who claimed women, including myself, who did not join the protests in the streets, must be thankful to those he did, and am re-publishing it here.

"No, you are not fighting for my rights, nor for the real issues of discrimination against women.

Instead, I have been fighting for your rights, without any support, for many years, in and out of court, to the point of my law license suspended for fighting abusive treatment of women in court and for publicly blogging about it, for which the government tried to jail me, and I had to leave the state of New York to escape harrassment and threats. 

Women I write about have names, I am writing about them, calling things as they are, as the mainstream media is afraid to do. 

As to my own case, legal relief was denied to me all the way to the U.S.Supreme Court, under Obama administration, so the US Supreme Court, as of January 13, 2017, did not consider stripping, without a hearing, a female attorney for making a motion to recuse an abusive and corrupt male judge to secure for her indigent female client her constitutional right for impartial judicial review a big deal warranting the high Court's time.

3 female judges, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg

participated in that decision, which hushed up discrimination against women in court.

I saw Ginsburg's face later carried as a banner for female rights carried by you pink-hatters.

Do you want to protest that there are no effective mechanisms to enforce women's rights in court, as exist in the Eurooean Union countries, or in countries who, unlike the U.S., permitted their citizens to sue their counties for human rights violations in the United Nation's court of human rights?

Did you join Zena Denise Crenshaw in her fight to provide this access to justice for all Americans, women included? Do you know that claims of constitutional violations usually die at the lowest court level, and, through court-invented tricks, all further appeals and civil rights actions are made futile?

Rights are as strong as their enforcement. 

I describe the mechanisms of how your enforcement rights are taken away by courts. 

While you are attacking the President after 1 day in office, the main culprit is not the executive branch, it is the judicial branch of the government, the one you are not protesting. 

Educate yourself first, who is who and what is what in your own women's rights movement before telling other women you are fighting for us by wearing a pink hat for 1 day in the streets. 

I don't see any demonstrations on the topic of discrimination and abuse of women in the legal profession and the courts, which I am publicly covering in my blog for 3 years. 

Look up "Tatiana Neroni blog" on Google and look up the number of views. Over 1,200,000, on hard-core topics of legal theory and practice of constitutional law, from around the world, so, I guess, there is a need for coverage of such topics, which the mainstream media does not satisfy. 

I am writing about the government handcuffing a female attorney for making a constitutional argument, or about another female attorney being stripped of her glasses, shoes, papers, pens, steapped into a wheelchair, brought into the courtroom this way and ordered by a male judge to handle her client's hearing, at the threat of losing the case for her female client, where the male judges who ordered that escaped any accountability. 

I am writing about potty mouth male judges and about male judges who are sexual predators and who escape any accountability for decades, continuing to prey on women. 

I am writing about a house of a female critic of corruption among the local police, social services, prosecutor's office and a judge, Barbara O'Sullivan, burnt to the ground, two dogs are killed, she and her daughter narrowly escaped death, and that is after a police officer, relative of a DA investigator tried to intentionally run her over with a police vehicle for trying to videotape his misconduct, and nobody is investigating or prosecuting the multiple attempts to kill them. 

Do you want to demonstrate about that?

Because I don't see any coverage of these scary topics and no protests in the streets. 

I guess, too scary a topic to show solidarity, can lead to too judicial retaliation on all levels, and that is too adverse of a consequence that women, women's organizations and the mainstream media won't touch it. 

So, please, don't you dare tell me you are fighting for my rights, or for other women's rights by donning a pink hat and putting out crass slogans about the size of the President's penis. 

I did not see abuse and discrimination of women in courts and denial to them of access to justice mentioned even once in those slogans of protestors shown in the media coverage by sources favorable to the protests, only about uteruses, pussies, penises and how perfect women are. 

To me, such a "protest" is a disgrace and a discreditation of women's equal rights movement, especially protesting before the President even did anything wrong. 

So, no, I won't thank you, now or later, and I don't need your thanks. 

After you put your pink hat away after your 1-day protest, I will continue to fight discrimination against women, among other civil rights issues, through my blog, educating people about real issues."

It was a party time for you, pussy-hatters.

It was a "mission" to make a million pink hats - a mission announced since Thanksgiving - and once those hats were made, and sold, at a profit for the makers, they "had" to be used, for the political gain of the makers of the march, and that decision was made before President Trump took office or did anything in that office.

I don't know whether some protestors were paid or not, as some comments on the social media claimed.

But, I did see that many people perceived the "march" as "fun time",

protesting "women's issues" before the new President even had a chance to do anything, a "preventive" protest.

While allowing the real issues of discrimination against women - too sticky to mention out in the open - remain un-answered, and allowing the real culprits of discrimination against women remain unaccountable.

So, now you can put away your pink hats (ugly creations, by the way - made in the most fast and primitive way, I can tell you as an expert knitter since childhood) - your job has been done.

Party is over.

But, all you did is associating women's movement with nuts who address contrived issues before they emerged and engaging in vulgar conduct which has nothing to do with political protest.

And that set back women's movement years if not decades.

So, no, I will not thank you, pink pussy-hatters. 


When Zena Crenshaw Logal, a female attorney disciplined for raising constitutional issues in court, reposted my statement, she's got the following comments:

And that is what I find to be the most wrong with this march - capitalizing on the REAL suffering of real women, and brainwashing them into believing that, somehow, Trump is to blame in his 1st day in office for what happened to this woman and her son during President Obama's rule.

I do not know why Sharon Duttle spent time in solitary confinement, and I do not know in which prison she went, in order to write about the prison conditions she reports.

Sharon Duttle actually answered my questions as to why she protested against Trump while all the atrocities happened to her under Obama - she did NOT protest against Trump, she was simply used by the march's organizers as a number for that protest.

Here is our discussion:

 


So, Sharon Duttle, a real woman with real discrimination issues, was lured into this march against the new President Donald Trump by assurances that the march is not a march of protest against the President Trump, but is a general march of protest on women's issues (coincidentally, scheduled one day after inauguration of Donald Trump, even though all the bad things happened to Sharon Duttle before Donald Trump came to office).

