"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Saturday, May 15, 2021

The New York "confederate flag" custody decision - what was that?

I have taken my time to post my comments regarding the New York child custody decision where the Appellate Court ruled based on a confederate flag painted on a rock located on the property rented by the mother.

Read news media articles regarding this decision - but did not find what is most essential in this decision that is plain to any attorney who has handled 1. Family court custody cases and 2. appellate cases (and I did both).

First of all, there are certain rules in Family Court and in the Appellate Court that courts simply MUST follow - and which were not followed in this decision.

Rule # 1 - dealing with pro se parties

  • the court MUST be super-cautious when dealing with a pro se party (a party not represented by an attorney), and ESPECIALLY when 
  • such a pro se party is a party in an appellate case where - as appellate clerks of this particular court have been explaining to pro se parties (who communicated with me as a blogger on this topic) that any appellate case is too complex too argue/handle by a pro se party; AND even more especially when
  • such a pro se party is the RESPONDENT in the case, defending an appellate case AGAINST AN ATTORNEY representing the appellant -
as it happened in this case.  The case lists:

"Andrea J. Mooney, Ithaca, for appellant", and

"Jason Leifer, Ithaca, attorney for the child".

That's all.  Appellant is the (black) father, respondent is the (white) mother - respondent is NOT represented by an attorney, so the court had to have been extra cautious not to violate mother's constitutional right to care and control of her child.

Rule # 2 - the court, both trial and appellate, decides PRESENT cases (not future cases)

Rule # 3 - the Family Court decides cases based on the balance of 1. constitutional rights of parents to care and control of their children and 2. best interests of the child

Rule # 4 - separated parents presumably have joint legal custody of their child, UNLESS the court rules after a trial that

  • one parent has committed something so bad towards the child that he/she should not have joint legal custody - and a say in educational/medical/religious decision-making towards the child, or
  • parents cannot effectively communicate regarding decision-making about the child

Rule # 5 - the exclusive function of the Appellate Court is to decide/resolve issues raised in the complaint/appeal of the party pointing out supposed errors of the trial court.  

Rule # 6 - courts (trial or appellate) may not act as advocates for either party - there is a due process (federal and state constitutional) requirement of court impartiality

With these rules in mind, lets look at the decision.

The child's year of birth is 2014.  She was 4 at the time of the trial in Family Court (pre-school) in 2018 and 7 at the time of the appeal - 2nd grade in school.




Beginning of the case

Joint legal custody


50-50 between the parents

Requested in petitions of parents

Sole custody – by both parents

Father – asked for permission to take the child out of the school district


Position of attorney for the child


Mother’s residence should be primary residence – trial court agreed, appellate court changed that

At the end of the trial case

Joint legal custody

50-50 between parents, mother’s residence is primary residence (after a home study and at the request of attorney for the child)


At the end of appellate case

Joint legal custody

50-50 between parents, current school district is “primary residence”;

The trial court is directed to take into account the confederate flag on a rock on mother’s RENTAL property in FUTURE court cases – a SUA SPONTE decision of appellate court (issue not raised by the appellant)


The trial court has had a trial/hearing on the case.

The footnote says that it did not hold a "Lincoln hearing" (judge talks to the child with the child's attorney present, but without the child's parents or their attorneys) because at the time of the trial the child was too young (4).

What is very important in these cases is the position of the appointed attorney for the child.  

Courts usually pay a lot of attention to the position of the attorney for the child.

In this case the attorney for the child was ON THE MOTHER's side.

The trial court was thorough in this case, it has ordered a home study that confirmed that, after mother moved 5 or 6 times during the child's life, currently she has, though rented, STABLE HOUSING.

Moreover, when the child lives with the mother, she also lives with her 2 siblings - courts try not to separate siblings.  There father does not have other children living with him who are the child's siblings, at least, the court decision does not mention any.

So, what do we have here?

Parents had - by default - joint legal custody of their 4-year-old (at the time of the trial) daughter.

Father wanted to take the child out of the school district and petitioned the court to CHANGE the custody arrangement to SOLE custody for him (so that the father could make decisions regarding the child's education, religion and medical care unilaterally, not together with the mother).

Mother also wanted SOLE custody of the child for herself, without moving.

The trial court DENIED both petitions for sole custody.

The appellate court affirmed/supported the trial court's decision to deny both petitions for sole custody and agreed with the trial court that JOINT LEGAL AND RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY for the child (as it was before court proceedings) is proper.

The appellate court has only corrected the trial Family Court on one issue:

" we do find that the portion of Family Court's order directing that the mother's residence shall be the child's primary residence for the purpose of where the child attends school must be modified. Although the general idea of preserving the child's current school district has a sound and substantial basis in the record, as it will preserve stability for the child, basing the child's school district on where the mother resides may lead to instability in the future due to the mother's frequent moves in the past. "

So, in the past, mother moved "3 or 4 times", so now the Appellate Division fixed the current school district for the child which neither of the parents may change without 

  • a mutual agreement, OR
  • a court order - if there is no mutual agreement.
So far - so good, right?

