#DelawareCountyFamilyCourtJudgeGaryRosa sees a bright color (red) when he sees my name and is confronted with the truth of his own, and his law clerk's incompetence and misconduct

Some time ago I wrote about inability of Judge Gary Rosa, despite his promises to voters when he came to the bench, not only to be unbiased, but to even be competent and honest in his court decisions, and to apply mandatory procedure to undisputed facts in application of mandatory U.S. Supreme Court constitutional precedents.

I made a motion to vacate sanctions imposed upon me by the now-"retired" Judge Carl F. Becker who got on the bench in 2002 without evidence he was elected (in 2010 Delaware County Board of Elections could not produce any documents that would prove authenticity of Carl Becker's 2002 elections in response to my FOIL request, and Carl Becker did not file a certificate of elections, as required by law, in 2002, so he was clearly a usurper of public office) and who got on the bench for the second time in 2012 by making false claims to voters in his election campaign.

I made the motion at the end of 2016, because the sanctions imposed in 2011 were rendered unconstitutional and void by the two U.S. Supreme Court precedents decided in June of 2015 and in June of 2016.

I also reminded the presiding judge (at that time I made the motion, Judge Mary Rita Connerton was presiding over the case) that for a judge to disobey a U.S. Supreme Court order is a disciplinary violation that recently resulted in suspension from office until the end of his term of the Chief Judge of the State of Alabama Roy Moore.

When I received a decision on motion, it was not by Judge Connerton, but by Judge Gary Rosa who declined to apply two clear mandatory precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court to clear and indisputable facts of the case:

1. that sanctions were imposed in 2011 for contents of a motion to recuse - in violation of Reed v Town of Gilbert decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 declaring content-based regulation of speech unconstitutional; and
2. that sanctions were imposed in 2011 by a judge who commenced, as an accuser, the proceedings for sanctions, and who complained as a complaining witness and victim, of having been allegedly harassed by the contents of the motion to recuse (on behalf of an indigent pro bono client, by the way) - in violation of Williams v Pennsylvania decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016, and declaring adjudication of court cases who act both as accusers and adjudicators a violation of due process that renders such decisions void (a nullity, like they never happened).

Moreover, Judge Rosa stated that I was trying to "intimidate" him by the reference to Judge Moore (while I never knew Rosa was presiding over the motion, I thought it was Connerton, and referencing the legal duty of a public official, and the consequences for not fulfilling that duty cannot be viewed as an act of intimidation anyway) by referencing the discipline of the Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore and claimed - falsely - that the Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore was not disciplined for defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which was contrary to a clear text of Chief Judge Roy Moore's order of discipline.

Since I did not have an opportunity to timely file a motion to recuse Judge Rosa, because I as never notified that Judge Connerton recused and Judge Rosa self-assigned to the case, I made a motion to vacate, renew, reargue and recuse after I received Judge Rosa's denial of my motion.

I also filed an appeal of Judge Rosa's decision to the Appellate Division 3rd Department, where I stated the following issues:

In the appeal I stated that Judge Rosa, upon my information, actually discussed this particular case with the parties, in an ex parte manner, during his election campaign of 2012 - moreover, upon the statement of witnesses to me, he expressed his indignation as to the very sanctions imposed upon me and the indigent party, my then pro bono client, by Judge Becker, and claimed that tthe very sanctions that he reverently discussed in his two decisions so far are evidence of Judge Becker's unfitness to be a judge.  Moreover, Rosa told at least two witnesses that these particular sanctions, and Becker's misbehavior in this particular case were a large reason as to why he is running for the bench at all, to give the public an honest judge instead of Judge Becker.

That statement, upon my information, secured for Judge Rosa votes of two voters for sure, and more voters very likely - the party and her relative who talked to Judge Rosa and those who were inspired by that conversation by being present and listening during that conversation in TWO elections - of 2012 and 2015.

After having secured votes for himself by making ex parte statements about a case, Judge Rosa assigned himself to that same case and made a decision contrary to his pre-election pledge.

I reflected that in my motion to vacate, renew, reargue and recuse Rosa.

Moreover, since I had witnesses ready to testify for me against Judge Rosa, I demanded an evidentiary hearing on the motion to recuse, if Judge Rosa does not recuse voluntarily.

put the motion on the court docket - and thus the motion was not officially heard, as is required by law for lawful court decisions - and Judge Rosa's decision on the motion should thus be void for that reason alone.

I also pointed out that Judge Rosa's method of application of U.S. Supreme Court precedent - by "fact patterns" and "matters" instead of constitutional issues resolved - is incorrect and would have prevented the absolute majority of the U.S. Supreme Court cases from being decided:

I pointed out that the decision on such a motion should be a no-brainer for any self-respecting judge, because the U.S. Supreme Court precedent is clearly in my favor, as applied to facts that Judge Rosa did not dispute:

1. that sanctions were imposed in 2011 for contents of a motion to recuse;
2. that sanctions were imposed in 2011 for contents of a motion to recuse after a proceedings for sanctions commenced, as accuser, by the adjudicating the judge himself, and for alleged harassment of the judge that the judge claimed, as a personal offense against himself, in his sua sponte order to show cause that initiated proceedings for sanctions, and in his order imposing sanctions at the end.

This particular prong of analysis chartered out the mandatory procedure, set by the U.S. Supreme Court, that Judge Rosa should have applied to the legal analysis of my motion - and never did, in violation of his oath of office, pledging to uphold the U.S. Constitution and mandatory precedent based on it.

I also pointed out to Judge Rosa that, as much as he wanted to apply the so-called "collateral estoppel" to the order of suspension of my law license, he could not legally do that for the simple reason that the order of suspension came after the sanctions, and thus, undoing the sanctions will undo the order of suspension, very simple.

A classic chicken-and-egg argument.

I then asserted, under oath that based on non-hearsay statements of a party in the case, Judge Rosa had an ex parte communication with that party in 2012, solicited her vote based on his condemnation of the very sanctions he is now refusing to vacate, and is deciding the case, unlawfully, based on his extrajudicial knowledge of the case and without disclosure of his ex parte communication.

The assigned attorney for the party in question, Rosemary Richards, was apparently so paralyzed by fear after reading this motion that she has forgotten about her duty to even TELL HER CLIENT that:

1) a motion like that was filed; and

2) that is mentions the party's statements to me about Judge Rosa and his misconduct -

apparently, Rosemarie Richards was afraid that her client would confirm the truth of my statements in the motion to her and request Rosemarie Richards to support my motion on the party's behalf.