 When Sharon Duttle confronted me as to where I got the idea that the protest was against Donald Trump - which was fairly obvious, with the protestors besieging and getting access to the Trump Tower, making speeches against Trump and carrying slogans and cartoons against Trump - I, asked her where she got her idea that the protest was NOT against Trump, but simply a general protest of "women's causes".

First, Sharon Duttle confirmed to me that the organizers told her that the protest was not against Trump:

Second, Sharon Duttle provided to me links to the guidelines for the march that, yes, is positioned only as a "women's march" and says nothing about Trump - even though its timing, and its slogans, and its speeches, and the reports about numbers were specifically as protests against Trump.

Here are the links about the Women's March that were used to lure Sharon Duttle, and other women, into an anti-Trump protest under the guise of a general-mission march for women's rights - and, if the organizers pull these materials off line, I have them saved and will republish them:

1) the "Frequently Asked Questions", and
2) what Sharon Duttle explained was given to her as a "mission" of the march.

For Sharon Duttle and her son, and, very possible, for many other women, marching was an outlet of emotions, a sharing of grief that the organizers of this march unscrupulously capitalized on - for their own political reasons.

So, my question to Sharon Duttle:

as to why she did not protest before the Obama administration, the President under whom she and her son actually suffered those atrocities that she describes, was answered very easily - Sharon Duttle, as, I am sure, many other yesterday's protesters, were duped into believing that

they are not participating in an anti-Trump protest, while the protest was meant, held and advertised in the media as an anti-Trump protest around the world (like in the interlinked Reuters article "In challenge to Trump, women protesters swarm streets across the U.S.),

but that what they are participating in is a general-mission women's march for human rights, women's rights and "betterment" of women.

Here are other comments regarding the march:

Shame on you, the people who capitalized on real women's real miseries for getting political capital, while having no intention whatsoever to really fight for their rights - in the right places, by the right means, at the right time.

Will President Trump stop federal commandeering of the states on state court issues?

I posted a blog article in my Protection From CPS blog, and am reposting it here.

The issue is - will President Trump, as part of its conservative fiscal policy, stop the federal government from unconstitutionally commandeering states as to how to decide issues of related to their court cases?

While CPS cases involves intrusion of the state government into the fundamental federal constitutional issue of parental control over the child's custody and care, it does not warrant federal commandeering of the states as to how to shape their child protective laws and how to speed up taking children out of families for adoption - in exchange for federal money.

In fact, such commandeering is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.

The only thing the federal government can and must do in federal cases - through appeals and federal civil rights actions - is to secure and enforce federal constitutional rights of parents to care and control of children, and allow removal of children from families only in extreme cases.

I hope that, as it often happens, even when the arguments of fairness do not reach the decision-makers in the government, considerations of fiscal policy should.

The fascist regime of CPS fabrication of cases and destruction of families can fall apart very simply - by repeal of federal funds providing financial incentives for CPS-kidnapping.

Read my full blog article about it here.

Washington Post and USAToday post irresonsible fake news about a Russian American, a U.S. citizen who (allegedly) died on a Russian military plane on the way to Sirya - Part I

On December 27, 2016, USA Today published its reporter Susan Miller's article called "Cherished Russian charity worker among dead in plane crash".  The alleged crash (Russian authorities vehemently deny that the plane went down due to an explosion on board, or because it was struck down by a missile) occurred on December 25, 2016.

The plane that went down, the outdated TU-154 which was taken off civil air routes long time ago, was allegedly heading to Syria, carrying the famous "Alexandrov" military choir and dancing team (here is the Alexandrov choir's performance of a song "Nightingales, don't wake up soldiers"), military officials, Russian journalists from Pro-Putin Russian TV channels - and, allegedly, the "cherished Russian charity worker" and her supplies.

Of course, the plane was a military plane going into a war zone, and it is naïve to think that Russia would publicly own up to what the plane was really carrying.

Susan Miller, according to the USA Today website, is the USA Today's staff writer.  I do not know whether Susan Miller does or does not know the Russian language, to check out all sources before she ran her story, but she ran her story just two days after the crash - and obviously did not verify a lot of information about the "cherished Russian charity worker" that are in English, are located in the U.S. and are public records.

On December 28, 2016, Washington Post published Andrew Roth's article "The Russian aid worker and ‘saint’ who died on the military flight to Syria".  The alleged death, according to Russian news sources, occurred on December 25, 2016, 3 days prior to Andrew Roth's article.

Andrew Roth is a Washington Post's reporter in Moscow,

so he MUST know both the English and the Russian language.

Moreover, being a reporter from a major American news source, Andrew Roth has a lot of financial and logistic resources at his disposal, on both sides of the pond, so to say, both in Russia and especially in America, to fact-check his information.

During our day and age where we see a lot of chest-pounding and finger-pointing by the mass media about fake news about top political leaders (or candidates for such top posts) in the U.S., these two articles slipped through without much fanfare.

After all, who in the U.S. really cares to check facts about a "cherished Russian charity worker" who (allegedly, according to the official Russian military sources) died on a Russian military plane heading towards Syria?

So, it took Susan Miller of USA Today 2 days to do research for her article, and 3 days for the Russian-speaking Andrew Roth to do post his article.  That was not nearly enough to make inquiries under the Freedom of Information Law (state and federal) with U.S. authorities to verify their claims about the "cherished Russian worker".

As an individual who regularly files, and fights to get, public records through Freedom of Information law under state and federal statutes, I know that the turnaround, even when information is requested by e-mail, is weeks and months, not days.

So, why is it so important for the American readers that these two articles contained unverified and fake information?

Because the "cherished Russian charity worker" was actually an American citizen Elizaveta (Elizabeth) Glinka, who has an interestingly close connections to Vladimir Putin and his closest entourage who secured for her protection and safety "corridors" to go into the areas of the Ukraine occupied by the militants from where she took Ukranian children (reportedly, including orphans that are in the custody of the Ukranian government), without permission from the children's custodian the Ukrainian government and transported them, allegedly for "treatment", not to Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, but to Moscow.

These acts qualify as an international child kidnapping, and for that, Elisabeth Glinka should have been in the cross-hairs of Interpol, especially that, reportedly, the fate of the orphan Ukranian children illegally transported by Glinka to Russia remains unknown.