Sounds fair, doesn't it?

But now comes the woke part.


"Finally, although not addressed by Family Court or the attorney for the child, the mother's testimony at the hearing, as well as an exhibit admitted into evidence, reveal that she has a small confederate flag painted on a rock near her driveway. Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child's best interests, as the mother must encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance. Further, and viewed pragmatically, the presence of the confederate flag is a symbol inflaming the already strained relationship between the parties. As such, while recognizing that the First Amendment protects the mother's right to display the flag (see generally People v Hollman, 68 NY2d 202, 205 [1986]), if it is not removed by June 1, 2021, its continued presence shall constitute a change in circumstances and Family Court shall factor this into any future best interests analysis.

Egan Jr., J.P., Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as directed that petitioner's residence shall be considered the child's primary residence for school purposes; the child shall attend school in the Dryden Central School District until further court order or a mutual agreement between the parties with respect thereto; and, as so modified, affirmed."

Recall the rules governing actions of the appellate court that I have referred to at the beginning of this article:

  • being extra careful with a pro se respondent;
  • ruling for the best interests of the child;
  • deciding only the complaint of the appellant regarding errors of the trial court;
  • deciding only the current case, not future cases
  • not acting as an advocate for either of the parties - the duty of court impartiality.
Here is what the Appellate Division focused on:

" the mother's testimony at the hearing, as well as an exhibit admitted into evidence, reveal that she has a small confederate flag painted on a rock near her driveway"

There is no indication in the decision that mother owns the property, so the property is rented, and claiming that "she has" a rock with a confederate flag painted on it near the driveway of her rented property is not a correct legal statement - the rock could belong to the landlord and placed where it was by the landlord.

Next, the court says:

"Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child's best interests".

The appellate court has made a determination that something in what the mother supposedly does is not in the child's best interests - but does not change joint legal custody or residential 50-50 custody between parents.

The court says that:

"Given that the child is of mixed race, ... the mother must encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance".

I doubt that judges themselves understood what they have written here.

What is "cognitive dissonance", what is a "tortured lens", what constitutes "a mixed race identity", how to "embrace" it - nobody knows, it is all a subjective judgment of the 5 judges:

(a former Family court judge, and a member of the Family Court Rules Advisory Committee for 7 years)

These 3 men and 2 women, one of them a "mixed race" from "West Indies" have created a precedent for 28 counties

for parents of "mixed race" children - that such parents MUST teach their children "to embrace their mixed race identity" - whatever, again, it is, and however this "embracing" must be handled.


Note that these 5 men and women, once again, supported DENIAL of petitions to BOTH parents - the joint legal custody that the parents had of the child before they filed petitions in Family court and that the trial court left in place, the Appellate Division also left in place.

So - the Appellate Division has decided THE CURRENT case - which is THE ONLY case it could decide - by leaving the state of custody UNCHANGED.

So, why then did it even go into the excursion into the supposed obligation of the white mother to "encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed race identity" and into the convoluted woke wording about "thrusting" the child "into the world" that "only makes sense through a tortured lens of cognitive dissonance"?

Why would the court teach the unmarried mother who is not living with the unmarried father about the painted rock on a rented property "inflaming an already strained relationship between parties" - while, again leaving intact the JOINT LEGAL custody of the child between those same parties?

What good is this sermonizing under such circumstances?  For what purpose was it meant?

Here it is:

"while recognizing that the First Amendment protects the mother's right to display the flag , if it is not removed by June 1, 2021, its continued presence shall constitute a change in circumstances and Family Court shall factor this into any future best interests analysis."

The mother's LANDLORD is not a party in the Family court case.

It may be not the MOTHER's right to display whatever on the rented property, but the LANDLORD's to have that painted rock on his or her property - and with a prohibition for the tenants to do anything about it.

The mother only rented the house and has no control over the land or what is on it.

The court has found no evidence that it was THE MOTHER who has placed the rock on the rented property.

What the court is pushing the white mother of 3 young children who has FINALLY got a confirmed stable housing to do - during a pandemic and eviction ban, no less - is these options:

1. either engage in CRIMINAL MISCHIEF (a crime in New York presupposing jail time - and then the mother will lose custody of all of her THREE young children) and remove property of landlord off rental property, or

2. MOVE out of that stable housing - again, during the pandemic and eviction ban, with all 3 of her young children - OR lose custody of her daugher.

WTF, excuse my exquisite French?

Do these judges who have 200+ thousand dollar salaries at our expense understand WTH they are telling this woman to do - and the legal implications of what they are telling her to do?

All for the purpose of getting into the headline as the most woke judges in the woke state of New York?

