Severe bad health did the trick for John St. Marie, 66, a former assistant Hennepin County attorney who ran "Nice Guys." The man behind a secretive online prostitution ring for a group of well-to-do men who dubbed themselves "Minnesota Nice Guys" won't receive any jail time. John St. Marie, 66, a former assistant Hennepin County attorney, pleaded guilty Tuesday to three felony counts of promoting prostitution. The lack of jail time recognized his severe health problems, said Jim Dahlquist, St. Marie's attorney. He could be sent to jail if he violates his probation, and was ordered to pay a sum to a women's advocacy group. "An offer was made, and we went ahead and did it," said Dahlquist. "John has a great deal of respect for the legal process, and he decided not to prolong the issue." St. Marie, who uses a wheelchair because of childhood polio, can move his neck and a finger on his left hand. Post-polio syndrome forced him to retire in 2003 because he needs round-the-clock health care, said Dahlquist. The deal was made before an upcoming settlement conference with the Ramsey County attorney's office, which handled the case because of St. Marie's employment with Hennepin County. A key consideration in making the deal was the great expense to taxpayers to incarcerate him, said Paul Gustafson, spokesman for the county attorney's office. "He did plead guilty to three counts and is now a felon, plus he has been disbarred because of the charges," Gustafson said. "We had to be practical, too, in terms of would it send any greater message to send him to prison knowing there would be significant expense involved." As part of the plea agreement, three other counts of promoting prostitution were dismissed. St. Marie will be sentenced Jan. 20, at which time Dahlquist said his client "will have a lot more to say." St. Marie, of Minneapolis, couldn't be reached for comment, but Dahlquist said "this has been tremendously difficult for him. ." The case against St. Marie and the "Nice Guys" started in July 2008 and lasted more than a year. Police said St. Marie built a client list of 30 business owners, lawyers, accountants and mortgage bankers who met women at some of Minneapolis' finest hotels. The group got its name because members had clean backgrounds, regarded themselves as above mistreating the women and paid well, police said. The men would receive e-mails advertising when the women would be flown in from Florida, and St. Marie scheduled appointments. One man said he was willing to pay $1,200 for a woman, according to the charges. The "Nice Guys" ring was one of the more unusual rings they've seen in Minnesota, said Sgt. Grant Snyder and Sgt. Matt Wente, investigators for the Minneapolis Police Department's Violent Offender Task Force. The sophisticated operation flew under the radar for at least three years, police said. The investigation also brought down MyFastPass.com, the Twin Cities' largest locally owned prostitution website. Seven of the "Nice Guys" were charged with gross misdemeanor soliciting prostitution this month. Many of the men learned of St. Marie's reputation for luring women to Minnesota through a website for self-described "hobbyists" looking for high-dollar escorts. Police did surveillance in hotel rooms of several johns who were set up by women who worked for St. Marie but cooperated with police once the investigation began. In one recorded conversation, St. Marie paid for a woman's airline tickets and hotel stays in exchange for sex, the charges said. St. Marie didn't prosecute prostitution cases during his 28 years with the Hennepin County attorney's office. He represented social-service agencies and did civil commitments for mentally ill and chemically dependent people. Although he hadn't practiced law since he retired, the state disbarred him this month.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Lakin “Sex Accusation,” Still Investigated, Prosecutor Says
BY NICHOLAS J.C. PISTOR
Tom Lakin on April 23, 2007, after turning himself in to authorities and posting bond following his federal indictment.
