#NewYorkattorneyCesarVargas and his girlfriend #ErikaAndiola, both illegal aliens, should be deported for violation of criminal law, despite their political connections

This is New York attorney Cesar Adrian Vargas

who in 2016 has become the first illegal alien to have received a law license in New York.

Attorney Cesar Vargas' way to the bar was long, difficult and stealthy.

He has come to this country as a 5-year-old child - his illegal alien mother Teresa Golando has brought him and his siblings into the U.S. in 1989, according to a court case.

Cesar Vargas then used public money in the following way:

1. he went to a public school in Brooklyn - by coincidence, to the same one from which U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has graduated;
2. he then went to St. Francis College in Brooklyn; then
3. he went to CUNY Law School, a state school, using a scholarship from the school's "private fund".

He interned with:

1. a provider of legal services to the poor;
2. Kings County District Attorney's office - I wonder how an organization with a duty to prosecute crimes agreed to have an illegal alien to help prosecuting crimes;
3. an unnamed New York Supreme Court judge - I am going to verify the name through a FOIL request;
4. an unnamed U.S. Senator - I am going to verify the name through a FOIA request.

Cesar Vargas graduated from law school in 2011, and passed the bar in the same year.

He then applied for admission to the bar, was cleared by the Character Committee of the 2nd Department on all points but that he is an illegal alien.

By the way, reportedly, multiple "politically prominent" individuals supported his admission to the bar - I am verifying their names now through a FOIL request.

The Character Committee transferred the case to be decided by the court, the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division 2nd Department.

Cesar Vargas, date of birth September 1983, admittedly got into the United States as an innocent child in 1989.

Yet, he became an adult in 2001, and from then on he violated immigration law for years while continuing to receive public benefit from various organizations - public school, college, law school, internships.

Only after he received all of those benefits, and when he was turned down for bar admission because he was an illegal alien, did he apply to the federal government for the deferred deportation status, as a DREAMer child.

The court has ruled in his favor in 2015    

Cesar Vargas was admitted to the bar in 2016, and CUNY law school celebrated his admission as the first "DREAMer" child and CUNY alumnus.

Yet, the DREAMer act does not create an immigration status - as the court recognized in 2015 - but only delays deportation by 2 years, with subsequent 2 year extensions, as a matter of federal prosecutorial discretion that can be revoked at any time.

While ruling in favor of Cesar Vargas

• that his illegal alien status, and
• violating immigration law for 11 years since he turned 18 and still remained, as an adult, illegally in the country, and
• that he applied for a deferred deportation status only because continuing to be an illegal alien without such a deferred deportation status hurt his career, making him an unscrupulous opportunist, 

does not make him unfit to be a lawyer and to uphold the law as an officer of the court,

the court obviously overlooked that New York Legislature already made a choice on that issue - whether a professional license in New York may be given to an illegal alien - by clearly indicating that realtor licenses can only be issued to a U.S. citizen or a green-card holder:

   

Thus, the 2nd Department practically invited lawsuits from

• illegal aliens,
• illegal aliens with deferred deportation status, like Cesar Vargas, and
• legal aliens who are not legal permanent residents and who want to obtain professional real estate licenses for denial equal protection of laws, as compared to a lawyers, a privileged group, because law licenses are regulated and issued by courts, the same courts who issue licenses as administrative agencies and adjudicate issues relating to their own authority as courts.

By the way, Vargas' court case was litigated and decided in 2015, under the Obama administration, and the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief which reflected President Obama's policy - OPPOSING Mr. Vargas' admission to the bar.

The only reason why the court decided in Vargas' favor - and decided, interestingly, not for ALL professional licenses (because, I bet, they knew that they cannot amend the existing statute about realtor licenses), but only narrowly, for law licenses - because the court was pissed that the federal law required specifically the legislature to opt-out of federal law prohibiting states to give public benefits to illegal aliens.