I guess, discriminating against white parents of biracial children is all woke in the State of New York now, the law or basic concepts of fairness do not have to apply.

And remember - this is against a PRO SE Respondent white mother on appeal, who could not properly even defend herself, where the appellant black father was represented by an attorney.


And may not give directions to the Family Court how to decide FUTURE proceedings in this case.

Nor may the Appellate Division PRACTICE LAW (prohibited to judge by the NY State Constitution), act as an advocate for one of the parties (the represented-by-attorney black father) and give LEGAL ADVICE to the father and his attorney as to what to do next - file a yet ANOTHER petition against the mother to yank custody from her because she did not commit a crime of criminal mischief, did not remove a rock that does not belong to her off the rental property and did not move with her 3 young children, leaving behind the confirmed stable housing - without regard whether she can afford the move or not?

Once again, WTF?  Is THAT "the law" in these 28 counties?

Are these judges professional lawyers?

The sad part is, after this appellate level, the mother - especially that she is pro se - has NO RECOURSE to appeal this decision any further as of right.

It is a unanimous decision, so the New York State Court of Appeals won't take it - especially that it has unilaterally (and unlawfully) changed the New York State Constitution making it mandatory jurisdiction for the top state court to take up cases with constitutional issues raise - their "policy" (that they are not authorized to make) is to view mandatory jurisdiction as discretionary/on their whim.

The U.S. Supreme Court's jurisdiction is also discretionary (on a whim), preparing a case for that court requires jumping through so many hurdles that it is unthinkable that a pro se mother of 3 young children will be able to do that.

Federal courts have a judge-invented "Rooker-Feldman doctrine" barring civil rights lawsuits based on violations of federal constitutional rights by state courts, and a judge-invented "Family court doctrine" barring such lawsuits on a 2nd ground.

Access to international courts for Americans complaining against their own government violating their human rights is blocked by the way the US ratified the International Covenant for Civil and Political rights.

The only hope is that the trial judge will "factor in" this "change of circumstances" in a way defying the racist woke 3rd Department ruling rough-shod over the law and parental rights of white parents.

Tuesday, May 11, 2021

The full text of the NY woke custody decision

There are a lot of articles regarding this decision that do not publish a link to the actual text.

Here is the link and the full text.

My comment will be published separately.

Matter of Christie BB. v Isaiah CC.
2021 NY Slip Op 02847
Decided on May 6, 2021
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered:May 6, 2021


[*1]In the Matter of Christie BB., Petitioner,


Isaiah CC., Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

Calendar Date:March 10, 2021
Before:Egan Jr., J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ.

Andrea J. Mooney, Ithaca, for appellant.

Jason Leifer, Ithaca, attorney for the child.

Pritzker, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Cassidy, J.), entered October 19, 2018, which, among other things, partially granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.

Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) are the unmarried parents of a mixed race daughter (born in 2014). When the child was approximately three months old, the father acknowledged paternity. Pursuant to a July 2017 order, the parties stipulated that they would share joint legal and physical custody of the child, with the child alternating weeks with each parent. The mother commenced the first proceeding seeking to modify the prior order by, among other things, awarding her primary placement of the child, with alternating weekend parenting time to the father. The father answered and filed a counter petition seeking to modify the prior order by awarding him sole custody of the child. Following a fact-finding hearing,[FN1] Family Court determined, among other things, that the parties should continue to have joint legal and physical custody of the child, with parenting time on alternating weeks. However, at the suggestion of the attorney for the child, the court expanded upon the prior order by adding a provision that the mother's home shall be considered the child's primary residence for the purpose of schooling. The father appeals.

There is no dispute that a change in circumstances existed since the entry of the order in July 2017; thus, we focus our inquiry on whether Family Court's decision served the best interests of the child (see Matter of Clayton J. v Kay-Lyne K., 185 AD3d 1243, 1244 [2020]; Matter of Sherrod U. v Sheryl V., 181 AD3d 1069, 1069 [2020]). Factors to consider when conducting the best interests analysis include "the past performance and relative fitness of the parents, their willingness to foster a positive relationship between the [child] and the other parent, their fidelity to prior court orders and their ability to both provide a stable home environment and further the [child]'s overall well-being" (Matter of Jennifer VV. v Lawrence WW., 186 AD3d 946, 948 [2020] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see Matter of Sandra R. v Matthew R., 189 AD3d 1995, 1997 [2020], lv dismissed and denied 36 NY3d 1077 [2021]). This Court generally accords "great deference to Family Court's factual findings and credibility determinations given its superior position to observe and assess the witnesses' testimony and demeanor firsthand, and will not disturb its custodial determination if supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Daniel TT. v Diana TT., 127 AD3d 1514, 1515 [2015]; see Matter of Clayton J. v Kay-Lyne K., 185 AD3d at 1244).