EDWARDSVILLE, IL • After a 15-year-old boy accused one of Metro East's most powerful political figures of arranging to watch him have sex with women and then engaging him in a sex act, a state prosecutor vowed a swift investigation. Four years later, the promise remains, but the investigation is unfinished against Tom Lakin, a multimillionaire lawyer and big-time Democratic Party bankroller who was once at the pinnacle of Madison County's renowned personal injury litigators. Lakin did land in federal prison on a drug conviction. And he is being sued in civil court over the sex claims. But that suit has been stalled, its lawyer says, by the unfinished state case. "We can't proceed with our civil suit with the state saying it's considering prosecution," lamented Ed Unsell, an East Alton lawyer representing the boy, now 20, in a suit filed in 2006. "This boy needs vindication," Unsell insisted. Charles Colburn, a lawyer with the Illinois Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, confirmed in a recent interview that its probe is still moving forward. He blamed difficulties in obtaining some unspecified piece of federal evidence for the delay. The investigation was initially stymied by issues of conflicts of interest and overlapping investigations, most of which were sorted out years ago. Lakin, who once headed the powerful Lakin Law Firm in Wood River, pleaded guilty in 2008 in federal court of possession with the intent to deliver cocaine, distributing cocaine to a person under 21 and maintaining a drug-involved premises. In exchange for that plea, federal prosecutors dropped their sole sex-related charge, that claimed Lakin took a minor to his second home in Malibu, Calif., with the intent of having oral sex. That allegation involved the same boy, a family friend, who said Lakin set up sexual encounters with women, young and old, to watch in 2005 and directly engaged in oral sex acts with him. The bulk of allegations involve incidents at Lakin's home in East Alton, thus falling under Illinois statutes. The allegations were reported to the Illinois State Police in 2005, but no charges were filed. William Mudge, the Madison County state's attorney, said at the time he was given only a "very general claim" and never a formal police report to act upon. Mudge later declined to get involved because the law firm where he worked before he was appointed state's attorney 2002 — Lucco, Brown & Mudge — had represented Lakin in his second divorce. The case was handed over to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who also declined, reportedly citing conflicts of her own that included $66,000 in campaign donations from the Lakin family that was in addition to a $5,695 donation of airplane use for her campaign, estimated to be worth $5,695. Mudge ultimately asked that a special prosecutor be appointed. Lakin, 70, is serving his six-year drug sentence in a federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas, and is set for release in November 2013. He and his lawyers have long denied the sex-related allegations — which carry heavy penalties — and have pledged to fight them. The dropping of the sex-related claim from the federal case was widely considered a personal victory. Federal prosecutors also dropped, without explanation, their initial requirement that Lakin cooperate in other investigations involving judges and lawyers in Madison and St. Clair counties. Colburn, the special prosecutor, said, "It's an unusual case where the suspect is in custody." He suggested there is no pressing need to keep Lakin behind bars. Stephanee Smith, a spokeswoman for the Madison County state's attorney's office, said the cost of the special prosecutor is included in a flat fee of $30,000, based on population, paid to support the appellate prosecutor's office.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Judge Fisher...corrupt Van Nuys Superior Court jurist violates rights, coerces defendants, and destroys documents!
Written by julianayrs on Oct-7-08 8:00pm
Judge Fisher is the most corrupt Judge in the Superior Court Judiciary system in the greater Los Angeles area. Fisher, a Judge who warms the bench in Van Nuys, is under the mistaken impression that he is above the law - can willy-nilly ignore the rights of a defendant at whim - and destroy court documents to suit his dishonest purposes to avoid scrutiny or prosecution for his illegal conduct. In addition, Fisher is either ignorant of the law - or simply chooses to ignore it - to maintain ultimate control over his courtroom at any cost. Notwithstanding, the man is a liar. On a regular basis - he makes false representations to defendants - in a bold-faced deceitful effort to extract plea bargains from innocent victims that he will never honor. Yes, he has a perverse sense of humor, too. In one case that I am familiar with, Judge Fisher approved a plea bargain it's obvious he never intended to follow through on, when you review the facts of the case in retrospect. For example, Judge Fisher promised one defendant that if he pled to one felony count, there would be no jail time and three year's probation. In addition - the dishonest Jurist assured the defendant that at the end of the probationary period - the felony count would be reduced to a misdemeanor. On the day the plea bargain was to be signed, sealed, and delivered - Judge Fisher tricked the defendant into admitting to two felony counts - again on the premise - that both counts would be reduced after the probationary period ended. When the probation ended - and the defendant submitted a request to the court (and to Judge Fisher, in particular) to follow through on the terms and conditions of the plea bargain - the Judge refused to follow through. In sum, he did not honor the terms and conditions of the plea bargain agreement!