Not even telling a client that a motion was filed in his case is, by the way, a client neglect and a disciplinary violation.

Moreover, it will not be the first disciplinary violation for Rosemarie Richards in this particular case alone - I already wrote earlier how Rosemarie Richards sold out this same indigent client out before, in 2014, forgoing her client's motion without even reading it after she took over the case.

In my motion to recuse that attorney Richards preferred not to show to her client, I also spelled out in my motion to recuse Judge Rosa a claim that he assigned himself to the case in order to retaliate against him for criticism of him and his law clerk, and for my husband's complaint requesting disbarment of his law clerk's husband, and that Judge Rosa already engaged in apparent attempts to thwart felony investigations and prosecutions in TWO criminal cases where I or my husband were victims.

I would like to stress that the minimum threshold upon which a motion to recuse can be made as a matter of due process is APPEARANCE of impropriety.

I did not have to PROVE that Judge Rosa or his law clerks got self-assigned to the case in retaliation against me, my husband and my family.

All I had to do is raise the issue that it so APPEARS from the circumstances of the case, that an impartial observer, after learning about all the facts in the case, can simply draw a reasonable INFERENCE from those facts that it APPEARS that such a retaliation is occurring.

I also pointed out that Judge Rosa decided a case against me not on the law but on his perception that reference to discipline of Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore in a motion filed in front of a completely different judge is somehow an attempt to intimidate him, Judge Rosa,  while I did not even know that Judge Rosa assigned himself to the case when I was making the initial motion.


I wonder if Judge Rosa, or his law clerk Nancy Deming who no doubt helped research and draft Judge Rosa's decisions in this case, or both of them, are developing some sort of a paranoia in regards to me, and, apparently, after I filed the motion, Judge Rosa confirmed that in his "order of recusal", about that - further in this article.

My motion to vacate, renew and reargue, with exhibits, was on 71 pages, with documentary exhibits - because a motion to recuse in New York requires extensive statement of facts, so I followed the requirements.

Yet, the motion to recuse did not have to happen, because, as I stated in the Conclusion in that motion, my previous motion, the one that Judge Rosa denied while refusing to follow mandatory U.S. Supreme Court precedent, was on 3 PAGES total, with, 1.5 pages of the argument, all other pages constituted the notice of motion, the caption and the notarized signature.

Short motion, two mandatory precedents, a mandatory procedure, a no-brainer - it had to be decided in my favor, if the law was to be applied.

But, the law cannot be applied when it will be in favor of a reporter of judicial misconduct, and, specifically, in favor of me.

No, no, no and no.

Vacating sanctions against me will undo my order of suspension, return me into practicing law, and will allow me to sue the hell out of Judge Rosa's law clerk's husband James Hartmann, based on an affidavit of David Mokay who said that he never sued my husband, right after James Hartmann obtained a $300,000 judgments against my husband on behalf of David Mokay, while David Mokay never appeared in the case, never provided any sworn statements in the case and never testified in the case.

Judge Rosa cannot have that.  He has to do damage control, which is what he did.

Judge Rosa also knows that I was the only attorney in Delhi, NY and surrounding area who handled ALL types of litigation, and handled it successfully:

• Family Court - defense of parents in child neglect and abuse cases, custody litigation;
• criminal courts;
• federal civil rights litigation; and
• the Supreme Court - as a trial AND appellate attorney.

People are still writing to me from Delaware County and other counties of New York - of course, I cannot advise them, but the fact is that they are writing to me telling their stories and telling me that they cannot find an attorney who would not be afraid of judges and who would take a civil rights case together with a criminal and a family court child neglect or abuse case.

I did it, and handling all cases at the same time by one attorney, and thus with one trial strategy, often brought results that cannot be attained by conflicting trial strategies of different assigned counsel who are afraid of their own shadow and, hoping for more assignments at $75/hr, are selling out their clients into plea bargains and "settlements" with social services, often committing them to a lifetime of misery.

Also, Judge Rosa who obviously wants to advance in the judicial world, get assignments as Acting Supreme Court judge, and, since he is still young, possibly a bid in the future for the Supreme Court and a jump to an appellate court, who knows - knows when to apply the law, and when to cave to his own and his law clerk's wishes of retaliation, and to the will of the superiors.

So, Judge Rosa would not apply the mandatory law to the facts to rule in my favor - because my return as a practicing attorney to the area, with my policy of free consultations on the phone and in office when people could call or come to my home office at any time of day or night to share their problems and get legal advice - will undermine the social control of the poor which is what the Family Court is doing together with the police and the District Attorney, and Judge Rosa is not continuing this dis-honorable tradition.

What was the reaction of Judge Rosa to my motion?

He could voluntarily recuse without saying a word - that is what judges who ever recused usually did and do.

But, not Judge Rosa.

Judge Rosa made a production out of his own recusal.

He created a full-blown "DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION" - even though at the end of that "DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION" Judge Rosa recused from deciding that same motion.

Before, I start commenting on the decision, I must say this:  when a judge recuses from a case, he cannot make any "analysis" of that case whatsoever, he simply recuses because he cannot be impartial any longer, so any of his "analyses" is void. 

Yet, Judge Rosa managed to violated even that clear rule.

His "order" of self-recusal violated even that simple rule  Judge Rosa attempted to influence a judge who would come after him in "analyzing" the case anyway before stating that he is seeing red because of my "baseless personal attacks" - supported by evidentiary proof - and supported by a request for an evidentiary hearing for more proof and more testimony, if Judge Rosa is not impressed with what has been already provided.

Here is the decision, in its full glory.

In that decision Judge Rosa once again issued an "order" outside of any docket, in violation of court rules - see file number but no docket number,

posted in large black blocks a threat that violation of that "FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY, AFTER COURT HERAING, RESULT IN YOUR CONFINEMENT TO JAIL FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO SIX MONTHS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT"

I keep wondering, in what ways CAN a person violate an order of self-recusal of a judge?

Can anybody, please, enlighten me on that? 

But, apparently, Judge Rosa was not thinking rationally at that point, his only purpose was to do something nasty to me, and a threat of incarceration, even a completely stupid threat, for violating an order of self-recusal of a judge - an impossible act - apparently appeared to Judge Rosa like a good idea.