At the fact-finding hearing, the mother testified that the child lives with her and the mother's two other children. The mother testified that she has lived in [*2]three or four different residences since the time the child was born. The mother also testified that she is concerned about the child's behavior, particularly kicking, spitting, hitting and swearing a lot. The mother stated that the reports from the child's Pre-K program indicate that the child is having behavioral issues that occur during both her and the father's weeks with the child. The mother testified that the father will "make a big thing out of it" every time that she tries to bring up the child's behavior with him, and that he does not communicate well. To that end, the mother testified that the communication between her and the father is poor. She also testified that, although she would like to text the father daily for updates on how the child is doing, she only texts him once or twice a week because the father texted her once saying that she did not need to text him every single day. The mother also claimed that the father attempted to change the child's school without the mother's knowledge and that the child was frequently absent from school on days she was with the father. The mother testified that, when the father picks up the child, she cries and "has a hard time departing." The mother also acknowledged that she had a rock with a confederate flag painted on it at her home. In response to questioning, the mother testified that she has never used any racial slurs in front of the child or at all. Finally, the mother acknowledged that she had not attended any parenting classes despite a provision in the prior order requiring the parents to do so.

The father's testimony also revealed that the mother and the father struggle to communicate, which has led to issues with, among other things, doctor's appointments for the child. The father testified that he went to the child's school after her first day and stated that there was confusion because, in the paperwork submitted to the school, the mother did not list any father. The father testified that the child has issues at school with kicking, swearing and spitting, but the father claims that she does not engage in any of this behavior at home. The father explained that he has talked to the teachers about the child's behavioral issues, but admitted that he has not communicated much with the mother about these issues. The father stated that, since the last order was entered, the mother has changed her residence and that the first he heard of this move was through the child. The father testified that since the child's birth, he has picked her up from seven or eight different addresses. The father explained that the child sometimes arrives with scrapes, bruises and bug bites. The father also testified that he found a bruise on the child, but he could not recall if he ever asked the mother about this mark. The father testified that he has attended several parenting classes. The father stated that the subject child missed several days of school during his time with her because [*3]she was sick. The father acknowledges that he will be moving soon and that the place he is moving to is in a different school district.

We agree with Family Court that the testimony revealed that "little has changed" since the prior order was entered. Thus, only a minor modification of the prior order was needed in the form of providing, among other things, that the mother's home shall be the child's primary residence for the purpose of where the child attends school. Although testimony revealed that the mother had relocated multiple times, the court found, and the record supports, that the mother currently has stable housing. Additionally, although the mother has moved around, testimony established that the father was planning to move as well. Furthermore, although the factor of fidelity to prior orders weighs in favor of the father, as the mother failed to attend a required parenting class, this is only one factor. Family Court clearly appreciated and addressed this concern, as evidenced by the fact that the court explicitly ordered that the mother contact the administrator of a parenting class program within one week of the issuance of the order. Moreover, although communication between the parents is not ideal, it is not so poor as to render a joint custodial arrangement unworkable. In this regard, both parties have the goal of getting back to a place where they work well together. There may come a point in the future where joint custody proves entirely unworkable, but, at this stage, we defer to Family Court's determination that the parties' relationship "is not so acrimonious as to render the award unworkable" (Matter of Patricia RR. v Daniel SS., 172 AD3d 1471, 1472 [2019]; see Elizabeth B. v Scott B., 189 AD3d 1833, 1835-1836 [2020]). It is also noted that this decision to maintain joint custody was supported by the attorney for the child (see Matter of Conway v Gartmond, 108 AD3d 667, 668 [2013]). According due deference to Family Court's credibility determinations and the evidence presented at the hearing, we find that it was in the child's best interests to continue the joint custody arrangement (see Matter of Patricia RR. v Daniel SS., 172 AD3d at 1473; Matter of Richard GG. v M. Carolyn GG., 169 AD3d 1169, 1172 [2019]).

However, we do find that the portion of Family Court's order directing that the mother's residence shall be the child's primary residence for the purpose of where the child attends school must be modified. Although the general idea of preserving the child's current school district has a sound and substantial basis in the record, as it will preserve stability for the child, basing the child's school district on where the mother resides may lead to instability in the future due to the mother's frequent moves in the past. The father does not claim that there is any problem with the current school or that the school in his school district is superior. Therefore, rather than designate the mother's residence [*4]as the primary residence for school purposes, Family Court should have ordered that the child remain in the Dryden Central School District, absent mutual agreement or further court order.

Finally, although not addressed by Family Court or the attorney for the child, the mother's testimony at the hearing, as well as an exhibit admitted into evidence, reveal that she has a small confederate flag painted on a rock near her driveway. Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child's best interests, as the mother must encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance. Further, and viewed pragmatically, the presence of the confederate flag is a symbol inflaming the already strained relationship between the parties. As such, while recognizing that the First Amendment protects the mother's right to display the flag (see generally People v Hollman, 68 NY2d 202, 205 [1986]), if it is not removed by June 1, 2021, its continued presence shall constitute a change in circumstances and Family Court shall factor this into any future best interests analysis.