If the court doesn't meet its obligation, shouldn't that render the plea bargain null and void? But, that is not the extent of Fisher's disreputable conduct. At one hearing, after Fisher was informed that the FBI had been contacted regarding rights violations a defendant alleged he encountered in Fisher's courtroom - suddenly (and without explanation) the court file (poof) magically disappeared from the records. Curiously, in spite of this, Fisher proceeded to rule on an issue before the court! If there was no file, and nothing to reference in the court records, how would it be possible for Fisher to review the facts and evidence in the case? More importantly, how would it be possible to render a decision in the matter before the court? Under the circumstances, Fisher should have dismissed the action. His failure to do so, amounted to a gross violation of the defendant's Constitutional rights. On another occasion, Fisher used questionable "strong-arm" tactics to force a defendant to admit a probation violation under duress. For example, when a defendant was hauled into court to explain to Fisher why she failed to appear at the office of a probation officer (the individual thought she had summary probation) Judge Fisher proceeded to coerce the defendant into admitting a probation violation. Knowing that the defendant was ill and in need of urgent medical care, he informed the defendant that if she admitted to violating probation, that she would be released from jail that day. What person, who is ill and in dire need of medical assistance, wouldn't be tempted to agree to such an offer? In sum, Fisher's conduct amounted to an act of coercion! It should be obvious to any fool, too, that because the defendant was forced to make the admission (a false one, by the way) under duress, that she could not be held to the forced admission. But, if the defendant filed a complaint with officials afterward, there probably would not have been any record of what transpired. Why? Because Fisher would have taken appropriate illegal action to ensure that the transcript and/or court reporter's notes "disappeared" I wouldn't doubt it considering his track record. In one particular case - when a defendant wised up to Fisher's lies and deception - (and got wind of the fact the disreputable Judge was prone to bend and change the terms and conditions of court agreements at whim) - he asked Judge Fisher for a copy of the transcript for future reference. Judge Fisher refused to order the court reporter to prepare it, in spite of the fact the defendant was entitled to a copy, pursuant to applicable Statutes under State Law. "You can get the information you need from the public defender," he barked at the defendant." Fat chance. The Public Pretenders (State-appointed attorneys for indigent defendants) and the Prosecutors in the District Attorney's office are all in a handful of the Judges' pockets over there at the Van Nuys Courthouse. The Judiciary system in the San Fernando Valley, after all, is a cesspool of corruption! Until the Los Angeles Superior Court rids itself of the likes of Judge Fisher, the integrity of the court, will continue to be compromised.
If the court doesn't meet its obligation, shouldn't that render the plea bargain null and void? But, that is not the extent of Fisher's disreputable conduct. At one hearing, after Fisher was informed that the FBI had been contacted regarding rights violations a defendant alleged he encountered in Fisher's courtroom - suddenly (and without explanation) the court file (poof) magically disappeared from the records. Curiously, in spite of this, Fisher proceeded to rule on an issue before the court! If there was no file, and nothing to reference in the court records, how would it be possible for Fisher to review the facts and evidence in the case? More importantly, how would it be possible to render a decision in the matter before the court? Under the circumstances, Fisher should have dismissed the action. His failure to do so, amounted to a gross violation of the defendant's Constitutional rights. On another occasion, Fisher used questionable "strong-arm" tactics to force a defendant to admit a probation violation under duress. For example, when a defendant was hauled into court to explain to Fisher why she failed to appear at the office of a probation officer (the individual thought she had summary probation) Judge Fisher proceeded to coerce the defendant into admitting a probation violation. Knowing that the defendant was ill and in need of urgent medical care, he informed the defendant that if she admitted to violating probation, that she would be released from jail that day. What person, who is ill and in dire need of medical assistance, wouldn't be tempted to agree to such an offer? In sum, Fisher's conduct amounted to an act of coercion! It should be obvious to any fool, too, that because the defendant was forced to make the admission (a false one, by the way) under duress, that she could not be held to the forced admission. But, if the defendant filed a complaint with officials afterward, there probably would not have been any record of what transpired. Why? Because Fisher would have taken appropriate illegal action to ensure that the transcript and/or court reporter's notes "disappeared" I wouldn't doubt it considering his track record. In one particular case - when a defendant wised up to Fisher's lies and deception - (and got wind of the fact the disreputable Judge was prone to bend and change the terms and conditions of court agreements at whim) - he asked Judge Fisher for a copy of the transcript for future reference. Judge Fisher refused to order the court reporter to prepare it, in spite of the fact the defendant was entitled to a copy, pursuant to applicable Statutes under State Law. "You can get the information you need from the public defender," he barked at the defendant." Fat chance. The Public Pretenders (State-appointed attorneys for indigent defendants) and the Prosecutors in the District Attorney's office are all in a handful of the Judges' pockets over there at the Van Nuys Courthouse. The Judiciary system in the San Fernando Valley, after all, is a cesspool of corruption! Until the Los Angeles Superior Court rids itself of the likes of Judge Fisher, the integrity of the court, will continue to be compromised.