Judge Rosa even kindly gave me a notice that I can appeal his order of self-recusal "within 30 days of receipt of a final order",

While giving me that notice, Judge Rosa knew full well that such a notice was stupid, too, for TWO reasons:  

• an order of self-recusal of a judge is not appealable, and
• an order granting a motion (here - to recuse) is not appealable by the party to whom the order was GRANTED, and, even though Judge Rosa could not bring himself to mention that word in his "order" of self-recusal, he GRANTED my motion to recuse.

What am I going to do on such an appeal - argue to the appellate court that Judge Rosa improperly granted my motion to recuse, by recusing himself?

That would be frivolous, and such an appeal was subject to sanctions.  So, Judge Rosa is giving me a notice that I have a right, under the Family Court Act 1113, to engage in frivolous conduct, to appeal and unappellable court order? 

Once again, Judge Rosa's rage guided his hand.

So, after

• deciding a second motion out of docket;
• sending a stupid intimidating notice to me not to violate the order of Judge Rosa's self-recusal under the threat of spending 6 months in jail for contempt of court; and
• sending me a no less stupid notice of appeal of an order that was not appealable by me for not one, but for two reasons

Judge Rosa engaged in analysis of the case that he had no right to engage in because he was RECUSING from that case.

Judge Rosa's rage guided his hand by stating, in the very first phrase of the order of SELF-RECUSAL, that I am "an attorney presently suspended from the practice of law in the courts of the State of New York", knowing full well that his obligation to apply two mandatory precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, which he first refused to do, and then recused from doing - would have eliminated my suspension.

Actually, what is my attorney status, was absolutely irrelevant to Judge Rosa's decision to recuse or not to recuse from the case, yet, apparently, for Judge Rosa it was not only relevant, but of paramount importance, even though, had Judge Rosa applied the law to the facts on the motion correctly, he had to rule in my favor and thus UNDO that suspension.

But nevertheless, Rosa continues to recite - incorrectly, by the way - the contents of my motion to recuse against Judge Becker, the very case that Rosa discussed with Alecia Bracci and her mother Barbara O'Sullivan, in 2012 and solicited their votes by expressing his indignation about Becker's behavior in this very case by imposing these very sanctions, Rosa referred two other cases where I was similarly sanctioned by Becker, in 2011 (in a similar manner that was rendered unconstitutional by U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2015 and 2016) - and then engages in a full-blown "DISCUSSION" preceding his recusal.

And there comes the core of Judge Rosa's order of recusal. 

"Because of Ms. Neroni's baseless personal attacks against both the undersigned and his court attorney, the undersigned finds himself angered to the point of doubting his ability to be objective".

Like Judge Rosa was objective to me before.

In other words, "I SEE RED from Ms Neroni's motion, to the point that I cannot follow mandatory procedure of the U.S. Supreme Court, cannot apply mandatory precedent to indisputable facts".

And, as I said above, the basis of making a motion to recuse a judge in New York is an APPEARANCE of impropriety.

Of course, I was not a fly on the wall in Judge Rosa's chambers and cannot provide a recording proving that Judge Rosa has ACTUALLY conspired with Nancy Deming, and God knows with whom else, in order to

• block my access to an effective court remedy,
• deny my motion to recuse and
• prevent my reinstatement as an attorney. 

My reinstatement would create a number of inconveniences for Rosa's law clerk's husband James Hartmann, and for Rosa in representing my clients in child neglect and abuse case and in criminal cases HONESTLY, and making motions to disqualify judges or prosecutors based on reports of their misconduct and documents that raise questions about their bias and misconduct without any problem.

But, any reasonable person who is not in the pay of the government and is not dependent on favors from New York State court system, would conclude the same from Judge Rosa's long history of misconduct regarding me and my family members in the short period of time that he is on the bench - as presented in my 71-page motion to recuse, with documentary exhibits.

Yet, what does Judge Rosa's statement in his "order" of self-recusal means for other litigants in his court?

Well, first, it is clear that Judge Rosa became just another Judge Becker - with the same disregard to the law, the same (or worse) dishonesty and the same desire to use his power, law or no law, in favor of himself and "his own", and against those who criticize him and "his own".

Second, Judge Rosa's admission is very important that he can be so personally biased that he cannot apply clear constitutional precedents to undisputed facts.

There is the law that

1. punishing for contents of speech is a violation of the 1st Amendment (Reed v Town of Gilbert, 2015); and that
2. court cases decided by judges acting as both accusers and adjudicators are void (Williams v Pennsylvania, 2016) - thus voiding all sanctions imposed upon me by Judge Becker -

and there are these INDISPUTABLE sets of facts:

1. that I was, indeed, sanctioned in 2011 for contents of my motion to recuse without application of strict scrutiny, and
2. that I was, indeed, sanctioned by a judge in 2011 who was both an accuser and an adjudicator in the case (started proceedings sua sponte, claimed personal injury to himself) - which was rendered unconstitutional in 2015 and 2016 by clear U.S. Supreme Court cases.

So, this is a "hypothetical" for any law student to decide immediately in favor of the moving party - but that is, without looking at the identity of the party.

Judge Rosa looked.  And saw red in my name and my criticism of him and his law clerk.

It is also apparent that Judge Rosa is a coward.

He recused, with threats and improper "analysis" and characterization of the case, and while claiming "baseless personal attacks" on my behalf BEFORE the evidentiary hearing that I demanded for the motion to recuse if he would not recuse voluntarily.

Moreover, I used as exhibits on the motion criticism of judge Rosa in my blogs for which - if they were false - neither Judge Rosa nor his clerk Nancy Deming tried to sue me for defamation.

As one attorney who knows Rosa very well characterized him as a general who would lose his army in battle because he freaks and is unable to make a proper decision, always looking at his superiors as to how to decide - and when he makes a decision, often it is just stupid. 

It is apparent that Judge Rosa has no temperament, competence or integrity to be on the bench.

If he cannot control himself by just criticism and factual documents submitted to him about himself and his law clerk to the point that he cannot apply clear law to clear undisputed facts, he should not be on the bench.

He is a jeopardy to anybody who appears in front of him in the courtroom.

By the way, this is what Judge Rosa decided at the end of all of that lamentation: he ordered himself to recuse, and AFTER he recused himself, he had no power over the case whatsoever.

But, that did not stop him from making another step: AFTER recusing himself, he FURTHER ordered that "the matter shall be referred to the 6th Judicial District Administrative Judge for assignment to another Judge".

And who is the counsel for the 6th Judicial District Administrative Judge at the moment who is going to handle this "assignment to another Judge"?