Egan Jr., J.P., Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as directed that petitioner's residence shall be considered the child's primary residence for school purposes; the child shall attend school in the Dryden Central School District until further court order or a mutual agreement between the parties with respect thereto; and, as so modified, affirmed.


Footnote 1: There was no Lincoln hearing held as neither party requested one and both the attorney for the child and Family Court indicated that they felt the child was too young.

Tuesday, May 4, 2021

More on evidence and the law - on immigration

I have written 2 short pieces so far about the modern-day woke approach to evidence:

Here is a yet another hilarious woke approach to evidence ("block/bury data and then interpret the lack of it") in a yet another politically explosive area - immigration.

By the way, for those who would want to bash me on this a little bit, that I am "uneducated", that I need to "go educate myself" - I am a graduate of a statistics university - among other things - and was taught how statistics should be obtained and interpreted - and how data can be manipulated.

There is no surge at the border, obviously, and this piece is a way to try to deflect people from even considering the consequences of what is being done to this country and to all of us citizens and taxpayers.

So, let's see how this tremendous piece of "expertise"/evidence have come about.

Remember - there are lies, d***ed lies, and statistics.

It has come - tada! - from the 2020 Census data!

From the same Census where Democrats fought tooth and claw, in courts, too, NOT TO INCLUDE data re immigration status into that Census.

  1. They won in our woke courts on that issue,
  2. the immigration status was not included into the 2020 Census - and, again, tada!
  3. the lack of data (that was blocked from even being collected) is now being used by Democrats to claim that 

A. the US has a bad population decline - the worst in 300 years, mind.


B.  it is due to DECLINE in immigration.

It would have been stand up comedy, had this farce not mean tragic economic consequences for all of us.


And, as to the 2nd point of the article - drop in birthrate.

That is, ladies and gentlemen, a reflection of the young generation's belief in the security of their futures.

Which is very well tied - whether the "woke" want to see it or not - to the immigration surge.

If everything that you are not entitled to, for your own taxes collected from you every year at the threat of a felony conviction, incarceration and loss of voting rights - is given for free to foreigners surging across the border - you have no security in your future, and you are afraid to produce children that you cannot support.

As easy as that.

More on evidence and the law - evidence re safety of COVID19 vaccines

I already wrote re redefining what constitutes evidence in respect to election cases, here.

Here is about evidence of safety of COVID19 vaccines - another sensitive topic nowadays.

We know that vaccines, as any other FDA-registered drug, takes years, sometimes decades, to develop - and the reason is the necessity for comprehensive trials of safety (longterm side effects) and efficiency of the drug BEFORE it hits the market.

With COVID19 vaccines, because of the pandemic, the FDA approved "emergency use" of COVID19 vaccines (not a full authorization).

I see a lot of shaming/blaming of people who refused to vaccinate in comments on social media, and, judging by same comments appearing at the same time under different articles of different media sources, it appears to be some sort of a coordinated campaign directed from up above.

Yet, let's look whether we have true evidence of safety of these vaccines.

1.  It has come out today - and in the "leftstream media", no less - that "coincidentally", as a point of "bad lack", the FDA has "scaled back" (a polite word for "canceled") a program for tracking side effects of antivirus vaccines RIGHT BEFORE the covid19 pandemic started.

It is a fact reported by the mainstream press.

2. If you or your loved one dies or gets injured by any medicine OTHER THAN a vaccine, the injured person (or his/her estate in case of death) may have access to court, sue, have discovery/disclosure of evidence and ESTABLISH CAUSATION of the injury/death - that it was caused by the medicine - BEFORE A JURY.

No such thing is available with vaccines in the US.

On the very contrary, vaccine manufacturers have obtained from the FEDERAL government (follow the hands) a BAN on ACCESS TO COURTS - to STATE courts, which federal government may not do, but it did, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld legality of this obviously unconstitutional scheme - 11 years ago, for all vaccines.

So, what do we have here?

1. a super-fast track of lab-to-market for COVID19 vaccines;

2. an "emergency use" FDA approval only;

3. scrapping of the FDA adverse events tracking program re antiviral vaccines;

4. the actual victims of the vaccines are not allowed to establish causation of their injuries, including deaths, in courts before the jury, after discovery/disclosure of evidence.

That is a whole lot of "science", don't you think?

What can possibly go wrong?

Let's make vaccinations mandatory.

Let's not allow people who refuse to vaccinate to enter stores, restaurants, job places etc.

In other words, let's starve them.

Because they think for themselves and refuse to play Russian roulette with their only life.

Informed consent, you know.

Friday, January 8, 2021

A little bit on evidence and the law

 The law and evidence is what I know.