Hopefully, the FBI will step in and investigate, and prosecute accordingly.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Panel: Lawyer for Ex-Detroit Mayor Withheld Material Facts, Faces Discipline
Posted Mar 2, 2010 9:29 AM CDT
By Molly McDonough ABA Journal
The lawyer for disgraced ex-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is facing possible disbarment on professional misconduct charges relating to his handling of the text-messaging scandal that led to Kilpatrick's ouster.
A three-member panel of the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board found that lawyer Samuel McCargo violated five rules of professional misconduct. The panel, which issued an 83-page report (PDF) in the case, will now consider the penalty that McCargo should face, the Detroit Free Press reports.
Those watching the disciplinary case say that the board's actions this week don't bode well for other lawyers involved in the Kilpatrick case.
"The other lawyers should be fearful," says Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor and former federal prosecutor who teaches a course on legal ethics.
The panel specifically found that McCargo withheld material facts from the judge overseeing a 2007 police whistle-blower trial. He's also charged with failing to respond truthfully to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission during its investigation of his conduct. However, McCargo was cleared of five other disciplinary charges.
At issue is McCargo's handling of information he obtained from Mike Stefani, the lawyer for the police officers, that revealed Kilpatrick lied under oath during the 2007 trial.
The discipline cases surround a secret $8.4 million settlement struck after the revelation of the text messages. The settlement was aimed, in part, to keep the romantic text messages between Kilpatrick and his chief of staff from being made public, the Detroit News recounts.
But the messages became public anyway when Stefani reportedly leaked them to the local press. The revelation forced Kilpatrick to resign and serve 99 days in jail for perjury.
"While McCargo was dealt an unfortunate set of cards, including a less-than-forthright client, he played them poorly," the panel said in its decision. "We do not doubt that McCargo was acting in what he honestly believed was an appropriate and ethical course of action from the time Stefani handed him the draft" of a legal brief containing excerpts of text messages Stefani had obtained.
The panel noted that McCargo would have been better off had he sought advice from colleagues or ethics professionals before proceeding.
By Molly McDonough ABA Journal
The lawyer for disgraced ex-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is facing possible disbarment on professional misconduct charges relating to his handling of the text-messaging scandal that led to Kilpatrick's ouster.
A three-member panel of the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board found that lawyer Samuel McCargo violated five rules of professional misconduct. The panel, which issued an 83-page report (PDF) in the case, will now consider the penalty that McCargo should face, the Detroit Free Press reports.
Those watching the disciplinary case say that the board's actions this week don't bode well for other lawyers involved in the Kilpatrick case.
"The other lawyers should be fearful," says Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor and former federal prosecutor who teaches a course on legal ethics.
The panel specifically found that McCargo withheld material facts from the judge overseeing a 2007 police whistle-blower trial. He's also charged with failing to respond truthfully to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission during its investigation of his conduct. However, McCargo was cleared of five other disciplinary charges.
At issue is McCargo's handling of information he obtained from Mike Stefani, the lawyer for the police officers, that revealed Kilpatrick lied under oath during the 2007 trial.
The discipline cases surround a secret $8.4 million settlement struck after the revelation of the text messages. The settlement was aimed, in part, to keep the romantic text messages between Kilpatrick and his chief of staff from being made public, the Detroit News recounts.
But the messages became public anyway when Stefani reportedly leaked them to the local press. The revelation forced Kilpatrick to resign and serve 99 days in jail for perjury.
"While McCargo was dealt an unfortunate set of cards, including a less-than-forthright client, he played them poorly," the panel said in its decision. "We do not doubt that McCargo was acting in what he honestly believed was an appropriate and ethical course of action from the time Stefani handed him the draft" of a legal brief containing excerpts of text messages Stefani had obtained.
The panel noted that McCargo would have been better off had he sought advice from colleagues or ethics professionals before proceeding.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Broken Justice in our Courts, Agencies, and the System
History
Our forefather’s had fought and had died for what they thought was right, to protect our freedom, as well as, our constitutional rights.
Somewhere in time, the translations had gotten lost, and now we the people are paying the cost.
This cost may be greater then we can ever imagine, and now we wonder what the hell had happened or had changed.
This system of justice has become a farce of hypocrisy of ideological ideas for the courts, agencies, and the system, in which is now conveniently re-arranged.