After one of her "rescue trips" to the Ukraine with the backing of the top echelons of Putin's administration, which Glinka did not deny, Glinka paid back to Putin and his government by happily reporting to the public that "she did not see Russian troops" where she was.

Glinka's "charity fund" was given by Putin a large building in Moscow, for nothing - a prime piece of real estate worth tens of thousands of dollars in rent, or millions of dollars to buy, and that was done at the very same time when many hospitals in Russia, including in Moscow, were closing, and doctors fired, for "lack of funds".

Then, Glinka was given awards by Putin, most recently - several days before that plane crash, where Glinka theatrically stated that she might die and not return from where she is going - right before that actually happened.

What is also very interesting, and perfectly researchable by these two journalists, is that Elizabeth Glinka was the wife of an American citizen and of an American attorney Gleb Glinka of Cabot, Vermont, who has vast political connections in the U.S. government, including connections with Vermont state officials, with federal judiciary, with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Task Force and the U.S. Justice Department and an interesting history in military "hotspots" around the globe.

American citizen and attorney Gleb Glinka is living in Moscow now and running there a Moscow office of a Vermont law firm Glinka & Schwidde,

as well as teaching, as an adjunct professor, in the Moscow State University, a position that he could not possibly get without a Russian academic degree of a "candidate of legal sciences", and a "doctor of legal sciences" - not the same as the Juris Doctor Gleb Glinka has.

Here is the website of Gleb Glinka's law firm in the U.S.

Its advertisement states that:

Glinka's law firm "serve[s] clients across Vermont, including Rutland, Vermont and throughout Rutland County, Bennington County and Addison County".

How does Glinka serve his clients in Addison County, Vermont, from his Moscow office, and why he even needs a Moscow office if his law firm, by its own advertisement, only works in the U.S., nobody knows.

It is even more interesting that, while Gleb Glinka first indicated a desire to bury his wife in the U.S. where their adult children live, he then changed his mind and buried Elizabeth Glinka, an American citizen, with much fanfare, after a closed-coffin church service, at the 16th century Novodevichy Convent in Moscow, a UNESCO World heritage site, where Russian top celebrities and government officials are buried, and where, reportedly, burial is next in prestige only next to burial near the Kremlin walls.

It is notable that Andrew Roth, the reporter of Washington post who wrote an article about Glinka as a "Russian charity worker", was not included into the entourage of reporters on that military plane - and none of foreign reporters were allowed there.

It is also notable that the official media in Russia has been breeding and winding up anti-American sentiments in the country's population for a very long time now, to the point that it has become a common joke on the Russian-speaking social media that "that bad guy Obama peed in the hallway of our apartment building again" - because anything and everything bad that was happening in Russia, from food in the stores, to how municipal buildings are maintained or how municipal transportation works, was blamed by Russian officials on the United States.

By the way, now the going common joke is that there are the same number of letters in the name "Trump" as in the name "Obama", so overpainting the Obama-blaming slogans into Trump-blaming slogans in Russia will not cost the officials too much, to continue to blame their incompetence on the U.S.

In the recent 3 years, Russia viciously clamped down on any non-governmental organizations, including charities, that were either run by foreigners or with participation of foreigners, or had foreign capital.

Against that background, it is unique that, while foreign journalists were not allowed on that military plane, the American citizen Elizabeth Glinka and wife of the American citizen Gleb Glinka who has considerable ties to American government  - see Gleb Glinka's accomplishments, ties to the government and appointment to the position of director of a prestigious ABA project in Russia paraded on the American Bar Association's website:

was allowed on a top-secret Russian military plane, then disappeared without a trace (days after stating that she may disappear - which she never stated before many of her many similar trips to war zones), and was (allegedly) buried in a closed coffin not in the country where her children live and where she is a citizen, but in Russia, and buried as a prominent Russian government official.

As this article will further show, the murky history of Elizabeth Glinka's connections to Putin, and of Gleb Glinka's connections to the U.S. and Russian government - and the couple's capitalizing on both - also includes building of the "Dr. Liza's" (that's how Elizabeth Glinka is well known and "cherished" in Russia) PR image on fabricated facts - a lot of them, as my personal Freedom of Information law inquiries with relevant American public agencies confirmed as far back as in 2014, the responses of such agencies were posted on a public Facebook group where "Dr Liza" was included as a member, explanations were requested from "Dr Liza" - but were never provided.

So, let's note the connections of Gleb Glinka to the government in the U.S.

• After graduating from a prestigious and highly ranked (and expensive) private Beasley School of Law at Temple University; and
• after doing a no-less prestigious Reginald Heber Smith Fellowship at Georgetown School of Law; Gleb Glinka
• Represented the Secretary of the State of Vermont in 1982-1985 Jim Douglas

who has later become Governor of the State of Vermont in 2003 and served as Governor until 2011;

• after representing the Vermont Secretary of State and future governor for 3 years, Gleb Glinka went to "serve" as law clerk of a federal bankruptcy judge for the District of Vermont for 2 years, from 1985 to 1987;
• A Russian official media source TASS reports that Elizabeth Glinka left Russia for the U.S. with her husband Gleb Glinka in 1986, during Gleb Glinka's employment as a law clerk for a U.S. Bankruptcy judge

This piece from an article in the official Russian press about "Dr. Liza" states that Elizabeth Glinka

"Has left for the U.S. in 1986 with her husband, American attorney with Russian heritage Gleb Glinka.  Worked in American hospices.  According to media sources, was a founder of an American Fund Vale Hospice International".

I made inquiries with Medicare/Medicaid officials about any public records whether "Vale Hospice International" ever operated as a hospice - because hospices in the U.S. are usually funded by Medicaid and Medicare payments, and there must be a paper trail.

Not only the "Vale Hospice International" never had any dealings with Medicaid and Medicare, but its financial statements indicate that it never operated as a hospice either.

Here is some information about "Vale Hospice International" from an American nonprofit database guidestar.org:

Vale Hospice International is registered at 81 Glinka Rd at Cabot Vt 05647.

Its 2014 financial report claims over $20,000 in liabilities and $0 in assets, and the Chief Officer Elizabeth Glinka with a mailing address of :

No records are available from government organizations that regulate hospice care in the U.S., that could prove that Vale Hospice International was ever involved in hospice activity in the U.S.