So I want to talk about that.

When you file a lawsuit in court, American courts have long rejected the need to file what is called factual pleading.

In plain English it means that you do not need to provide proof to the court when you file a lawsuit.

You only recite allegations which you believe to be true.

If proof is within exclusive possession of your opponent, you're entitled to a procedure called discovery or disclosure (you are entitled to it whether proof is an exclusive position of your opponent or not, but even more so if it is), meaning your opponent in court will have to answer your questions sent to him by mail or orally a deposition is under oath and to produce documentary evidence related to the case for your review.

Usually that exchange of information is happening without control by a judge.

And in American court proceedings discovery is usually what is called liberal, meaning very broad.

Such broad rights of discovery is given here by law because the legal system is declared to be interested in the most efficient and precise truthfinding.

There is also one big principle.

In American jurisprudence, by default, the finder of fact in civil proceedings in state and federal courts are juries, not professional judges.

Judges are only allowed to look at facts on motions for summary judgments - and that is happening only after discovery, and only if opponents agree on facts and the only thing to decide is the issues of law, based on those indisputable facts.

The indisputable facts are presented to courts on motions for a summary judgment through sworn affidavits of witnesses, no live testimony.

the only place where live testimony of witnesses is taking place is during discovery, procedure called depositions, and at a jury trial.

This is, as any law student and any lawyer will tell you, civil procedure 101 in the USA.

The standard of review of a motion to dismiss, at the very beginning of litigation and before discovery, does not involve evidence. At all.

On the very opposite, the standard of review is that the court must review allegations in the plaintiff's complaint / lawsuit in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and assume all of those allegations made by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit to be true.

The only government body that is entitled to rule on credibility of factual evidence in the United States legal system, on federal and state level is the jury.

In most States and in federal courts right to a jury trial is embedded into the state constitutions and into the seventh Amendment of the Federal Constitution.


Let's apply now all these principles to elections into the incident of the breach of the Capitol building on January 6th 2020.

1. Elections

In many states many lawsuits regarding election challenges were filed since November 3rd 2020.

If motions to dismiss are filed in such lawsuits, following the law, judges had to assume as true allegations in the lawsuits

(especially that they were backed up by actual evidence, sworn affidavit so witnesses, which plaintiffs did not even have to do because we do not have factual pleading in the United States,)

had to review those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, deny the motions, and, given that the majority of documentary evidence was in exclusive control of the defendants,

 order a speedy discovery and

 trials by juries.

That did not happen.

Instead, we see reports by the media that 60 judges dismissed these lawsuits for lack of evidence, or because they considered evidence to be too speculative, meaning not credible.

Recall that assessment of credibility of evidence is the exclusive authority of the jury and nobody else.

A judge can evaluate factual evidence at trial only, and only if both parties have waived their right to a jury trial, agreeing to what is called a bench trial, a trial by the judge.

There were no jury trials scheduled in any of these cases.

There were no waivers of the jury filed in any of those cases.

In fact in many of these cases there is a demand for a jury trial plainly on the complaint.

Even on a motion for a summary judgment after discovery, remember, professional judges do not evaluate credibility of evidence.

Judges only rule summarily on the law on summary judgment motions after discovery if and only if parties agree and do not dispute any triable/essential issue of fact.

So, what we have is that supposedly 60 judges ruled - 

instead of juries that were never convened, 

without discovery that was never scheduled, 

on motions to dismiss where the standard of review was not simply 

believing anything plaintiff is saying, but 

assuming that anything plaintiff is saying is true -

 the judge does not have an option not to believe the plaintiff on motion to dismiss -

 and we have judges instead forgetting in unison what they were taught in the first year of Law School, and rule, instead of juries, on motions to dismiss on supposed insufficiency of evidence or that the evidence is not credible/speculative.

That is not a motion to dismiss, that is a trial without due process, discovery, or the right to a jury.

Be the judge yourself as to why such a coincidence happened across the country in all courts, state and Federal, at the same time.


2. The alleged breach of the Capitol building.

There are publushed videos of the police removing barriers and allowing in people with backpacks and baseball bats inside the secure area and opening the door to the Capitol building.

I have also personally watched a video by a lawful rally participant before the Capitol building clearly showing that everybody was screened before entering the secure area behind the barriers.

That backpacks, sticks and flagpoles were not allowed, that was clearly announced through loudspeakers by government officials.

Yet somehow the people in MAGA hats who the police were allowing in had backpacks and baseball bats. Note again that putting on a MAGA hat does not make you a Trump supporter.

Be the judge yourself why that happened.


Let us recall that in cases of election fraud the entire world watched multi-hour hearings of live testimony of witnesses in several States, done by state legislatures.

The majority of witnesses also said that they have made those same allegations under the oath in affidavits and that those allegations in the form of sworn affidavits were attached to lawsuits.