The court ruled that, since New York Legislature delegated the rule-making (not statutory) authority to courts in regulating law licenses, federal government, under the 10th Amendment, may not "commandeer" which branch of the government would express the opting out for a particular law license.

So, for all other professional law licenses in New York, a Legislative action will be required to allow them to possess professional licenses, and for lawyers - courts conveniently, and quickly, provided such an opting out, in excess of delegated authority.

The rule-making authority in attorney admission matters that the 2nd Department court was so proudly speaking of was given only to the New York State Court of Appeals, not to its subordinate 2nd Department, that was somehow overlooked by the 2nd Department in its zeal.

By the way, one of the judges on the deciding panel for Cesar Vargas was Judge Peter Skelos, brother of Dean Skelos, the former Majority Leader of New York State Senate who quickly disappeared from the bench after that ruling in search of a cozier position, while his brother was convicted for fraud in federal court.

So, some of the "insight" of that panel can be understood by the presence of this figure of questionable integrity - if he measured Cesar Vargas taking himself as a model of integrity, one can understand why he allowed Cesar Vargas to get licensed as an attorney, while Cesar Vargas has proven to the court that he has a history of disregarding the law, including his conviction for trespassing in Iowa. 

It is interesting what happened after attorney Vargas was admitted to the bar in 2016:

First, attorney Vargas joined the presidential campaign of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders as a "National Outreach Latino Strategist", raising the question whether U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who graduated from the same high school as Vargas, helped attorney Vargas in his admission to the bar to then use him as a banner in his election campaign - an opportunistic tit-for-tat arrangement for both of them.

Sanders' sudden opportunistic warming up to the issue of loosening all restrictions on illegal immigration into the U.S. is actually contrary to his own vote record back in 2007:

Second, when Bernie Sanders did not make it even as a Democratic nominee for President, and especially when President Trump got elected, attorney #CesarVargas became an instigator of the #UndocumentedUnafraid "movement" - provoking illegal aliens to parade their illegal alien status and claim their non-existing "right" to remain in the U.S., the country where they came illegally.

While himself being neither undocumented - he has at least a deferred deportation status as a "DREAMer" - nor "unafraid" - look at his attorney registration, Vargas did not even indicate any contact address on it:



I had to FOIL the New York State Court administration for his registration address, here it is:

Here is attorney Vargas contact address that he is NOT showing on his attorney registration website, as required by attorney disciplinary rules:

Here is what Zillow has to say about that address:

Apparently, attorney Vargas shares that 2,000 square feet single family home - by some sources - with 12 other "current residents", and, judging by New York State attorney registration website, with at least one other attorney, also admitted in 2016, who is not afraid to put his registration address into his online information - as required by law:

It is interesting that Google search of attorney Campbell's "DRM Capitol Group" leads to this organization - the brainchild of attorney Vargas:

While the website is obviously frozen in time as of pre-President Trump's election, it gives an interesting insight as to role distribution in the "coalition" "led" by Vargas:

Vargas is "in coalition with" his own two brothers, his own girlfriend, his classmate and current roommate and two friends, and presents that "coalition" as a national force to be reckoned with.

The "coalition" includes:

1) Himself, whom he modestly characterizes as "a nationally recognized leader and innovator at the forefront of the groundbreaking DREAM movement" - whose "groundbreaking" "leadership" did not allow his presidential candidate even to make to Democratic nomination;

2) his own brother Carlos Vargas - also an illegal alien who also reportedly has a deferred deportation status

3) His brother John Carlo Vargas

whose immigration status is unknown, but who also reportedly availed himself of the benefit of education in a New York public state college:

"Mr. Vargas has been behind DRM’s creative media. He will oversee a team in coordinating state and national marketing campaigns.  He has launched successful campaigns for NYC small businesses enabling them to grow in new markets. He has extensive marketing and new media experience and is well versed in managing online marketing campaigns. Mr. Vargas is a graduate of the City University of New York obtaining a double major in Marketing Design & Econometrics".