Its "official" address of 81 Glinka Rd., Cabot, VT, is actually the address of a "prominent" bankruptcy law firm Glinka & Walls, here is how it looks:

So, Vale Hospice International is just a shell used by Elizabeth Glinka to launch her PR image and political career in Russia.

The murky advertisement of Gleb Glinka's "law firms" would give any conscientious journalist a pause.

Unverified publication of shameful fabrications Elizabeth Glinka's "American" background upon which her PR-image in Russia was based was totally unworthy of any conscientious journalist.

Did Washington Post reporter Andrew Roth spend any time making any legwork and filing any inquiries with relevant primary sources before he published this statement:

I did.  In 2014.

In 2014, when Elizabeth Glinka was very much alive and boosting her PR campaign that there are no Russian troops in the Ukraine where she illegally travelled to illegally kidnap Ukranian children (and for God knows what other reasons), I have made official inquiries with the Dartmouth Medical School, with all the last names that Glinka was using (Sidorova, Poskriobysheva) and all transliteration variations of her first name (Lisa, Liza, Elizabeth, Elisabeth and Elizaveta).

According to the response of Darmouth Medical School, Dr. Lisa never graduated from that school.

As I mentioned above, Dr. Lisa's "Vale Hospice International" never operated as a hospice, at least there is no track record with Medicaid and Medicare - and its listed address is in a decrepit building in rural Cabot, VT which is also the official address of her husband's law firm.

Medical profession is a highly regulated profession in the U.S.

In  2014, I filed Freedom of Information requests with appropriate Vermont state licensing authorities for physicians, nurses and hospital and hospice administrators, as well as with authorities that train hospice specialists.

Dr. Lisa was never licensed or certified as any kind of medical professional or hospice specialist in Vermont, and thus the claims that she is an American doctor or an American "activist in palliative care" is fake news.

It is also fake news that Dr. Liza opened the first hospice in Kiev in 2001.

Reportedly, Ukranian public records show that the hospice that Elizabeth Glinka allegedly opened in Kiev in 2001, existed since 1997 and was funded by the government.

Moreover, as far back as in 2011 Elizabeth Glinka was criticized in Russia for:

• her penchant for luxury accessories, and flouting a $2,000 bag during a visit to a dying patient, while claiming that "she lives in a dump with homeless people";
• posting extremely personal pictures - with herself, of course, there, as Mother Theresa - of vulnerable, homeless, sick and dying people, capitalizing on their misery;
  

Yet, a more sinister side of Elizabeth Glinka's activity is still waiting for international investigations.

That is - whether Elizabeth Glinka was herself, or aided, illegal organ trafficking.

Elizabeth Glinka has reportedly graduated from the Moscow 2d Medical Institute with a degree in pediatric anesthesiology and emergency care. 

The American Bar Association's accolade to her husband Gleb Glinka places Gleb Glinka - and his wife - repeatedly, into war zones where illegal organ trade was rife:

To me, as a person trained in criminal law, fabricated PR image of Dr Liza, her training, her own and her husband's connections in high places in both the Russian and the American government (this is only the first article of several I intend to run exploring these connections), her active engagement with vulnerable populations, both in Russia and in various spots outside Russia, that evade registration or whose disappearance is difficult to trace:

• the homeless or lonely invalids in Russia;
• the orphan children in the war zone in the Ukranian territory occupied by the militants;
• Bosnia & Herzegovina;
• Serbia;
• Georgia; and now
• Syria - "Dr. Liza" allegedly died when she was allegedly on a plane (initially, ITAR-TASS, in reliance on sources close to Elizabeth Glinka, claimed that she did not board that plane) that was allegedly brining medication to children of Aleppo - after Russian aviation leveled Aleppo, together with those children)

all of that allows to raise a question whether Dr. Liza did much more than, as a prominent Russian politologist Belkovsky said, promoted herself on the blood of Donbass.

The question is - was "Dr. Liza" in fact "Dr. Mengele" and was she involved in illegal organ trafficking, and specifically, in children's organ trafficking.

War zones are the usual source of organ traffickers, where people can conveniently disappear without a trace.

In all war zones where Dr. Liza was active, illegal organ traffic was reported.

In Syria, where Dr. Liza was heading, after the bombardment of Aleppo razed the city and left many people killed, wounded and vanished, organ traffic is reportedly flourishing, and that is especially so in refugee camps.

Dr. Liza had the training, the backing of authorities to go, under protection of the military or the militants, where other people cannot go, had powerful connections in the U.S. and the Russian governments that could cover about any misdeed (and I will continue to publish her and her husband's ties to government officials), and the opportunity to engage in organ trafficking. 

Her PR image of Russian Mother Theresa could clearly be just a cover.

By the way, there was already a muddy story in Ekaterinburg (Russia) involving a disappearance of a retired woman, a lone owner of an apartment, who was abducted and whose body was later found, while her apartment was claimed by the friend of Ekaterinburg mayor Eugeniy Roizman, Glinka's friend, with whom Elizabeth Glinka tried to make a hospice - but stopped her efforts after publicity surrounding the murder.  The actual perpetrator of the murder is serving a 16-year sentence.  His accomplices were never found or charged.

It is obviously easier to make people disappear in a war zone than in Russia, even a lawless Russia where Glinka's husband Gleb Glinka, with the help of the American Bar Association and his friends in the U.S. Government, was, ironically, pretending to bring the "rule of law".

It is likely that that's exactly why Glinka switched her efforts from helping children in the vast Russia, her native country and the native cou to allegedly helping children in the war-torn Ukraine, and then in Syria.

In 2011, Dr. Liza was criticized, among other things, for improperly gaining publicity off human misery, and for falsely claiming unavailability of shelters for the homeless, in order to draw attention - and funds - to herself and her organization.

In 2012, Dr. Liza was interrogated by tax authorities regarding activities of her "Fair Help" fund.

In the same 2012, by a direct executive order of President Putin, Elizabeth Glinka was included into the "Presidential Council on Human Rights".   That happened after Glinka's husband was apparently wining and dining officials on both sides, the U.S. and Russia, through the ABA ROLI project.