Porter Kirkwood, of course, Judge Becker's cohort who has brought a frivolous child neglect proceeding against me and my husband in 2009 in double retaliation:

• for me filing a motion to recuse against Becker in 2009 for presiding, without disclosure, over child neglect cases where Becker, in bench trials, decided credibility of his own clients of 27 years, the Delaware County DSS workers (the case where I filed the motion was for a client who was not a friend or family member, just a client); and
• because I turned his own son in for discipline when he gang-assaulted my son in Delaware Academy, hurting my son - and, due to my son's infancy at that point, my son STILL has a right to sue Kirkwood's son, the statute of limitations did not yet expire, so Kirkwood had a conflict of interest then, by bringing and prosecuting a child neglect case against us, causing a rebellion in his own office, at the "Legal Department" of Delaware County, and has a conflict of interest to advise his employer, the administrative judge, to assign any judges to my case now.

The Porter Kirkwood who,

• as part of a bunch of top officials in Delaware County who ran from their positions lately, has
• just fled from his position of the County Attorney
• during the pendency of, reportedly, an FBI investigation into the interesting occurrences in Delaware County Social Services Department and the interesting cash flow from the County into pet non-profits, where Kirkwood reportedly "did a lot of legwork" to collect child support for DSS, even though he was allegedly "not compensated for his efforts":

The Porter Kirkwood who has lost his judicial election to the same Gary Rosa in 2015 likely because of my blogs about the experimental program therapy-by-pedophilia-and-voyeurism for "juvenile sex offenders", children held captive in foster care in Delaware County, NY, under Kirkwood's control as their attorney.

Kirkwood stupidly boasted about such a program in his meeting with the voters - you can see the video of him doing that,

• here (as to the general incompetence of Porter Kirkwood as to sex offender laws in New York),
• here - showing how Kirkwood boasted that his "experimental" program of "treatment" for "juvenile sex offenders" (children) in foster care costs Delaware County taxpayers "only" $56,000 a year;
• here - how Kirkwood boasted about his success in "luring" into engaging in "experimental" sex abuse of children in his care a consummate shopaholic and drunkard #DrRichardHamill, who was caught in lying to the court, to help another famous liar, then criminal prosecutor #PeterTorncello, get a criminal conviction;
• here - discussing the "methods" of "Dr" Hamill;
• and here - pointing out a court case in the 2nd Circuit that ruled application of Dr Hamill's methods even to an adult sex offender unconstitutional.

By the way, as to the attorney who elicited improper testimony of Dr. Hamill and inflamed the jury by improper references to that testimony in summation (the case I quoted about Dr. Hamill above, People v Riback), #Peter Torncello was elevated after his misconduct into a position of attorney for attorney grievance committee, 3rd Department, committed more misconduct in his elevated position

• fraud upon the court in my disciplinary case - Torncello argued contrary to court papers that I had to, and did not appear at a deposition of a client in 2008 when I was only admitted to practice law in 2009, and refused to withdraw that fraudulent claim even when confronted with court records showing that the deposition was held in 2008, that fraudulent charge was withdrawn only after
• a removal of the case to federal court,
• a remand back to 3rd Department and
• a transfer of the case to the 4th Department
• falsifying time sheets - 

was allowed to resign from his public position without suffering any discipline or criminal prosecution whatsoever and is now employed in private practice,

• the NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department affirmed the conviction and sentencing of a neurologist against whom Dr. Hamill improperly testified for prosecutor Peter Torncello (with one dissenting judge, Judge Malone), and after the New York State Court of Appeal reversed the 3rd Department by ruling on appeal that Peter Torncello, as a prosecutor, elicited improper testimony from "Dr. Hamill" and engaged in improper comments to the jury:

QUOTE

=======

"As the dissenting Justice in the Appellate Division put it, these numerous "summation misstatements of fact and law . . . when combined with the opinion by the prosecutor that defendant's acts were those of a pedophile . . . rose to such a level that defendant was deprived of the fair trial to which he was entitled" (People v Riback, 57 AD3d 1209, 1220 [3d Dept 2008, Malone, J., dissenting]). We recognize that County Court repeatedly sustained defense counsel's objections during the prosecutor's summation, and instructed the jury to disregard parts of it. After a certain point, though, the cumulative effect of a prosecutor's improper comments during summation may overwhelm a defendant's right to a fair trial (see People v Calabria, 94 NY2d 519, 523 [2000]). Given the inflammatory nature of the charges in this case, there was a reasonable possibility that this prosecutorial misconduct contributed to the verdict."

UNQUOTE

========

the 3rd Department HIRED Peter Torncello to work for its attorney disciplinary committee, and when Peter Torncello continued to engage in improper conduct there, by, reportedly, falsifying court records, he was let to resign - but was never investigated, prosecuted or disciplined.  That's the way of things in the progressive and civil rights-loving State of New York). 

So, the circle came back to ground zero.

The one person who will be deciding the fate of my license is Porter Kirkwood, who has initiated the process of persecution against me and my husband (that eventually led to the taking both of our law licenses) by bringing a frivolous  (and dismissed) child neglect proceeding against us after I had the audacity to make a motion to recuse Porter Kirkwood's buddy Judge Becker in August of 2009 for presiding, without disclosure of prior representation for 27 years of Delaware County Department of Social Services that appeared in Becker's court as a Petitioner and witness in child neglect and abuse cases.

The person to whom I likely cost a judgeship so far.

The person whose son can still be sued by my son for a gang assault on school grounds.

The person who has likely recently orchestrated a threat against me through an anonymous account created for purposes of posting that threat:

By the way, the blog I am currently preparing is spelling out in excruciating detail , based on "scientific research" as to HOW EXACTLY "juvenile sex offenders" are "treated" and experimented upon in such programs - will be even more "sensational", but I am sure that people who did that to the children will feel no shame at all.

And of course, how can I possibly "know anything", being an expert in this field and having researched that subject for 17 years, and how can I possibly "know anything" about Delaware County, after being its opponent in litigation, and suing it for so many years...

So, Porter Kirkwood will now decide which judge to appoint to rule on the motion where deciding the motion on the law will return my law license - where sanctions were imposed by his friend and co-conspirator Judge Becker, to remove me, the only person who has ever dared to point to Judge Becker the obvious - that he should not make credibility determinations in child abuse and neglect proceedings after representing those people for 27 years.

I did not receive from the 6th Judicial District (Porter Kirkwood) or from Delaware County Family Court, or from any other source, any assignments of new judges to that still pending motion.

I will publish any such assignments, and any decisions that will be produced by Kirkwood-assigned judges.