4) Another #UndocumentedUnafraid instigator - Cesar Vargas' girlfriend Erika Andiola, who, same as Cesar Vargas himself, has a criminal record:

"Erika Andiola is a former Congressional Staffer for Arizona Congresswoman, Kyrsten Sinema and co-founder of the DRM Action Coalition. Erika started her community organizing experience when she co-founded the Arizona Dream Act Coalition. She then served in the National Coordinating Committee and the Board of Directors for the United We Dream Network. Her personal struggle as an undocumented woman herself, with an undocumented family, has given her the drive and the passion to keep fighting for immigrant rights".

Here is where it is mentioned that Andiola is Cesar Vargas's girlfriend:

who mother, also an illegal alien, faced deportation in 2013.


5) Another member of the Vargas "coalition" Cesar Vargas law school classmate and current roommate Ryan Campbell:

Ryan Campbell appears to be a hard-core supporter of Cesar Vargas - to the point that, after graduating from law school in 2011, he only got admitted to practice law in 2016, same as Vargas, apparently deferring his admission by 5 years to wait for his friend, while writing these kind of pieces for "The Huntington Post":

"Obama Caves On Crazies On Immigration" - prominently starting with a quote from Erika Andiola who admitted that she has been participating in not simply peaceful protests, but in impeding the administration of federal laws, stopping deportation buses.

Of course, giving the requested "relief for our families" was the equivalent of President Obama's legitimizing presence in the country and right to work of 11 million people who got their illegally, which would have been a betrayal of his voters.

Ryan Campbell also authored this piece:

"Obama’s Legacy: #GoBigObama vs. #DeporterInChief"

In this particular article, Campbell supported yet another Vargas - I was unable to verify whether he was a relative of Cesar Vargas since his country of origin (Philippines) and the story of coming to the U.S. is different from Cesar Vargas's:

So, while the push for DACA - an exercise of federal prosecutorial discretion, not an Act of Congress, there is no such act at present - was to spare innocent children who could not be blamed for their parents coming into the country illegally and bringing them in illegally - DACA then was used by "activists" like Ryan Campbell and his illegal alien friends to justify further expansion of "exemption" to their parents, adults who consciously violated federal immigration laws and illegally crossed the border into this country - of course, "to give a better life" to themselves and their children, but still in violation of federal laws.

As to Jose Antonio Vargas, the man Ryan Campbell advocates in his article, his situation is not the same as the situation of illegal alien parents coming to the country and bringing with them illegal alien children, who then got breaks through DACA and continue to push for breaks for their illegal alien parents while violating criminal law - like attorney Cesar Vargas and his girlfriend Erika Andiola, even though #RyanCampbell tries to link Jose Antonio Vargas with DACA in his piece. 

Jose Antonio Vargas he appears to be the victim of his own family's neglect, I do not know the story as to why his immigration status was not properly adjusted by adults - he came into the country in 1993 at the age of 12 to stay with his U.S. citizen grandparents.

In my personal view, Jose Antonio Vargas would be entitled to a break simply because his grandparents were U.S. citizens and could, but did not, properly adjust his immigration status when he came to live with them as a child.

Yet, Jose Antonio Vargas reportedly used false documents - that is a crime of identity fraud - "to help him avoid deportation", and that is already a violation of the law, which is, possibly, why immigration authorities do not have sympathy to him.

In an identical situation, President Obama did not have much sympathy to a man who was adopted out of South Korea by U.S. citizen parents at the age of 3, but whose parents did not adjust his status to a U.S. citizen, and who have been convicted of a crime.