In 2013, Dr. Liza's fund was targeted by authorities - as all other organizations where either foreign capital was used, or foreigners worked - as "international agents".  Elizabeth Glinka complained directly to Putin - and Putin personally called the investigation off.  From Glinka's fund only, but not from other similar "international agent" organizations, such as human rights organizations. 

In the same 2013, Dr. Liza's "Fair Help" fund reportedly used 67% of collected funds for its own maintenance, while, had it registered as a truly charitable fund, it would have been required to restrict the use of funds for its own maintenance to only 20%.

In May of 2014, Red Cross representatives were taken hostage in Donetsk by the militants. Elizabeth Glinka, who was at the time in Donetsk, confirmed the attack.

The hostages were held by the militants and released, after being robbed of medications that they brought to Donetsk, and taking those medications to an undisclosed location.

In June of 2014 Dr. Liza went to Donetsk again, disappeared, communications with her were "cut off" for nearly a week, then reappeared, and never told where she was, why communications were cut off and what was she doing when there were no communications.

In October of 2014, the International Red Cross refused to back "Dr. Liza" who allegedly brought a "humanitarian cargo" into the war zone inside Ukraine, since there was no ways of authenticating what will be really brought by Dr. Liza into the Ukraine under the guise of that "humanitarian cargo".

Actually, each time a "humanitarian convoy" would come into the Ukraine, the militants renewed their military operations with renewed vigor - and renewed supplies in munition and military equipment.

Of course, Dr. Liza claimed that she was bringing a cargo for "both sides of the conflict" and that the Red Cross "refused to help" in a situation of a humanitarian emergency.

There appears to be a lot of unreported history in these reports. 

From 2014 to 2016, Dr. Liza was repeatedly given support by Putin's administration to get into the Ukraine in order to get out Ukranian children without permission of Ukranian authorities, there are multiple reports about that in the media, see here, and here - where it is reported that the Ukranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs prohibited taking Ukranian children out of the country without official permission from Ukranian authorities.

Dr. Liza still continued to illegally take Ukranian children out of the country and, reportedly, took around 500 children out of the Ukraine through territories occupied by the militants, and the fate of these children is unknown.

In 2015, Dr. Liza was caught boasting on Twitter about the bronze roses stolen by the militants from the Donetsk public park as a gift from the Donetsk militants that she claimed was made out of artillery shells.

Elizabeth Glinka's post said, in Russian: "I was given some roses.  Two of them are cast out of a splinter of a howitzer projectile, the third - from a Grad splinter.  September 1st in Donetsk" (the links are mine, explaining what a Grad missile and a howitzer is).  The date stamp on the posting: September 1, 2015 at 5:38.

Did the two American journalists, Andrew Roth of Washington Post, and Susan Miller of USA Today, have access to information I have?

Of course.  If I did, from my home computer, they surely have more financial, communications and logistical resources to dig information than I do.

Did they have enough time to get inquiries with the American agencies that have custody of the records pertaining to Elizabeth Glinka (from IRS to Medicaid/Medicare, the Darmouth College of Medicine in Vermont, and the immigration and licensing authorities)?  Like I did in 2014?

And to receive, like I did, responses indicating that there are NO records - none - confirming any claims that Dr. Liza made about her alleged accomplishments, education or activities in the U.S.?

Of course, not.

Not in 2 or 3 days which they considered enough to do research for a publication about "Dr. Liza".

Maybe, in the view of their employers, the story about "Dr. Liza"
was not worth the time or money to do more extensive research.

Yet, if that is their opinion, at the very least, they should not have run FALSE news.

And what they said in their publications - that Dr. Lisa received medical education and was engaged in hospice "activism" in the U.S. (the basis of her PR image in Russia) - is FALSE.

With all the chest-pounding and finger-pointing about fake news in the mainstream media, apparently, the mainstream media is starting to generate those fake news and promote them.

In January of 2017 Elizabeth Glinka was awarded, allegedly posthumously, a medal of the Russian Investigative Committee (which nobody knew existed before it was awarded to her), with an indication that the Russian Investigative Committee will continue to help Glinka's "fund" "Fair Help" "accomplish its mission" - a unique favor, considering that Russian healthcare sector is underfunded, with hospitals closing, doctors fired, and cancer patients, including people as prominent as an retired army general, killing themselves for lack of pain medication.

The Russian Investigative Committee is known to rather persecute human rights activist than promote human rights.  A medal from such an entity to an American citizen, "cherished Russian charity worker", tells volumes to a rationally thinking reader.

From my point of view, it is extremely interesting how one married couple could milk their political connections with both American and Russian authorities to the point of bringing population of Russia into a frenzy of grief over an obvious fraud, with requests to canonize "Dr. Liza", and multi-hundred-thousand people petitions, as well as applications of Russian Senators, to strip of citizenship or incarcerate a journalist who dared not to mourn Dr. Liza properly.

And, the role of the American Bar Association that appointed Glinka's husband to the position in Moscow to promote "the rule of law" in Russia, as well as American public officials, especially judges who participated in that "promotion", are extremely interesting to explore and report.

In my experience as an investigative journalist about the American legal profession, if you suspect something extremely dirty about an American judge or well-connected lawyer, you will still miss the mark - because it may turn out to be much dirtier than you could ever dare think.

I do not know whether Dr. Liza died and buried in the Novodevichiy Convent or whether the closed-coffin burial service was yet another fake PR campaign, and, as many commentators said on social media, Dr. Liza has completed her plastic surgery and retired to enjoy her spoils for the rest of her life.

And, I do not know whether Dr. Liza engaged in organ trafficking - even though that appears to be very likely judging by her many fabrications and her many qualifications, opportunity and motive - greed, which reflected itself in expensive tastes that Dr. Liza could not conceal when clutching a $2,000 bag while visiting a dying indigent patient, and while presenting herself as person putting no value.

I will continue publication of articles about the interesting connections and activities of the "Russian charity worker" American citizen Elizabeth Glinka, her husband, ABA-praised attorney, friend of judges and Governors, Gleb Glinka, and the many charities Gleb Glinka has spawned with his wife and his friends, American judges and other prominent public officials.