Democrats did not consider that as evidence.

Or democrats considered that as insufficient evidence.

Because courts considered that as insufficient evidence.

While judges did not have the right to consider credibility or sufficiency of evidence at all according to the law, it is the exclusive right of the jury - that did not happen in any of election challenge cases in 2020.

Now let's see what happened from the point of view of evidence with the supposed breach of the Capitol building on January 6th 2020.

1. There is an issue of fact for the jury to decide whether there was a breach, or whether the police let people in - as the video clearly shows.

Also, witnesses report in videos in blogs that 

* therewas no Wi-Fi or Internet at the rally, 

* people did not know what was going on inside the Capitol building, but 

* they did see that the police was letting some people in, and that

*There were provocatures telling them that the public is invited into the public building to listen to the public hearings, and that's such observation will be good for democracy.

So it is a triable issue of fact what was the intent of people who actually listened to that and went toward or into the Capitol building - while they were lacking any other information because their internet service was blocked.

Were they insurgents, or were they good faith people tricked in by provocateurs.

This is again a triable issue of fact for the jury.

2. Were there provocaters?

3. If there were, who were they -

All of that are triable issues of fact for the jury.

But - there is an interesting phenomenon emerging.

Actual evidence, sworn affidavits of witnesses, that was actually too early to introduce at the beginning of legal challenges but was still introduced in good faith in support of lawsuits, was disregarded by professional judges who usurped functions of the jury - without Discovery and without a trial.

Yet, voting was already held, that evidence was rejected by Congress - because judges unlawfully rejected it - and we have a new president voted in, despite massive sworn evidence of election fraud.

Nobody wants to investigate.

In fact, those who do want to investigate are called traitors.


It is a 180° flip though when we're talking about the supposed breach of the Capitol building that happened only two days ago.

Without an investigation

Without sworn testimony or affidavits or witnesses

Without ascertaining who those people in the Capitol building were

Without verifying why the police let armed people in

Without verifying why the internet/information was blocked from people in the rally, so that misleading by possible provocateurs became a very dangerous opportunity -  endangering members of the Congress under any circumstances, given the numbers and the possibility of militant groups infiltrating a rally such size -

Without working with the evidence

Accusations are already cast at the level of Congress and the mass media,

80 million people already branded as terrorists and calls are being made in mainstream media like ABC News to cleanse them, which is inciting violence very clearly, and the a lot of comments on Twitter showing that there are a lot of people ready to do that cleansing and start right now.

And articles of impeachment already drawn against the currently sitting president in the two last weeks of his presidency - just on an assumption that a group wearing MAGA hats must be true Trump supporters.

It is very obvious that no good faith investigation can be conducted within this period of time, and that articles of impeachment are unnecessary since who Democrats wanted to be in the white house has already been voted in.

That it is not backed up by evidence at this time.


I'm calling to both sides.

There are rules of evidence 

They are applicable to both sides 

They're applicable equally to election fraud cases and to the case of the supposed breach of the Capitol building.

Please think before making assumptions and falling victim to more provocations.

It may be a very dear loss to all of us.

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

So when will we have mass articles of impeachment against judges filed?

I wonder when mass impeachment of judges are going to come since judges across state and federal courts across the country somehow at the very same time forgot civil procedure 101 and dismissed election fraud cases on lack of evidence when evidence cannot even come close to review on motions to dismiss.

And that is in gross violation of the review standard of motions to dismiss, assuming as true allegations in the plaintiff's complaint and ruling in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

And that is before discovery.

And that is while the evidence was in exclusive possession of the defendants who were blocking plaintiffs' access to it.

And that is far before any kind of jury trials that have the only authority to review issues of fact.

Professional judges do not have such a right, and certainly not before discovery and on a motion to dismiss.

Those are violations of the law for which a first year law school student will fail his final exam.

It is gross incompetence at best.

Concerted treason at worst.

Not to mention all justices of the United States Supreme Court save for justices Alito and Thomas who unlawfully tossed for political purposes a case of original mandatory jurisdiction.

It appears to be a well-coordinated action of judicial corruption across the country and across state and federal courts up to the top.

The courts demonstrated they are not only useless for the people when they need them in maintaining the rule of law, but that they are harmful and actively helping in subverting democracy.

So when will we have articles of impeachment filed?

Saturday, December 5, 2020

A slam-dunk explanation as to why Donald Trump may pardon himself


So - may Donald Trump pardon himself preemptively for all that whoever wants to charge him federally for?

My answer based on constitutional principles would be - of course, not.

Nobody may sit in judgment of his own self.

That is an ancient principle long predating the US Constitution. 

But for.

I was stripped of my profession for asserting constitutional principles in court, by a judge who did MORE than pardon himself.  He also punished me for accusing him of bias, misconduct - and #electionfraud,  because there were no necessary public records requured by law confirming that he was a legitimate judge.