And I will publish a detailed analysis of Kirkwood-authorized illegal experimentation on children in foster care, which can be characterized as sexual abuse of children in foster care in Delaware County, New York, by the government, under the guise of "experimental therapy".

The court system in New York appears to be regurgitating and reshuffling in new positions the same people who keep getting caught, but keep getting rescued by the same system - and keep coming back to settle their scores against their critics, in total disregard of the law, again, and again, and again.

As to the recused-with-threats Judge Rosa, what can I say.

Beware of this incompetent coward.

The ABA and the State of Wisconsin legal establishment warns the U.S. President not to criticize the hand that feeds them

After President Trump publicly called Judge Robart who made an illegal decision in an immigration case a "so-called judge" the ABA President claimed that criticism of a judge by the President was uncalled for and somehow "attacking" a judge is attacking the U.S. Constitution.

That is the same reaction from the ABA as came when President Trump criticized federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel for conflicts of interest (rightfully, see here, here and here). 

ABA President's feelings about criticism of a judge by President Trump in February of 2017 were seconded by a collective statement of 52 Wisconsin Bar governors:

It is interesting that the statement of the Wisconsin Bar governors does not reflect the opinion of the all Wisconsin attorneys - for example, a Wisconsin criminal defense attorney Michael Cicchini protested the protest in stating that the Wisconsin bar "governors" did not express his ideas and violated people's Freedom of Speech rights when they urged upon the public not to criticize judges, public servants.

Time to separate political activities of the Wisconsin's organized bar from its regulatory activities - like Arizona attorneys are trying to do now?

As to criticism of judges - the legal profession's position in viciously attacking the President and calling criticism of another branch of the government, "coincidentally", the branch that controls the legal profession's own livelihood, is not only disingenuous - it is shamefully hypocritical.

It is like saying - have your free press, have your social media and blogging, let's use it at large to attack those we do not like, but, do not dare to bite the hand that feeds us.

Well, maybe, if the judiciary feeds and controls the legal profession, licensed attorneys, who may be disbarred or suspended - and many are - for criticism of judges, are not very believable in trying to persuade the public that criticizing a judge is somehow inappropriate and is an equivalent of an attack on the Constitution?

When you see dirt in your house, you clean it, not sweep it under the rug.

And that includes exposing and trying to bring accountability upon judges committing misconduct - the way the person criticizing a judge understands it.

Stifling criticism, with even the most benign of intentions never helped.

Here, intentions of the legal profession are far from benign - those are acts of faithful slaves protecting their masters.

Irresponsible instigators urge people to skip school or work to protest - again. And, when you are booted, do what?

Since the very beginning of President Trump's time in office, efforts were made by his political opponents to sabotage the presidency, by all means.

That organizers of sabotages were trying to accomplish that goal by:

1. a "Women's March" in Washington, D.C. on the day right after inauguration, where people were manipulated into participating and being counted as protesting "against Trump" while they were told while invited that the march was not going to be a protest against Trump;
2. by a series of frivolous lawsuits challenging a perfectly legal immigration order of the President, see, for example, the amicus brief of the State of Texas exhaustively explaining the applicable law on the subject, as well as an article by Garrett Snedeker is the deputy director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding;
3. by a series of "protests" when people walked out of jobs or out of school to protest President Trump or his appointees, like Betsy DeVos, the Minister of Education, and more protests like that are urged and disseminated by the so-called "liberal" news sources.

My question to instigators, or organizers of such protests is - who will return the skipped school time to those kids?

Who will protect parents in court when they are brought in for truancy of their children, even high school children - which is chargeable against the parents as child neglect?

Who will provide new jobs for people who lost theirs because they foolishly responded to these protests and skipped work?

CNN finally consulted with an expert about legality of "church sanctuaries"

Yesterday, I posted a blog on three issues:

1. that houses of worship in the United States do not have a legal right to provide "sanctuaries" to illegal aliens against application of federal immigration laws;
2. that when religious official in those house of worship do harbor such illegal aliens, they:
1. commit federal felonies; and
2. are asking to have their tax-exempt status revoked, which also means that donations to such organizations will also not be tax exempt.

Today, CNN took its collective head out, at least temporarily, from where it has been for quite some time, and consulted another legal expert who confirmed Nos. 1 and 2 on the above list.

Moreover, CNN described that people, including religious people, were arrested in the past for harboring illegal aliens.

Finally.  Reality starts to set in.

Arizona to attorneys for the condemned - bring your own drugs to kill your client

The death penalty in the U.S. is, likely, close to an end.

Many states already abolished the death penalty, many states that did not abolish it yet, suspended it given the amount of wrongful convictions, prosecutorial misconduct that caused such conviction - up to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Williams v Pennsylvania where the DA's office did not only obtain a death penalty by fraud, concealing Brady material and solicitation of perjury, but the DA who sought and obtained the death penalty by fraud used that conviction to get elected as a judge and blocked habeas corpus/appellate relief for the condemned prisoner 4 times.

Arizona invented an execution "protocol" which contains provisions so inhumane that you may wonder what was mentally wrong with people inventing it.

First, the protocol provides for a "contingency" - to revive the inmate, even with the help of defibrillators, if his heart stops (if he goes into a cardiac arrest) before the state has a chance to kill him.

  

Second, the "protocol" magnanimously "allowed", in fact, suggested, that attorneys for the condemned prisoners, PRODUCE the EXECUTION DRUGS to have their own clients EXECUTED.

No, I am not delirious.

Here are the relevant pieces of the protocol.

So.

At the time when

• death penalty states are boycotted by the international community and report "difficulties" to "obtain" drugs for execution, when
• the State of Missouri trying to use "secret pharmacies" to get such drugs were recently ordered by a court to reveal the name of such pharmacy;
• the State of Texas, even after purchasing such drugs, had them seized by FDA and had to go to court to get the drug back (which lawsuit, upon my information and belief, did not succeed yet still)

the State of Arizona expects as a way out of this "problem" to get the execution drugs from the unlikeliest of source - the condemned prisoner's ATTORNEYS, CAPITAL DEFENDERS who have a DUTY to FIGHT FOR their client's LIFE to the last SECOND of his or her life, are offered an "opportunity" to bring drugs to cause his DEATH?

Is it a thinly veiled threat that their clients have two "choices" - to go "peacefully" and painlessly, on their own "consent", with drugs provided by themselves, wherever they might find them - or suffer torture in execution?

That's the hint?

Are Arizona Corrections officials nuts?

They surely left their moral compass someplace.