I don't believe that Jose Antonio Vargas will get sympathy from the Trump administration after he, reportedly, used fraudulent papers "to avoid deportation" back to the Philippines and his parents, in view of the just-announced policy of the Trump administration to make it a priority to deport ANY illegal aliens (DREAMers or not) who have committed a crime:

6) another illegal alien member of the Vargas "coalition" with an - alleged - deferred deportation status is a "DREAMer" Hina Naveed to whom the State of New York Department of Education issued a professional nursing license in violation of federal law 8 USC 1601 requiring that only a legislative act of the state government is enough to opt out of federal prohibition to the states to give to illegal aliens any benefits

Hina Naveed was able to receive a professional license/certification of registered nurse despite her undocumented status:

Obviously, the Board of the Department of Education violated federal statutory law by allowing Naveed to have a professional nursing license without a proper opting-out procedure through the Legislature - same as the 2nd Department court did for Cesar Vargas.

Naveed once said this about President Obama:

7) Erick Garcia

"Mr. Garcia is the DREAM Action Coalition’s Webmaster and Technology Coordinator. His responsibilities vary from maintaining DREAM Action’s master website, implementing new technologies, develop microsites; coordinate the use of technology to connect DREAM Action with the community. He is in charge of moving the DREAM Action Coalition forward in this fast pace tech environment to fulfill the needs of our movement. He graduated from Arizona State University with a B.S.E in Computer Systems Engineering."

Erick Garcia appeared to have stopped moving the DREAM Action Coalition forward at any pace when President Trump was elected - judging by the contents of the website today, or have dropped out of the "coalition".

Here is the picture of the "DRM Coalition" from its Twitter account:

featuring the illegal alien Teresa Golando and her two illegal alien sons, Carlos Vargas and attorney Cesar Vargas.

As to the fearless allegedly undocumented and allegedly unafraid attorney Cesar Vargas, why does attorney #RyanThomasCampbell put their common address on his registration website and attorney Vargas doesn't, even though it is kept on file by the New York State Court Administration and is released to inquirers on FOIL requests - but not listed for all to see on his attorney registration page?

Might it be because there may be more illegal aliens in that house than Mr. Vargas, whose deferred deportation status may have been prolonged - by the way, I filed a FOIA request with USCIS about his current immigration benefits, as well as all the history of obtaining and prolonging deferred deportation statuses.

It is obvious, nevertheless that, despite claiming that he is #UndocumentedUnafraid,



Mr. Vargas knows that he is neither strictly undocumented, nor unafraid when he gets on virtual barricades to safely instigate fellow illegal aliens into trouble that can get them deported.

But, he does not publish even his official attorney registration address, because he apparently IS afraid - at the very least, for his mother who is likely still an "undocumented immigrant", or, in the language of the law, an illegal alien.

Understandable fear, but then

• why Attorney Vargas, who is also an illegal alien with a deferred deportation status, and
• who very well knows that
• when President Trump announced a policy of enhanced immigration enforcement,
• it is dangerous for any illegal alien to publicly describe themselves as #UndocumentedUnafraid - it is an invitation to immigration authorities to come, seize and deport that person

why attorney Vargas so irresponsibly "inspires" people with his false claim of being undocumented and unafraid to do the same - and get into trouble that can get them deported?

Why is he inviting other people to do that - while knowing that he himself is protected - by his attorney status, by his deferred deportation status, by his connections in the government up to the top?

Doesn't he understand that he will be unable to represent all people who he so cavalierly called to reveal their status - and who will then be seized and deported?

Doesn't he understand, as a lawyer, that calling upon people to take pride in violation of immigration law is, for him as an attorney, a violation of his oath of office where he claimed he will be upholding the law, not calling upon people to continue to proudly violate it (as he did I the past, for years)?

In 2015, based on assurances of Cesar Vargas and his prominent political supporters, Attorney Vargas was given a tremendous advance in trust by the New York court:

The court believed Mr. Vargas's and his "politically prominent" supporters that Mr. Vargas, as an attorney, will be able to:

• defend his clients' interests within the bounds of the law; and
• protect, as an officer of the court, the rule of law and the administration of justice.