Apparently, Washington Post and USA Today were afraid to touch upon that sticky subject, instead resorting to report regurgitated fake news about Dr. Liza.

Which is why people in the U.S. start to believe less and less, if at all, to the corrupt mainstream media, and more and more to news reported on the social media and blogs.

As I said above, I will continue my investigation and publications about Dr. Liza and her husband, American attorney Gleb Glinka, and his American and Russian entourage.

There was actually a third (or, a first-in-time) publication, actually - in the Boston Globe.

On December 25, 2016, Boston Globe published an article "Doctor killed in Russian military plane crash had Vermont ties".

The publication mentioned that the alleged doctor described in the article was married to a Cabot, VT attorney Gleb Glinka. 

The publication said nothing whether

• "Dr. Liza" received medical education in the U.S.,
• did hospice work in the U.S.,
• had an American citizenship (that would raise all kinds of questions of what the heck she was doing on a Russian military plane going to Syria where no other foreigners or representatives of foreign press were allowed), or
• that her husband has been a director of the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative in Moscow, an organization that has been, for several years,
• bridging the way to American law firms in Moscow,
• promoting pet nonprofits
• founded by American judges and, likely,
• funded by American attorneys who wanted to drum up business in front of such judges, and
• ferrying Russian and American judges back and forth between the U.S. and Russian resort destinations.

It was obvious by the timing of the publication - on the day of the crash - that the Boston Globe journalists did no fact-checking and no documentary inquiries before running their story either. 

Talking about "fake news".

I will continue covering the interesting ties of Gleb Glinka and Elisabeth Glinka to the top echelons of power in the U.S. and America and their impact on the "rule of law" in both countries.

Stay tuned.

Execution of the dog Ceasar, Manhattan #JudgeBarbaraJaffe fixation with the "aesthetics of public execution" and the nuts enforcing the death penalty

Some time ago, I've started to write on this blog about people in the legal profession who are helping the machine of the death penalty.

I so far wrote about a District Attorney, from the Alcovy Circuit of the State of Georgia, Layla Zon, who is enthralled with the death penalty that she has reportedly kept a toy electric chair, battery-powered, in her office.  Layla Zon, reportedly, has the highest rate of death penalty convictions in the State of Georgia.

And, I also wrote about Philadelphia (PA) DA Ronald Castille who first obtained death penalty sentences by fraud, and then got elected as a judge and fought appeals from convictions that he himself obtained - resulting in a U.S. Supreme Court case, Williams v Pennsylvania, in 2016.

And, I wrote about a mentally ill and perpetually hospitalized (in mental hospitals) prosecutor in Texas dealing with death penalty cases.

And, I recently wrote about the Texas Attorney General who, in a clinically sterile language, was trying to get the federal court release vials of a misbranded drug in order to kill off the Texas death row inmates, the majority of whom got their after convictions by racist juries, and many of whom got sentenced to death as teenagers.

By the way, since the publication of that article, two people have been executed in the U.S. - Christopher Wilkins in Texas, on January 11, 2017, and in Ricky Gray in Virginia yesterday, on January 18, 2017, under circumstances raising questions whether Ricky Gray was tortured to death by an unknown drug of an unknown concentration and unknown labelling, produced by an unknown "compounding pharmacy".

Since there is an ongoing international boycott to supply the U.S. with drugs used for lethal injections, and since the FDA seized the Texas cargo of 1,000 vials since July of 2016 (apparently, Texas was going to share with other death penalty states, since it has 4 times less people on death row than vials it bought), it is reported that the drugs for these two executions were provided by secret "compounding pharmacies" within the US - which still requires an investigation from the FDA as to which are these pharmacies, what is their "compounding process", are they licensed to do that, how the "compounding" was done and labeled. 

The people who are so obsessed to continue to carry out executions that, against the ongoing protests inside and outside the country, against the boycott of drug supplies, against the seizure of the purchased mislabeled drugs by the FDA, they go the lengths of trying to engage in concocting their own drugs, likely breaking the law in order to enforce the law of the death penalty - must have, in my opinion, profound flaws in their moral, if not mental makeup.

These people, to me, display a great measure of human degradation, advancing their careers on the government machine of killing people as a punishment for killing people.

Yet, that is not the true bottom of human degradation.

Turning public executions into an issue of art and esthetics, at all, and during the raging public debate on their constitutionality, and especially given the evidence that death penalties are mostly meted out to minorities, as a substitute form of lynching, into an issue of art and esthetics, is hitting the rock bottom of human depravity.

And then, nothing can prepare one for a jurist, a judge who is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of disputes, while the judge's longtime chosen pet project, a research topic of choice, is "the aesthetics of public execution".

No, not the execution of public documents.

Public execution of people.

As in:

• crucifixion;
• flaying (taking the skin off the still-alive person);
• lynching etc.

That kind of execution.

The aesthetics of it.

You wonder who this nut-of-a-judge is?

Meet Barbara Jaffe, of the New York County Supreme Court:

She has a Masters degree in Art, and did her graduate studies in Florence, Italy.

Before becoming a lawyer and coming to the bench, she was a wholesale art dealer - and her particular area of interest is this:

That is an excerpt from Barbara Jaffe's article "The Aesthetic Image of Public Execution and Its Impact on Criminal Justice", presented at a symposium "On the Art of Execution".

Yes, such symposia, obviously, happen, and such research topics, obviously, exist.

And the presenter is a judge.

Sitting in a Manhattan court, and dealing, on a daily basis, with African Americans.

The people whose history of lynching she is researching in her spare time, from the point of view of the "esthetics of lynching".

Here is the list of articles or lectures of Judge Jaffe proudly presented by New York Law Journal in her biography:

Here is another of her writings.

In 2012, in another article, the Judge Jaffe describes commemorating the lynchings in murals on the walls of courthouses in Mississippi and Idaho, and placing those murals on the walls of courthouses as a symbol of  - access to justice, and to show "typical life and people":

Of course, Judge Jaffe's description of those murals, as her description of "schadenfreude" in her earlier article, pretended to be sterile and "scientific", devoid of emotion.  After all, she holds a Masters degree in arts and has been a wholesale arts dealer.