This system has lost the idea or concept, in which they so easily forget, that we are all equal under the law, and due process is allowed for those all.
As we as I.F.F.O.C. (Independent Federal Fund Oversight Committee) and K.C.E.A.J. (Kansas Citizens for Equal Access to Justice) monitor these courts, agencies, and Federal Funds, they receive, and I.F.F.O.C. has discovered, “Oh what a web they weave when they practice to deceive.”
This is not about mothers’ or fathers’ rights being violated, as a separate group, this is about the monies these courts, agencies, and system can recoup.
Somehow they had found a way to replace our constitutional rights with corporate and administrative laws, in which gives them the power to control, and they have basically traded their souls, in which we the people are now paying the toll.
We are losing our children and families to this corruption, and in the mist of all this there is a silent eruption.
These are individual groups of people getting together to assist those caught up in this corrupt system of justice, in which is conveniently ignoring our constitutional rights to our families, our children for profits and greed, in which leaves little doubt, this is the reason these groups are starting to enjoin, to find a way to assist others and attempt to weed this type of corruption out.
Due to each states regulations of practicing law without a license, they are putting their lives as freedom fighters on the line, to protect those who cannot find a way out, or conveniently left behind.
We are America, united we stand, these people who are in desperate need, we are here to give you a hand.
When this system is protecting those who create these loopholes in the system for greedy attorneys, courts, agencies, we step up to protect those who are caught up in this evil hypocrisy.
Our Courts
Our Courts were set up for equal access and protection and due process for all, not to let others take the fall.
Somewhere, our courts have discovered profits and greed, and they no longer have integrity, they only protect their own and run us through an administrative remedy, for plausible denial ability.
They have found a way to separate our courts in domestic cases, so the other court has no reality of what actually transpired, in which they find a way to interfere with parental rights, during this long drawn out fight.
Their intention is to get you mad, upset, or angry to a point you cannot control your actions and emotions, this gives them the upper hand in which they obtain control of your case, or your cause of action, do not give them the satisfaction.
Do not feed them the fuel for their fire, this is their actual desire.
They will play with your emotions, you heart, and most of your entire mind, Keep calm, Keep focused, and remember to document all of the time, to protect your own peace of mind.
Attempt to use their own tactics against them as your psychology, this will erupt their own hypocrisy.
They do not even follow their own statutes, laws, or even their own codes, but document this for your own peace of hope.
This may assist you in your appeal that they did not follow legislative intent, this is the message you wish to be sent.
These judges and Attorneys (Labeled as Officers of the Court) had taken an oath to uphold the laws and protect our constitutional rights, when did this idea get lost in the night.
These Agencies
These agencies are subcontracted out by SRS, DFS, or family services, in which had started from a grant to document records for each state, and this is what created our bad fate.
They began to create corporations in our system of justice, and somewhere in the mist of fog and despair of all this greed in which created a financial institution, this is where we lost our basic due process or parental rights, as defined in our U.S. Constitution.
These agencies have been known to falsify documents, commit perjury, conceal, and also commit fraud, to protect their corporate greed, funds, and the profits they make, caught up in this corruption is where most people hesitate.
They average citizen is caught up in their fight, as they continue to keep you on a defensive position, and attempt to destroy you in every situation,
You have to make good decisions, and ask the right questions to figure out their strategy and they way they attempt to sway the court, due to your anger and frustration, you have to make the best of every decision and situation.
These agencies are out for profit using your child, do not let the situation get out of control or wild, make excellent decisions and most of all act with care and precision.
The System
You have to remember these are greedy people fighting for profits, using their pretense is that their looking out for the best interest of our children, this is a farce, we have seen it all too well, this is the truth we want you to see and tell.
People are under the impression that this system is out to assist and protect families in need of care, when in actuality they are never there.
Once you get passed the concept that they do not care, and want to share (the huge Profits), in which they make, then you will see pass the hurt families, children, mothers, and fathers they forsake.
If you get caught up in this system of these evil people who act as a leach, then you will also want to protect those who stumble at their feet, and this will hopefully make you learn the truth, as well, learn to teach,
United we Stand, United we fall, do not let others get placed upon this evil wall.
Mr. David Martin Price
President of I.F.F.O.C. & K.C.E.A.J.