The torturer of Muslims chosen by Muslims as a defender of Muslim rights. Oh, well...

On January 30, 2017 I have written about a Bill Clinton appointee, federal judge Leonie Brinkema from Virginia who, possibly upset because Hillary Clinton did not become president - which could lead to elevation of #LeonieBrinkema up the judicial ladder - defied immigration policy of President Trump by imposing a TRO (temporary restraining order) without an explanation of her legal grounds or reasoning.

2 weeks later, on February 13, 2017, Judge Brinkema extended the TRO in a longer opinion, with reasoning, but, seeing her reasoning now, it is clear why she did not want to put any reasoning into the initial #TRO - this reasoning simply did not hold water, and was advanced by Judge Brinkema obviously because now she is buttressed in believing that her lawless decision is good to go by the no less lawless decision from the 9th Circuit.

Here is Judge Brinkema's TRO, relying on the 9th Circuit decision, her previous TRO of February 3, 2017, and on a "declaration" of "impartial experts",

I will run a separate blog with the analysis of Judge Brinkema's masterpiece.  This blog I will dedicate to the "experts" upon whose "professional opinion" #JudgeBrinkema relied in unlawfully and unconstitutionally second-guessing President Trump's national security policy.

Here is that great team of "dignitaries".

• #MadeleineKAlbright - Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, husband of the presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who has lost the election; a personal friend of Hillary Clinton who supported her in her election campaign to the point of claiming that "there is a special place in hell for women who do not help each other"

a co-investor with George Soros, #JacobRotschild in a $350 million investment vehicle called #HeliosTowersAfrica, which intends to buy or build thousands of mobile phone towers in Africa;  In late October 2012, during a book signing in the Prague bookstore Palác Knih Luxor, Albright was reportedly visited by a group of activists from the Czech organization "#PřáteléSrbůnaKosovu". She was filmed saying "Disgusting Serbs, get out!" to the Czech group, which had brought war photos to the signing, some of which showed Serbian victims of the Kosovo War in 1999."

Watch this defender of human rights say "Get out, disgusting #Serbs!" when confronted, at her book signing, with pictures of war crimes from #Kosovo.

Either Albright was senile at the book-signing and was increasingly senile while supporting #Clinton - which is bad enough, or she has always been a xenophobic ... person ... who had some personal interest in her investments with #GeorgeSoros who, reportedly, had significant ties to people bent on sabotaging #DonaldTrump's presidency from its very start.

The next "dignitary" and "specialist" in national defense upon whose "declaration" Judge Leonie Brinkema, Bill Clinton's appointee, second-guessed President Trump's national security considerations is:

• #AvrilDHaines, Deputy Director of CIA from 2013 to 2015 and Deputy National Security Advisor under President Obama, the owner of a cafe and bookstore converted from a bar grabbed in a drug raid (I wonder whether any breaks were given to her in the purchase of that one) where she engaged in "literary readings" for the public, including erotica readings - fired as of January 20, 2017 by President Trump, which makes for a very neutral expert out of her within 2 weeks, on February 5, 2017, when she has signed the declaration in the lawsuit against the same President Trump;

• #MichaelVHayden - a retired General who served under President George W. Bush (who reportedly himself does not like President Trump), the former director of #NSA from 1999 to 2005 and the former Director of #CIA from 2006 to 2009, who retired 8 years ago and whose knowledge of the current national security situation is kind of rusty. 

General Hayden was quoted as saying in February of 2016, 7 years after his retirement, and without any access to classified information, that "Trump is Russia's useful fool".  So, General Hayden is a really neutral expert as to Trump, when he calls him a fool without any facts in hand.

So much for "expert neutrality".  Michael V. Hayden is also the one who has signed an order of torture by sleep deprivation and "liquid diet" of a #Muslim detainee #MuhammadRahimal-Afghani held without charges or due process by the U.S. Government; Michael Hayden "bitterly fought" the release of CIA #TortureMemos claiming that such release "would damage CIA morale without repair", and wrote an "unapologetically self-serving" memoir about himself where he quoted large portions from his own address to his university, and recalls a "standing ovation" to himself, so Hayden has a long self-praising memory.  Under Hayden's directorship NSA intercepted and kept metadata from telephone conversations of Americans, so he is a real fighter for human rights.

#JohnFKerry - Secretary of State under #FormerPresidentBarackObama, fired on January 20, 2017 as a result of the team change when President Trump came into office, and, likely also very bitter from not being able to continue with his government position of power.

Kerry signed the "declaration", as a "neutral expert" on national security, second-guessing the actual national security considerations of the person who fired him, within 16 days after he was fired, and while having no access any longer to the classified information that the President relied upon:

John Kerry, upon information and belief, always "served" the public in this or that capacity and never worked in private sector in his life.

John Kerry married well - to the heiress of the Ketchup empire #TeresaHeintz whose fortune was assessed 4 years ago at 1 billion dollars, but Kerry has his own fortune assessed at the same time at about 230 million dollars (Kerry's wife is 4 times richer than the not-so-poor Kerry himself), so Kerry is a true Democrat and is very much in touch with the aspirations of ordinary people. 

Kerry is known for his sincerity and truthfulness. 

For example, while fighting hard to "raise awareness" of climate change because of fossil fuels, John Kerry reportedly has from 3 to 6 million dollars worth of stocks of those same fossil fuel industries that are, according to John Kerry, causing the catastrophic climate change.

When John Kerry became Secretary of State in 2013, he announced with much fanfare that he will divest himself of some stocks to avoid conflicts of interest.

Obviously, owning those same stocks without putting them into "blind trusts" while John Kerry was a U.S. Senator, before he became the Secretary of State for President Obama, did not present a conflict of interest for him. 

John Kerry is an "old blue blood" who has never had to work to eat, and never did, he only played politics to get more power and more money for his family, and apparently has a tremendous sense of entitlement and now, of bitterness for losing his power.

Moreover, after doing the show of "divesting some stocks" due to "potential conflicts of interest" - a gesture that was then used by the pro-Clinton press to teach President Trump how to avoid conflicts of interest - John Kerry reportedly had President Obama funnel money through Peace Corps into a non-profit run by John Kerry's daughter, #DrVanessaKerry, into a program called "#SeedGlobalHealth".  

And that was not just small amounts, it was reportedly, millions of dollars given by President Obama to Dr. Vanessa Kerry's non-profit, without any announcements of conflicts of interests or ways to "avoid" them.  I wonder whether any "public bidding" was ever involved to get those funds.