And despite her unhealthy fixation on the "aesthetics of public execution", she is reportedly welcome to and is a member of many professional organizations.  I wonder how people who welcome her into her organizations with open arm, can stomach her enthrallment with the "aesthetic" of public executions.

Because, these theories, that "schadenfreude", enthrallment with the actual killing of others, that, according to Barbara Jaffe's article, "instills in people the sense of 'loyalty' and 'commitment to justice'" is what gives birth to the characters who keep toy battery operated electric chairs in their offices.

It is what gives birth to fascism, to killing people "for public good".

See, for example, an answer by PhD in psychology, Gerald Guild, as to whether Hitler was "a case of schadenfreude":

"The more you express this nasty feeling toward a group, the further you're pushing them out of your circle of moral concern and sympathy".  "By devaluing the lives of members of rival groups, schadenfreude could lead to tacit acceptance of discrimination or even hatred".

And, making real public executions of real people, a part of shameful history of this country which has still not ended, into a case of mere esthetics, and images of art, also leads to "tacit acceptance" of it, by desensitizing people from the actual horror of what is going on, into thinking about it "clinically", as a "mere art".

That is especially true when the "art speaker" is a judge, an authority on the law, and when the judge tries to instill into lawyers, the profession whose livelihood she regulates and controls, the ideas about "the art of public execution" instilling "commitment to justice".

Look at yet another program where Judge Jaffe has spoken on her favorite topic:

The program was announced by the New York City Bar Association.

Judge Jaffe also, recently, was a moderator of an "event" "The Art of Execution through the Camera's Lens", for the same New York City Bar Association - where Judge Jaffe continues to shove her schaudenfreude ideology into the minds of New York City attorneys, many of whom, most likely, appear at the judge's "lectures" in order to please her and drum up favors in cases in front of her.

My questions are:

1. why New York attorneys were interested in the painful executions, as opposed to the "contemporary allegedly painless" (their words, not mine) executions by lethal injection?
2. why Judge Jaffe, after having a career as a wholesale dealer, and such a peculiar interest in the "art, image and esthetics of public execution", became a judge?

Is Judge Jaffe's unhealthy enthrallment with the "aesthetics of public execution" influence and guide her judicial judgment?

You bet.

First, in 2015, Judge Jaffe was "assigned" (or, rather, self-assigned, as it usually happens in New York courts where, instead of "rotating assignment", judges grab cases they like), to the case of the non-human rights, the rights of chimpanzees detained by SUNY Stony Brook for experimentation in "locomotion".

I do not know whether experimentation was painful or invasive, and, under the current law animals, even primates, do not have legal standing to sue.

So, if not for Judge Jaffe's particular enthrallment with the "art of execution", the "art of inflicting suffering" and torture, there would have been nothing particular in her decision in that case - denying legal standing to sue to the chimpanzees.

But, look at a case Judge Jaffe decided nearly immediately after the chimpanzee case. 

Here is an excerpt from a case Judge Jaffe decided on August 20, 2016:

It is Judge Jaffe's own choice of words.

The Respondents seek not to "euthanize" a dog, which is the legal term, but to "execute" the dog, named Caesar (as in the one-time ancient leader of Rome Julius Caesar).

Respondents' basis to deem the dog a dangerous dog and seek to kill him is this:

It is well known that authorities use people's love of their pets as a tool to exact retribution against critics of the government - as it happened to government misconduct critic Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter, whose one dog was tasered, battered and left without medical help or pain medication, with a taser stick embedded into his muzzle, by the Delhi, NY dog enforcement officer, the official custodian of the dog after it was unlawfully seized from Barbara's property (after that, the warrant upon which the police arrived to her property was declared by a judge as invalid).

The other dog of Barbara's daughter was killed under the circumstances suggesting retaliation, and the third dog died in the house fire that eliminated Barbara's entire house, while the local firefighters refused to extinguish the fire, and authorities refused to even investigate the fire.

What is particularly relevant to the execution of the dog Ceasar authorized by the execution esthetics expert Judge Jaffe based on hearsay from unknown sources, is that:

Barbara's daughter's dog seized by Delhi, NY dog enforcement officer and left locked and without medical help or pain relief, with a metal stick embedded into his muzzle, for several days, was also subject to a "dangerous dog" proceedings, and the prosecution (the current Delaware County DA John Hubbard, the sick bird that he is) sought to have the dog euthanized, claiming, on hearsay grounds from unknown sources, that the dog is dangerous, while the dog is not dangerous, is an old dog and has been very good with children, including children not of the family (my own children were safe around the dog on many occasions).

Moreover, the warrant based on which Barbara's dog was seized in the first place, was later rendered invalid - imagine if the dog would have been euthanized before that declaration.  It is sheer luck that the dog was not put down.  John Hubbard was asking for it.

And, according to my information, DA John Hubbard is responsible for the death of another dog, as a reader reported to me recently, who was put down while his owners desperately tried to get a stay of that execution through an appeal.  During that application, reportedly, John Hubbard simply made a phone call and told those who had the dog's custody, to put the dog down.  And, the dog was killed.

It is not a rock.

It is not a piece of art.

It is not "just property".

It is a living, breathing animal who loved and was obviously loved by his owners that Judge Jaffe, the aesthetics of public executions expert, refused to protect, and thus authorized to execute, in a "civil" court proceedings, based entirely on rumors from unknown sources.

Even if the dog Caesar was a piece of property under the law, destroying that "piece of property" still involves ending a life, and should be afforded more "process" than rumors from unknown sources.  Surely, a judge must realize that.

Also, by issuing such an order based on hearsay, Judge Jaffe set a dangerous precedent in her jurisdiction, and now, in reliance on Judge Jaffe's decision, New York authorities can kill any dog on fabricated evidence, without presenting any witnesses or competent evidence of the dog's alleged "dangerousness".

Judge Jaffe acknowledges in her decision that Respondents do not provide the basis of the sources of such information, so the information is pure hearsay from unproven sources, or may have been made up by Respondents - not that it matters to Judge Jaffe.

After all, the word "execution" may have already triggered in her mind the "schadenfreude" that she simply could not resist.

Did Judge Jaffe's enthrallment with the idea of the "art of execution" drove her to take the case where the litigants tried to prevent the "execution" of the dog named Caesar?