3121 SE Fremont St.
Topeka, Kansas 66605
(785) 267-5132
Our forefather’s had fought and had died for what they thought was right, to protect our freedom, as well as, our constitutional rights.
Somewhere in time, the translations had gotten lost, and now we the people are paying the cost.
This cost may be greater then we can ever imagine, and now we wonder what the hell had happened or had changed.
This system of justice has become a farce of hypocrisy of ideological ideas for the courts, agencies, and the system, in which is now conveniently re-arranged.
This system has lost the idea or concept, in which they so easily forget, that we are all equal under the law, and due process is allowed for those all.
As we as I.F.F.O.C. (Independent Federal Fund Oversight Committee) and K.C.E.A.J. (Kansas Citizens for Equal Access to Justice) monitor these courts, agencies, and Federal Funds, they receive, and I.F.F.O.C. has discovered, “Oh what a web they weave when they practice to deceive.”
This is not about mothers’ or fathers’ rights being violated, as a separate group, this is about the monies these courts, agencies, and system can recoup.
Somehow they had found a way to replace our constitutional rights with corporate and administrative laws, in which gives them the power to control, and they have basically traded their souls, in which we the people are now paying the toll.
We are losing our children and families to this corruption, and in the mist of all this there is a silent eruption.
These are individual groups of people getting together to assist those caught up in this corrupt system of justice, in which is conveniently ignoring our constitutional rights to our families, our children for profits and greed, in which leaves little doubt, this is the reason these groups are starting to enjoin, to find a way to assist others and attempt to weed this type of corruption out.
Due to each states regulations of practicing law without a license, they are putting their lives as freedom fighters on the line, to protect those who cannot find a way out, or conveniently left behind.
We are America, united we stand, these people who are in desperate need, we are here to give you a hand.
When this system is protecting those who create these loopholes in the system for greedy attorneys, courts, agencies, we step up to protect those who are caught up in this evil hypocrisy.
Our Courts
Our Courts were set up for equal access and protection and due process for all, not to let others take the fall.
Somewhere, our courts have discovered profits and greed, and they no longer have integrity, they only protect their own and run us through an administrative remedy, for plausible denial ability.
They have found a way to separate our courts in domestic cases, so the other court has no reality of what actually transpired, in which they find a way to interfere with parental rights, during this long drawn out fight.
Their intention is to get you mad, upset, or angry to a point you cannot control your actions and emotions, this gives them the upper hand in which they obtain control of your case, or your cause of action, do not give them the satisfaction.
Do not feed them the fuel for their fire, this is their actual desire.
They will play with your emotions, you heart, and most of your entire mind, Keep calm, Keep focused, and remember to document all of the time, to protect your own peace of mind.
Attempt to use their own tactics against them as your psychology, this will erupt their own hypocrisy.
They do not even follow their own statutes, laws, or even their own codes, but document this for your own peace of hope.
This may assist you in your appeal that they did not follow legislative intent, this is the message you wish to be sent.
These judges and Attorneys (Labeled as Officers of the Court) had taken an oath to uphold the laws and protect our constitutional rights, when did this idea get lost in the night.
These Agencies
These agencies are subcontracted out by SRS, DFS, or family services, in which had started from a grant to document records for each state, and this is what created our bad fate.
They began to create corporations in our system of justice, and somewhere in the mist of fog and despair of all this greed in which created a financial institution, this is where we lost our basic due process or parental rights, as defined in our U.S. Constitution.
These agencies have been known to falsify documents, commit perjury, conceal, and also commit fraud, to protect their corporate greed, funds, and the profits they make, caught up in this corruption is where most people hesitate.
They average citizen is caught up in their fight, as they continue to keep you on a defensive position, and attempt to destroy you in every situation,
You have to make good decisions, and ask the right questions to figure out their strategy and they way they attempt to sway the court, due to your anger and frustration, you have to make the best of every decision and situation.
These agencies are out for profit using your child, do not let the situation get out of control or wild, make excellent decisions and most of all act with care and precision.
The System
You have to remember these are greedy people fighting for profits, using their pretense is that their looking out for the best interest of our children, this is a farce, we have seen it all too well, this is the truth we want you to see and tell.
People are under the impression that this system is out to assist and protect families in need of care, when in actuality they are never there.
Once you get passed the concept that they do not care, and want to share (the huge Profits), in which they make, then you will see pass the hurt families, children, mothers, and fathers they forsake.