Instead, after being elevated into the position of an attorney and officer of the court, Mr. Vargas:

• violates disciplinary rules by not publishing his contact address, thus indicating that he is not practicing law; and
• instead of protecting the rule of law, as an officer of the court, he calls upon people from rooftops - his Twitter account - to continue to openly violate federal immigration law, as he himself did for years before his career required him to acquire at least some status allowing him to at least stay and work in the U.S., for some time.

Isn't such behavior, calling upon people who are already violating immigration law, to continue to do that, openly and proudly - a violation of rules of professional conduct as an attorney and violation of Mr. Vargas' oath of office to help UPHOLD the rule of law, not to take it down, as he is trying to do now?

My opinion - Mr. Vargas should be disbarred.

And deported.

Because no matter what oaths he takes, he breaks them, and calls upon others to break the law.

By the way, his call to break the law, and proudly so, was heard - his girlfriend and colleague on #BernieSanders' presidential campaign, #ErikaAndiola also proudly announces her #UndocumentedUnafraid status to others - I wonder if she, same as attorney Vargas, is concealing her address and whereabouts, as well as has at least some documented status while calling upon people to get into trouble and get deported - so that Vargas and Andiola will be able to stage an outcry about that:






As I said, provocateurs and unscrupulous opportunists.

And an insolent provocateur at that, look what Vargas says on his Twitter account:

Attorney Vargas is teaching President Trump that he is not above the law - while calling upon illegal aliens to proudly and openly violate the law.

Yet, while Vargas is spreading his false #UndocumentedUnafraid provocations and teaches the President of the United States (who can yank his own deferred deportation status at any time, by the way, which the President should consider doing in Vargas' case), "undocumented immigrants", illegal aliens are actually taking cover.

Not that good at "outreach", is he?

Young people want a better life - I understand that.

They want education and advancement in life - I understand that.

But, there are a lot of people born in this country and who came to this country legally who do not get opportunities that illegal aliens with deferred deportation status get - they cannot get the "DREAMER" scholarships to go to good state schools with reduced tuition rate, they do not get to be advanced in their career by politicians who use them as a banner for self-promotion.

The deferral of deportation program for people who came into the U.S. illegally as children is not an act of Congress.

It is simply an executive order by President Obama, one that President Trump did not cancel yet.

And, while President Trump is being accused of being too tough o illegal immigration, here is an article about President Obama's stance on illegal immigration, the article was published before inauguration of President Trump and before his own executive orders on immigration:

DACA ("DREAMer" exemptions, deferred deportations for young people who came to the U.S. illegally as children) remains an executive order, and, as the court in Cesar Vargas's case mentioned, an exercise of federal prosecutorial discretion.

The deferred deportation status must be renewed every two years.

People should not really complain that their lives are "on hold", like Hina Naveed does.

They remained in the country illegally, and are given multiple gifts, some at taxpayers' expense:

• to remain in the country;
• to be given, at least temporarily, right to work - what many other illegal immigrants are not allowed;
• to receive free education at public expense;
•  to receive higher education paid by scholarships.

They should be grateful for these gifts.

If they are not, if they call upon other illegal aliens to proudly flaunt their illegal immigration status, there is one remedy for it - next time their deferred deportation status is up for renewal, simply deny it.  As a matter of prosecutorial discretion.  On a case by case basis.

We have enough problems in this country to have illegal aliens who were granted a reprieve considering that they have come to this country illegally as children stir up in all illegal aliens a sense of entitlement to remain in this country.

Such attitude encourages illegal immigration, encourages people to disrespect and disregard federal laws, and then any laws.

That is unacceptable.

And, I have the last question.

This is Erika Andiola's story about her initial education, and struggle to find work in Arizona:

So, "Arizona passed laws affecting immigrants", and, "with employers afraid to hire the undocumented, she hasn't been able to find a job" - and Andiola also had an illegal alien brother and mother.

By the way, Arizona's state laws were not only affecting Andiola's possibility to get a job - Arizona made it a misdemeanor for an alien to even BE within the state without legal immigration papers.