It is apparent that not only John Kerry, but also his daughter and her non-profit lost large when President Obama left office and Hillary Clinton did not replace him, which cut off the cash flow from John Kerry who is so greedy that, even having millions of his own, and a billion in his wife's fortune, he did not waive his $174,000 senatorial salary, his salary as Secretary of State, and, instead, continued to funnel more money, to his daughter non-profit, instead of simply donating to his daughter for her "worthy causes".

So, John Kerry is a really, really impartial expert on matters of national security regarding the actions of President Trump.

So - when the super-rich and super-bitchy Madeline Albright, appointee of Bill Clinton, personal friend and supporter of Hillary Clinton, hater of the "disgusting Serbs", "co-investor" of George Soros and Jacob Rothschild, teamed up with the super-rich Ketchup/Seeds-of-Health Secretary of State John Kerry, appointee of Barack Obama, who was fired by Donald Trump 2 weeks prior to the signing of the declaration by these two, and by other "declarants", and when they team up with a self-loving torture-approving Trump-insulting General Hayden, that already is a very formidable team of completely neutral experts, as any objective reasonable observer, such as Judge Leonie Brinkema, should conclude.

But, there are more participants in this nice "declaration".

There is also a #JohnEMcLaughlin on the team of declarants in support of TRO against President Trump's executive order on immigration in Virginia federal district court.

who ended his service as a national security advisor 13 years ago, so his memory must also be just a little rusty, and he - at least hopefully - did not have access to the same classified information that President Trump had access to when he prepared his Executive Order at the end of January 2017.

John E. McLaughlin has allegedly briefed "president-elect Clinton" and George Bush.

John E. McLaughlin is famous for his defense of CIA against the 6,700 page "#TortureReport" which was "accidentally" destroyed by the CIA after it caused an international scandal. 

By the way, President Obama made sure that the Torture Report will not be made public for 12 years after he has left office - that is, unless President Trump will change President Obama's decision.

Here is what this kind-looking person John E. McLaughlin, supporter of Muslim immigrants before Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Virginia federal district court, told the U.S. Senate about the use of torture - while torture was used predominantly or, rather, exclusively on Muslims detained unlawfully, and not charged with any crimes:

Well, the American public is supposed to have access to the original document, but that document is destroyed by the CIA, so what is left is regurgitated and self-serving accounts from CIA officials like McLaughlin.

It is scary that McLaughlin says that he did not mislead the Department of Justice, the Senate and the White House - because it can very well imply that they knew what McLaughlin knew, and approved.

Look how McLaughlin, the current defender of unrestricted immigration from 7 Muslim countries that are hotbeds of radical Islamic terrorism right now, navigates around the word "torture" - of Muslims. 

It is an "ethical" and a "legal" concept for him, and the CIA would never have conducted torture, in his opinion, if not approved by their legal expert that what they were doing was completely constitutional.

John E. McLaughlin is, like John Kerry, a very forthcoming and truthful guy. 

Look, for example, how he answers a direct question whether detainees were sodomized or not ("rectally abused" in the actual question):

So, for once, since looking at torture pictures of illegally detained Islamic detainees is no different, in McLaughlin's view, than looking at pictures of innocent civilians killed by no less unlawful U.S. drone strikes, torture must be good and lawful.  Iron logic.


McLaughlin did not give a direct answer at all, he says that "you can find, in any wartime situation, some examples that are unpleasant to read about" - not that the situations were horrible, atrocious killings of innocent people without the beloved due process of law, but that it is simply "unpleasant to read about it".

And as to the allegedly "tough prosecutor" for the Department of Justice who allegedly did not find any "prosecutable offenses" in any cases of CIA torture reported to him - first, that says a lot about the prosecutor himself, and then, if he did, in all likelihood he would have lost his job. 

And look how John E. McLaughlin, this polite man with mild manners and soft speech, answers questions of a Congressman in a televised real time, and talks about his agency torturing people, torturing Muslims, who are illegally detained without any charges pending:

So, the 6,700 page torture report detailing that torture, in graphic detail, in fact, in detail so graphic that even the "classy" President Obama did not think that the American public is ready to see it - for another 12 years - a torture report so bad that CIA risked charges of contempt of Congress by "accidentally destroying it"  -  was not really describing torture, according to McLaughlin.

The report, according to McLaughlin, "overemphasized" "the degree to which there was something you would call brutality".

And here is how McLaughlin admits to what his agency had done to those illegally detained people, Muslims:

"we may have made a few terrorists uncomfortable for a short period of time in order to get information that we felt was essential to protect the United States".

So, if it was just the matter of making "a few terrorists" simply "uncomfortable", and "for a short period of time" - how come such measures are undertaken to not show the American public the exact extent of how "uncomfortable" those people were made?

And, apparently, for John E. McLaughlin, drowning, sleep deprivation for hours, exposure to heat and cold, "colon feeding" are just "uncomfortable" procedures in order to exact information for protection of the country.

But, John E. McLaughlin, who was now chosen by lawyers of immigrant Muslims to protect them in court, is a man who considers that sodomizing a person illegally arrested, seized and detained, kidnapped, without any legal charges, is completely legal, justifiable, and constitutional.

The next member of the team of "dignitaries" upon whose opinion Judge Brinkema relied while unlawfully second-guessing the President's immigration policy, was #LisaOMonaco,

Lisa O. Monaco was the freshly fired by President Trump on January 20, 2017. 

Same as John Kerry, Lisa O. Monaco, according to her biography, never worked in private sector, she only conveniently "served" the public where it is safe to do so for a lawyer - lawyers working for the government are never targeted by courts with sanctions for frivolous conduct, are never suspended or disbarred, as civil rights and criminal defense attorneys are, in alarming numbers.

Before President Trump was elected, when supporters of Hillary Clinton had no doubt that Hillary Clinton will be president in 2017, there were hints dropped that Lisa O. Monaco can be given a position in Hillary Clinton's administration - and it was cautiously mentioned that Lisa O. Monaco was once considered for the position of U.S. Attorney General.

There is nothing that makes a "neutral expert" better than being fired instead of promoted.

Lisa Monaco, no doubt, had clearance at the time before she was fired.

And, as part of that clearance, there is no doubt that Lisa Monaco, as well as all other members of the "declarant team", knew that she had no right whatsoever to disclose the contents of classified information she had access to without permission of the U.S. President - which she obviously never thought to seek.

Yet, she submits her freestyle musings about national security in a declaration, filed in open access on behalf of private parties, who are foreigners that came from countries with elevated threat of radical Islam terrorism.