Judge Jaffe denied the petition, thus allowing "Caesar" to be executed.

I wonder if she has written a secret article on the art of execution of the dog Caesar.

Why judge Barbara Jaffe, in my view, is so very dangerous to the public while on the bench?

Not only because now she authorizes the torture (the non-human project) or killing (the dog Caesar) of the animals, and as to killing, she authorizes that entirely on rumors - which, given her infatuation with the "aesthetics" of lynching - raises hair on one's head.

But, Barbara Jaffe may be up for more power, now over human lives, and that should be prevented.

Barbara Jaffe has come on my radar as an investigative journalist because Judge Jaffe, just a couple of weeks before the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States, at the background of protests against Trump and a downpour of criticism, fair and unfair, in the media, incorrectly ruled dismissing the defamation lawsuit against President-elect Donald Trump - in a case where the decision was not in her hands, but in the jury's.

The claim was that Donald Trump made statements about a female professional who was, allegedly, sought to be hired by his campaign, and then who was not hired.

The lawsuit for $4 mln alleged that Donald Trump falsely claimed in a Twitter that the female professional in question "begged" to hire her and "turned hostile" when she was not hired - a claim that, in a reasonable person's view, clearly damaged her professional reputation and had to be heard by a jury.

Judge Barbara Jaffe dismissed the claim as "vague" and a "matter of opinion", not fact, while there was nothing vague in it, and it was definitely not an opinion, but a perceived fact that the Plaintiff claims was false, and Donald Trump is claiming was true.

Here is what Judge Jaffe said in Jacobus v Trump:

There is nothing "loose, figurative", or "hyperbolic" in saying that a professional "begged" for a job.  If true, such a claim indicates that a professional (1) may not have good job prospects, so she might have to beg, and (2) that she acts unprofessionally in begging for a job when she cannot have it otherwise.  That IS damaging to a professional reputation - and, since it was published on Twitter, the jury would have an easy way of finding that the publication did take place.

It was dishonest to say that the claim that the plaintiff "begged" for a job is "not susceptible of objective verification".  It is a matter of fact, very much verifiable - a person either begged for a job, or she didn't.

Moreover, it is not for a judge to pronounce, as a matter of mixed question of law and fact that "to the extent that the word 'begged' can be proven to be a false representation of plaintiff's interest in the position", it still means nothing, because it was allegedly, judging by the facts surrounding the statement, a "petty quarrel".

This pronouncement was not for the judge to make, but for the jury.  Judge Jaffe usurped the authority of the jury to decide a case, and did not allow the case to proceed to a jury trial, forcing Donald Trump to settle, as he was forced to do in the university fraud case.

That saved Donald Trump a lot of money, potentially, in damages, and obviously in legal fees.

I am not the only one who thinks that the ruling is unlawful.

Here is an opinion about the case from an unnamed commentator on Reddit, for example (the commentator is not me, I do my comments under my own name):

Of course, those attorneys who depend on drumming business from Judge Jaffe's courtroom, are afraid to express their opinions.  The mainstream media sources that reported on the case only indicated, matter of factly, that the case was dismissed, without any attempt at criticism of the judge's usurpation of the right of the jury to decide this defamation case, and without any attempt to tie the timing of the dismissal, and the identity of the defendant benefited by the dismissal, to the time of the inauguration of the defendant, and the benefits that the defendant, in his soon-to-be new official capacity, may bestow upon the judge.

Which brings me to this scary idea - what did Judge Jaffe try to accomplish by this clear act of brown-nosing the President-elect?

What can a state judge seek from the President of the United States that she does not already have and that the President can give her?

A permanent job, on the federal bench, of course.

Judge Jaffe's current term on the bench expires in 2021, 4 years from now.

If she is appointed to the federal bench, the appointment is for life.

Trump, as a President of the United States, can give Barbara Jaffe a nomination to the federal bench, and I wonder whether Judge  Barbara Jaffe's sweet gesture, the pre-auguration gift dismissing a $4 million dollar lawsuit two weeks before the swearing-in as President, at the time when the mainstream media is crammed with criticism, fair and unfair, of Trump and his family members, when, reportedly, hundreds of thousands of marchers are planning to protest in Washington, D.C. on the day immediately after the inauguration ceremony, the gift may be meant to be especially prominent and especially remembered by the new President.

I wonder whether we will see Barbara Jaffe nominated to the federal court or not.

What is scary is that death penalty is still legal under the federal law, while it is not in New York.

In New York, the death penalty was declared unconstitutional 2 years after Judge Jaffe came to the bench, in 2004.

Judge Jaffe's decision dismissing the defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump was clearly unlawful.

In New York, under New York Constitution, all issues of fact must be tried by a jury.

I do not know whether the plaintiff against Donald Trump was, or was not telling the truth.

Yet, what I do know is that it was not for the judge to decide the case, but for the jury, because there were outstanding triable issues of fact, or mixed issues of fact and law.

It was dishonest for Judge Jaffe to state in her decision that the claims of defamation were too "vague".  Nothing was vague in the claim, it was clear and straightforward - and, the dismissal can still be overturned on appeal.

But, if Judge Jaffe meant this dismissal as a pre-auguration gift to the President-elect, at the time when he is contemplating nomination of judges to the federal bench, is Judge Jaffe seeking to go from enjoyment of the "images of public executions" to making those executions, of humans, happen in reality?

Right now, in state "civil" court, Judge Jaffe's authority to execute is reduced only to killing animals - like she did with the dog Caesar.

Is Judge Jaffe now trying to get to the federal bench, in order to satisfy her love of public executions, in order to preside over the real capital cases, to fully feed her "schadenfreude", the way the killing of the dog Ceasar didn't?

Do we have a sociopath on the bench?

Does anybody try to run psychological evaluations of judges, to see whether they are mentally stable to be on the bench, or whether they have mental cravings incompatible with the power they are wielding?

As it is now though, imagine what this woman with an angelic face may be thinking while looking at African American or Native American litigants in her courtroom.

After all, while looking at a litigant, she may be fantasizing in her mind of the "art of lynching", and making her decisions on that basis.

Very likely.