If you get caught up in this system of these evil people who act as a leach, then you will also want to protect those who stumble at their feet, and this will hopefully make you learn the truth, as well, learn to teach,
United we Stand, United we fall, do not let others get placed upon this evil wall.
Mr. David Martin Price
President of I.F.F.O.C. & K.C.E.A.J.
3121 SE Fremont St.
Topeka, Kansas 66605
(785) 267-5132
School Dist. Lawyer Suspended With Pay, re Claimed Failure to Tell Police of Touch Incident
Posted Sep 9, 2010 5:07 PM CDT
By Martha Neil
A school district lawyer in North Carolina has been suspended, with pay, amidst allegations that he may have played a key role in the district's reported failure to notify law enforcement authorities, as required by state law, of allegations of improper conduct toward a student by a teacher. Authorities are now investigating an incident months ago in which a teacher allegedly touched a student's leg, reports the Winston-Salem Journal. The principal at the school reported the incident to the district's lawyer, Drew Davis, according to the principal's lawyer, David Freedman. However, Davis told the principal to do nothing further, Freedman contends. Davis, declined to comment, the newspaper says. The school district is changing its reporting policy and from now on principals at schools to which a police officer is assigned will report such incidents directly to the officer.
Mr. Price, President of I.F.F.O.C. (Independent Federal Fund Oversight Committee) and K.C.E.A.J. (Kansas Citizens for Equal Access to Justice) thinks this gives new definition to the no child left behind policy. Evidently, the schools are still under the protection of each state and believe what the parent doesn’t know will not hurt them. Better defined as, plausible denial ability. Administration and their own policies, the art of confusion is illusion. Somewhere are children are not getting the right message and ideas from the Department of Education’s confusion and their own policies, Which now bring to question getting back to the basic education, and less academic credits, and more basic credits, to assist our children in achieving their educative goals.
By Martha Neil
A school district lawyer in North Carolina has been suspended, with pay, amidst allegations that he may have played a key role in the district's reported failure to notify law enforcement authorities, as required by state law, of allegations of improper conduct toward a student by a teacher. Authorities are now investigating an incident months ago in which a teacher allegedly touched a student's leg, reports the Winston-Salem Journal. The principal at the school reported the incident to the district's lawyer, Drew Davis, according to the principal's lawyer, David Freedman. However, Davis told the principal to do nothing further, Freedman contends. Davis, declined to comment, the newspaper says. The school district is changing its reporting policy and from now on principals at schools to which a police officer is assigned will report such incidents directly to the officer.
Mr. Price, President of I.F.F.O.C. (Independent Federal Fund Oversight Committee) and K.C.E.A.J. (Kansas Citizens for Equal Access to Justice) thinks this gives new definition to the no child left behind policy. Evidently, the schools are still under the protection of each state and believe what the parent doesn’t know will not hurt them. Better defined as, plausible denial ability. Administration and their own policies, the art of confusion is illusion. Somewhere are children are not getting the right message and ideas from the Department of Education’s confusion and their own policies, Which now bring to question getting back to the basic education, and less academic credits, and more basic credits, to assist our children in achieving their educative goals.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
GW Law Prof Promises Airing of Undisclosed ‘Critical Facts’ in Judge’s Impeachment Trial
Posted Sep 9, 2010 5:30 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A George Washington University law professor will be leading the defense for U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. when the first phase of his impeachment trial begins next week before a special U.S. Senate Committee. Lead defense lawyer Jonathan Turley told the National Law Journal in an e-mail that the trial will “include critical facts that were never disclosed to the members of the House before the impeachment." Porteous, a New Orleans judge, is accused of corruption on the federal and state bench, including allegations that he participated in a kickback scheme with a law firm, the story says. The trial will be the first for a member of the federal judiciary since 1989. Porteous is also represented by Bryan Cave partner Daniel Schwartz and associates P.J. Meitl and Daniel O'Connor. They contend Porteous doesn't deserve removal for his conduct, and the charges are exaggerated or taken out of context. The defense lawyers also question the propriety of trying Porteous for conduct that occurred before he became a federal judge, and claim the FBI was aware of the allegations before Porteous was confirmed to the U.S. district court.