It is interesting to mention that in 2014, Lisa O. Monaco was criticized, when she worked for Barack Obama as a national security advisor, of not being forthcoming in what exactly the country needs to be saved from the potential of radical Islamic terrorist attacks that racked Europe - that she would not say words "radical Islam" when warning parents to just "watch out" for "tendencies towards terrorism" in their children.

At that point, the critic of Lisa O. Monaco's speech, himself a Muslim, said that "you can't have national security by PR".

On top of being a national security adviser and having access to all information from around the world on ISIS terrorism, for Lisa O. Monaco, terrorism coming from radical Islam is also personal. 

Her own brother ran in the Boston Marathon while Lisa O. Monaco, reportedly, watched on the sides, so the horror of having a loved one subjected to a terrorist attack within the United States by radical Islamists cannot be lost on Lisa O. Monaco.

Yet, then, 3 years ago, during the "reign" of Barack Obama, Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy stated:

This criticism of Lisa O. Monaco for, essentially, subverting counter-terrorism work by failing to name the real problem, was published in 2014, long before Donald Trump has ever announced that he is going to run for presidency, in June of 2015.

At this time, the President prohibited entry into the country from 7 countries where radical Islamic terrorism is on the rise, and prohibited entry not of just Muslims, but by all people coming from those countries.

Lisa O. Monaco cannot misunderstand importance of additional vetting of immigrants coming from countries where identity records may not exist, and where even passports can be easily bought.

One does not have to have any clearance to read the news reports indicating that an ISIS bomber bought a Syrian passport to infiltrate into France, and conduct a terrorist attack there.

That is exactly what the President is trying to prevent, by simply delaying travel from problem countries to enhance the vetting process.

Yet, Lisa O. Monaco, a person whose brother very nearly escaped falling victim of an Islamic terrorist attack, a person during whose time in office the ISIS bombing in France occurred, when the terrorist came to France using a bought Syrian passport, Lisa O. Monaco, a lawyer is now lying to the court that no threats exist in people coming from those country - because of what, because Lisa O. Monaco is pissed she did not get a job from President Trump she was promised by the Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton?

It is apparent that Lisa O. Monaco is, indeed, an "apologist" who, according to #ZuhdiJasser, founder and president of the #AmericanIslamicForumforDemocracy, has been and now is putting obstacles in creating true counter-terrorist protection in the country, now by thwarting President Trump's immigration policy, trying to prevent the work that needs to be done - simply because she may be upset that she did not get promotions she wanted from Hillary Clinton, and that, ladies and gentlemen, in my personal view, is treason.

#LeonEPanetta - yet another appointee of Barack Obama who missed the gravy train with the new administration of Donald Trump coming into office.  Leon E. Panetta was part of the management of the American intelligence community at the time, according to #EdwardSnowden, his employees were spying on the American people.  Now Leon Panetta is fiercely protecting human rights against the "bad" President of the United States who is taking lawful steps to ensure national security.

#MichaelJMorell - the appointee of President Obama who was at the wheel of intelligence activities when Edward Snowden exposed the American intelligence community for illegally spying on American people.  Now Michael J. Morell, obviously, is the truthful and forthcoming fighter for human rights - and he is even more truthful that he did not receive any positions in the new administration of President Trump.

#JanetANapolitano - has retired from her position of the Secretary of Homeland Security for Barack Obama 4 years ago, so she does not have anything reliable to say as to considerations of President Trump as of end of January 2017, but lack of evidence and lack of authority to disclose information that she did have access to, did not stop her.

Janet Napolitano's rise into government, and into power, started with representation of #AnitaHill claiming sexual harassment by the #USSupremeCourt justice #ClarenceThomas, the only African American judge on that court - as a result of investigation, though, Justice Thomas was not impeached and kept his position.

In 1993 Janet Napolitano was appointed as a U.S. Attorney General for the District of Arizona, which was her first job in the government that started her powerful career.

The appointment was by President Bill Clinton, husband of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump's opponent in presidential races.

Janet Napolitano was also appointed, more recently, to the position of Secretary of Homeland Security, by Barack Obama, and, even though she did not serve in his second term in office, she apparently retained some warm feelings for the two presidents that helped spearhead her career.

#SusanERice is a yet another freshly-fired national security advisor of former President Barack Obama.

The value of Susan E. Rice as a "neutral professional expert" to be used in a civil rights litigation is that she has been known to come unprepared to an TV interview on behalf of President Obama's administration and instead of Hillary Clinton who chose not to make what could be used as incriminating statements against her about Benghazi, and to lie on behalf of Hillary Clinton and President Obama's administration.

Here is what Rice, reportedly, did that earned her an eternal gratitude of Hillary Clinton and President Obama - and a position in President Obama's administration, until she was booted by President Trump.

Very likely, Rice, after having "taken the fall" for Hillary Clinton, and did not let her down in the ensuing months of congressional investigation on Benghazi, she must have been offered a very lucrative position in Hillary Clinton's administration - which, obviously, tanked when Donald Trump, and not Hillary Clinton, was elected president.

For these stellar qualities - being able to

• blunder in front of international TV crews,
• take a fall for her seniors in front of the entire world, and
• lie without compunction -

Susan A. Rice was, apparently, kept in her position as a national security advisor by President Obama until she was booted by the new President on January 20, 2017.

All the above conduct and circumstances make Susan E. Rice a prime, neutral, impartial, diligent and professional expert against President Trump on the issue of national security.

As I said at the beginning of this blog, Bill Clinton appointee, Judge Leonie Brinkema, found arguments of this "professional" crew of "truthful" and "neutral" "experts" irresistible and granted the extension of TRO without much reliance on applicable precedent, her analysis was similar to the 9th Circuit's recent analysis, in a case where the 9th Circuit, a court with multiple disqualifying conflicts of interest, clearly fixed the case against Donald Trump.

I will publish analysis of Judge Brinkema's reasoning in a separate blog, this blog I put in first, as a background to show how truthful the facially neutral legalese of Judge Brinkema actually was.

Which brings me to the most important question.

Do we have a rule of law in this country?

Or do we have a rule of men - and women? 

• The higher the pedigree,
• the richer,
• the more connection they have or cite,
• no matter what horrible things are in their past and
• what actual record of untruthfulness and conflicts of interest of their own they have to come and act as "truthful" experts in spite and retaliation

a "court of law" will rule in their favor?

That's "the rule of law" that is being celebrated in the media and social media alike?

Seriously?