But, she disregarded that law and somehow engaged in "activism" risking arrest, criminal record and deportation? 

She does not have a job, but she has time, opportunity and money for transportation, food and shelter to show up at different places to protest?  Block deportation buses - thus impeding immigration law?




First in Arizona, now in New York where she obviously moved to escape Arizona state laws prohibiting to BE within the state while being an illegal immigrant?

My question is - was her participation in protests a paid job?

With Vargas not practicing law (at least, that is what his attorney registration shows), who pays for his travels and activism?

Are these all paid protesters?

Once again - who pays for one group of young illegal aliens, educated at public expense in the U.S., to stir up trouble and make all illegal aliens believe they are entitled to stay in the country where they have come across the border illegally?

President Obama introduced DACA as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, but, while deporting millions (see Hani Naveen complaining about it above), and opposing the giving of professional licenses to illegal aliens who have no federal authorization to work anywhere in the U.S. (as the Obama administration did in opposition to giving a law license to an illegal alien Sergio Garcia who illegally remained in the country for 19 years while his father's application for immigrant visa was pending), President Obama's administration did nothing to those who violated the law after being given a generous break by the federal government and allowed to stay in the country.

Moreover, President Obama's administration has repeatedly given extensions of DACA (deferred deportation) exemptions to people who broke criminal law, such as former staffers of presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, attorney Cesar Vargas who has gotten a criminal conviction and probation sentence in Iowa, and such as his girlfriend and "coalition" member Erika Andiola who has a misdemeanor conviction.


That is about to change under President Trump whose announced policy is to deport all illegal aliens who have committed crimes - and that would include attorney Cesar Vargas and his girlfriend Erika Andiola who both have criminal records.



Naturally, Cesar Vargas is not happy about that.

And, naturally, he omitted to mention his personal interest and grudge against the three presidents he has criticized yesterday, calling President Trump's deportation police of illegal aliens as "deportation force on steroids".

Watch how he switches topics - first, he acknowledges that President Trump gave a deportation priority to those illegal aliens who committed crimes - and that would include attorney Cesar Vargas himself and his girlfriend Erika Andiola.

But Cesar Vargas does not mention that sticky situation and instead goes on an attack accusing the President of, basically, lying in his policy announcement and of having instead a bad faith purpose of "deporting veterans and families of those veterans".

Do we need in this country an illegal alien who

• came here illegally (even though as a child);
• stayed here illegally, for years, after he became an adult;
• obtained multiple free benefits at the expense of taxpayers (including those taxpayers who paid school taxes for his public school at the threat of losing their homes if they could not or did not pay);
• repeatedly obtained leniency from deportation from the federal government, and yet
• committed a crime, and
• continues to lie and, likely, commit federal felonies of harboring or transporting an illegal alien - his mother - in order to avoid her deportation?

Or, will he now claim an attorney privilege as to his  against such reporting?

Yes, it is his mother.

It is horrible to have such a burden on your hands as to having to decide whether to keep a law license or subject your own mother who brought you into the country to deportation.

But, nobody cancelled criminal laws in this country, and Cesar Vargas is flaunting the "rule of law" into the President's face while himself committing crimes.

And, nobody made Cesar Vargas to take that oath of office to uphold all laws, state and federal, when he became an attorney. 

He fought for that right in court, together with his illegal alien mother.  He won.  He knew the consequences.

Those lawyers who commit felonies should be automatically disbarred.

And those who commit crimes while being illegal aliens should also be deported.

Without exception for political connections.

Can federal employment be conditioned on watching "sensitivity training" videos despite an impeccable performance on the job?

An administrative judge Gary Suttles, of Social Security Administration, was fired for refusing to watch a 17-minute LGBT-awareness video.

The judge was on the job for 12 years, obviously without a disciplinary record, and stated in an e-mail that he treats everybody equally and with respect.

Apparently, that was not enough for him to keep his job.