When you are making a motion to recuse a judge, the judge 

* considers himself "the sole arbiter of his own recusal", he or she 

* is expected to "examine his/her own conscience" (which is a substance, if it exists at all, that you cannot attach to the court record, as well as the process of its examination), 

* verify whether he/she is or is not impartial, is or is not corrupt - and then

* that same judge has a full freedom, on his own whim, to start, prosecute and adjudicate a disciplinary proceeding against you and your lawyer for making such a motion to recuse, 


Full freedom to sanction you for making that motion to recuse, 

to the point of 

depriving the lawyer who makes such a motion to recuse of his profession 

for life.

recall that we're talking here about your federal constitutional right for impartial judicial review, and about motions to recuse as the only way to secure that federal constitutional right for you.

And that that fundamental federal constitutional right is entirely at the whim of judges without any oversight from anybody.

If your lawyer maybe arbitrarily deprived of his profession for life, together with his reputation his financial and time and effort investment in becoming a lawyer - that's why you, the American public, cannot find lawyers to make a motion to recuse.

Because lawyers are afraid to do their jobs for you.

Because judges in this country are allowed to be tyrants. Are allowed to disregard the law, the Constitution, their oath of office.

Are allowed to do whatever they want to you, and you will have no recourse.

You know why?

Because judges also gave themselves a gift of immunity for their own malicious and corrupt conduct.

They did not have a right to do that.

The United States Constitution, separation of powers, does not give judges the right to legislate from the bench, especially in their own favor and self-interest.

But what do they care?

They still gave themselves that immunity.

And they vigorously assert that that is now the law of the land.

And if you sue a judge, you will be sanctioned and blocked from your access to court for the future - because you supposedly filed a frivolous lawsuit, because that lawsuit follows the federal civil rights act, but those contrary to the judicial self-given right to be corrupt with impunity.

And this systematically happens in American courts.

I'm exhibit one of the private vengeance of a judge who I did not only ask to recuse because of his bias and misconduct, but who I verified through a records, was never properly elected to his position, so that was the case of election fraud.

And you know what the judge did?

He sanctioned me in his own case.

The appellate Court said that he had full freedom to do that.

And then the same appellate Court acting now as the licensing Court, took my license to practice law without giving me a hearing. Because sanctions of Judge Carl f Becker imposed upon me because I made emotion to recuse telling him based on documentary evidence that he was never elected as a judge, were enough for the licensing Court to strip me of my profession for life.

By the way, judge Carl F Becker ran from the bench several months before I was stripped of my license, chased by three government bodies:

The New York State commission for judicial conduct, the New York state comptroller/ chief financial officer, and the FBI.

But, my law license was still taken because it is the ultimate taboo that entertaining may not under any circumstances criticize a judge, even when her duty to her client requires to do it, so even if her arguments are properly supported, as mine were for my pro bono client, with law, constitutional arguments and documentary evidence.

Again, I'm exhibit one in a case where judges are allowed to sit in judgment of their own cases.

But, I'm far from being the only one, there is an epidemic of such cases across the United States.

Right now there is a lawsuit pending against six United States Supreme Court  justices and against federal judges - who ruled to dismiss cases below against themselves.

We have a case back in 1975, Turner versus the American bar association and several judges including all justices of the then United States Supreme Court.

You know who consolidated several cases filed in several different district courts in different states?

And who appointed a judge to review that consolidated case?

One of the defendants, the then Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

You know what that case was about?

The judges were sued for establishing an unlawful and unconstitutional attorney monopoly where legally competent adults are deprived of the right to pick their own representatives in court without approval of their procedural opponent in the litigation, the government, which makes no sense to a reasonable person.

Both federal and state courts have that unconstitutional monopoly, including the United States Supreme Court.

And you know how the judge appointed by one of the defendants ruled in the case?

He ruled that the defendant judges power, and his own power to define who may or may not come in front of him trumps any rights anybody has to pick their own independent representative in court.

That was sitting in judgment of his own case. Deciding that his own power is more important than people's constitutional rights.

That was 56 years ago.

The attorney monopoly still continues intact.

But now what also continues is the Trump litmus test.

Trump presidency and his disregard to The Establishment hypocrisy reveals more and more of that hypocrisy and double standards to the American people.

Tell me, please, why judges in the United States can be sole arbiters of their own corruption, can 

* start, prosecute and adjudicate cases against the own critics to the point of permanently depriving those critics of their profession for that criticism, 

* can dismiss cases against themselves, 

* can consolidate cases against themselves and 

*Appoint judges to review them - and dismiss them, of course -

but at the same time Trump somehow may not pardon himself?

He sure may.

Under this particular logic - he sure can.

Either he may, or, if he may not, then judges may not do the above either.

And, they should be stopped from doing it.

And, their victims should receive just compensation and restoration of their rights.