He was fired - and sued the federal government.

A lawyer specializing in such issues reportedly stated in an interview about this case:

""If it's a requirement in the job in terms of training, you ought to take it," he said, "and if you really feel that strongly about it you can say, 'I won't take it, but I will recuse myself if the people in court fall into this protected group.'"

I disagree.

An employer, especially when the employer is the federal government, may not order just any training, the training must be related to the job performance, and must be related to the particular problems in the job performance.

A desire to simply "raise cultural awareness" is not enough to jam certain training down people's throats.

In this case, the judge clearly stated that he treats everybody in his courtroom with equal respect, and thus there were no reasons to fire him.

Political issues aside, the question here is:

• if an employee does his job;
• did not commit misconduct, and
• did not commit discrimination of any kind while on the job

can he be fired for simply refusing to watch "cultural awareness" training videos - once again, if he never discriminated against anyone for any reason and if he pledges to treat everybody equally and with respect, which is what the duty of a judge presupposes?

Can such "discrimination awareness videos" be regarded as asking from the judge to give MORE regard to members of the LGBR community instead of being neutral and impartial and treat everybody as equal under the law?

I will follow this lawsuit and report the outcome on this blog.

Stay tuned.

An Arkansas lawyer was disciplined in South Carolina for hiring private investigators who did their jobs well, for conduct allowed in Georgia, Arkansas and by the American Bar Association

It is a well known fact that the police is allowed to lie to the subject of its investigation in order to obtain information.

And, the police is often working under the guidance of an attorney - the state or county prosecutor guiding the investigation.

I have never read about a prosecutor disciplined in any state for directing the police to lie to a suspect in order to elicit information.

In fact, in the police training lying to the suspect, or "duplicity and pretense" are paraded as legitimate interrogation and investigation techniques.

Yet, in a case with apparent equal protection problems, a private attorney was just disciplined by the State of South Carolina for doing exactly the same.

An Arkansas attorney Cecil Duff Nolan, Jr. allegedly hired and sent into South Carolina private investigators who lied to suspects in order to collect information.

Here is what the attorney was disciplined for:

Ok, where do I begin.

First, South Carolina, as far as I know, does not have a criminal statute prohibiting surreptitious telephone recording when one party to the recorded telephone conversation gives consent to the recording.

And, without such a statute, there is no right to regard such recording as a crime.

Moreover, South Carolina courts, also as far as I know, adhere to federal rules regarding surreptitious telephone recording, which is a one-person consent statute - so, if the investigators gave themselves consent to record a conversation they participated in, their conduct was lawful.

As to impersonating somebody else - here, posing as a customer or potential customer - and "prodding", or, rather, asking about products, how else does the court think an investigation can be conducted, just walk through the front door, introduce yourself as a private investigator, "honestly" (or, rather, stupidly) say what you are investigating and why, and expect to receive honest answers to your questions?

By this disciplining decision South Carolina in effect prohibited its attorneys to hire investigators at all - because what private investigators did in this case is their usual investigation techniques and practices.

Nor are any "third party rights" violated.

The investigators were actually investigating potential infringement of somebody's intellectual rights.  There is no "third party right" to be free from an investigation into your own misconduct - because this is what South Carolina disciplinary decision implies.

So, on the one hand, "...over the last 35 years courts have upheld countless confessions even though the investigator lied to the suspect during an interview or interrogation. In most of these cases the investigator made false statements about being in possession of evidence that implicated the suspect in the crime e.g., eye-witness, fingerprint, DNA, etc."

And that is in criminal cases, where consequences of such lying by investigators are dire.

Yet, investigators lying to the suspect in the exact same manner, or worse, as an attorney's private investigators in a civil case were - impersonating somebody else, asking some questions as if they were customers and not investigators - somehow results in discipline.

Now what?

South Carolina attorneys will not be hiring investigators for fear of discipline?

Or, private investigators will suddenly turn stupid and start presenting themselves to people under their investigation as private investigators?

For example, this private investigator who was sharing online some of his tricks and success stories:

I doubt that the private investigator or his staff member just marched to the ex-wife and asked her - what is your extra source of income that you do not want to reveal to your husband with whom you are involved in a child support battle?  Because, otherwise, that private eye would not have gotten the information he actually did get.

Since it was for a court case, I wonder if the attorney or party who hired him was sanctioned by the court for not being honest with the ex-spouse who was concealing her income from the court and the ex-husband - or, in other words, involved in misconduct, as the disciplined attorney suspected the defendant company was, in infringing his client's intellectual property rights.

All that the disciplining South Carolina court achieved is that people will first hire investigators and, only after investigators conclude their investigation, will hire an attorney, or will engage in any other tricks to simply separate and shield the attorney from the knowledge that an investigator was hired by the party, and that will be the end of it.

The court pretended it legitimately imposed discipline, the attorney accepted a light discipline in order to keep his license no matter whether discipline was fair or legitimate or not, and the bar at large will continue to do the exact same thing, making more precautions against getting caught.

There is one word to describe this disciplinary decision.

Stupid.

My next question would be - who was the defendant in that intellectual property infringement case, and what kind of connections did the defendant have, what kind of strings were pulled to use taxpayer money to commence a disciplinary prosecution on such a stupid subject in the first place, and to bring it to imposition of attorney discipline, second?

The disciplinary case indicates that the court case that has led to discipline was initially commenced in a federal court in Georgia in 2009.

The only case filed in 2009 that Pacer.gov, the official registry of federal court cases, has with attorney Cecil Duff Nolan, Jr. as attorney of record, is this case, for alleged unauthorized use of PVP protected oat seeds.

Here is the full complaint filed in that case:

The only problem that I see with South Carolina case is that the disciplinary case states that the federal case was removed from a federal court in Georgia to South Carolina.

Yet, the docket of the case shows that the case was not removed, but was dismissed with prejudice on stipulation of parties.

To me, this disciplinary case appears to be quite mysterious.

There is, once again, only one case filed in federal court in Georgia in 2009 with Cecil Duff Nolan, Jr. as an attorney of record.  It is, indeed, an intellectual property infringement case where the complaint mentions that the defendants were located in the State of Georgia, but some of them could be located "in other states".

Was it the correct case, was attorney Cecil Duff Nolan Jr. an attorney of record in that federal case, or only in the "removed" case in South Carolina, I do not know.

If he was, the case was not removed.

If he wasn't attorney of record in federal court before the mysterious removal, and only represented the plaintiff in a state court proceeding, it may be a different case.  South Carolina disciplinary opinion does not identify the case, or the name of the client and the client's opponent in that litigation, which extremely confuses the issue - because, once again, the disciplinary decision is so nonsensical that the only plausible explanation for it that it was made for the so-called "extrajudicial reasons" - not for the reasons stated in the decision, but because of some political connections.

In other words, that the disciplinary case was fixed.  To me, that a disciplinary case against an attorney, and especially an out-of-state attorney, was fixed, is not at all a surprise.

It is even more interesting that, as attorney Nolan has reportedly stated in an interview about the case, Georgia law controlled, and in Georgia, his behavior is totally permissible, as well as under ABA rules.

Yet, the mystery is - why? Who pulled the strings and for what reason?  And what power that "somebody" has over the South Carolina Supreme Court and its disciplinary counsel?

I will appreciate tips from readers as to whether the case I found on Pacer.gov is the correct case for which attorney Nolan was punished or not.  As I said, the case I provided here is the only one filed in a federal court in the State of Georgia in 2009 with attorney Nolan as the attorney of record.

And, my question remains - was attorney Cecil Duff Nolan, Jr. disciplined because he was a very good out-of-state trial attorney

who obtained really damaging evidence with the help of private investigators against somebody who had influence upon South Carolina Supreme Court?