Additional coverage:
New Orleans Times-Picayune: "Judge Thomas Porteous' defense motions rejected; trial begins Monday"
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A George Washington University law professor will be leading the defense for U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. when the first phase of his impeachment trial begins next week before a special U.S. Senate Committee. Lead defense lawyer Jonathan Turley told the National Law Journal in an e-mail that the trial will “include critical facts that were never disclosed to the members of the House before the impeachment." Porteous, a New Orleans judge, is accused of corruption on the federal and state bench, including allegations that he participated in a kickback scheme with a law firm, the story says. The trial will be the first for a member of the federal judiciary since 1989. Porteous is also represented by Bryan Cave partner Daniel Schwartz and associates P.J. Meitl and Daniel O'Connor. They contend Porteous doesn't deserve removal for his conduct, and the charges are exaggerated or taken out of context. The defense lawyers also question the propriety of trying Porteous for conduct that occurred before he became a federal judge, and claim the FBI was aware of the allegations before Porteous was confirmed to the U.S. district court.
Additional coverage:
New Orleans Times-Picayune: "Judge Thomas Porteous' defense motions rejected; trial begins Monday"
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Lawyer Accused of Forging Judge’s Signature on Orders in 4 Adoption Cases
Posted Aug 11, 2010 1:28 PM CDT
By Martha Neil
A Georgia family practitioner was arrested at her Stockbridge law office yesterday after allegedly forging a judge's signature on court orders terminating parental rights in four different adoption cases. Lynn McNeese Swank, 60, is accused of falsely informing her client, the Catholic Charities for the Archdiocese of Atlanta, that she had made progress on the cases when in fact that wasn't so, apparently in order to obtain payment for legal services that weren't provided. She allegedly forged Fulton County Superior Court Judge Gail Tusan's signature on the orders and filed them with the court clerk after the client became impatient and sent her a termination letter, according to the Fulton County Daily Report. She was charged with four counts of forgery, two counts of perjury and one count of theft by deception, states the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Noticing a typo in the mother's name on one of the orders, the charity took it directly to Tusan for correction. A staff attorney in her office then spotted the apparent forgery of the judge's signature, which led to a further investigation that revealed the other alleged forgeries of Tusan's signature on the other three orders, the Daily Report article explains. "We were very surprised," Pat Chivers, an archdiocese spokeswoman, told the AJC. "We had worked with her before and had no problems." Asked by the judge to provide a sworn explanation, Swank is accused of pointing the finger at her ex-husband and and telling the judge that he must have forged the orders because he had filed them, the Daily Report says. However, a subsequent probe by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which was called in by Tusan, determined that Swank's ex-husband, who is not identified in the article, had been out of state at the time the orders were filed. The Daily Report could not reach Swank or her lawyer for comment. A GBI press release provides additional details. At last report, Swank was being held in the Fulton County Jail.
By Martha Neil
A Georgia family practitioner was arrested at her Stockbridge law office yesterday after allegedly forging a judge's signature on court orders terminating parental rights in four different adoption cases. Lynn McNeese Swank, 60, is accused of falsely informing her client, the Catholic Charities for the Archdiocese of Atlanta, that she had made progress on the cases when in fact that wasn't so, apparently in order to obtain payment for legal services that weren't provided. She allegedly forged Fulton County Superior Court Judge Gail Tusan's signature on the orders and filed them with the court clerk after the client became impatient and sent her a termination letter, according to the Fulton County Daily Report. She was charged with four counts of forgery, two counts of perjury and one count of theft by deception, states the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Noticing a typo in the mother's name on one of the orders, the charity took it directly to Tusan for correction. A staff attorney in her office then spotted the apparent forgery of the judge's signature, which led to a further investigation that revealed the other alleged forgeries of Tusan's signature on the other three orders, the Daily Report article explains. "We were very surprised," Pat Chivers, an archdiocese spokeswoman, told the AJC. "We had worked with her before and had no problems." Asked by the judge to provide a sworn explanation, Swank is accused of pointing the finger at her ex-husband and and telling the judge that he must have forged the orders because he had filed them, the Daily Report says. However, a subsequent probe by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which was called in by Tusan, determined that Swank's ex-husband, who is not identified in the article, had been out of state at the time the orders were filed. The Daily Report could not reach Swank or her lawyer for comment. A GBI press release provides additional details. At last report, Swank was being held in the Fulton County Jail.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Lawyer Found Dead in Home After Suicidal Gunman Shoots at Downtown Indy Firm
Posted Aug 26, 2010 9:59 PM CDT
By Molly McDonough
The body of Mary Jane Frisby, 44, a former partner at the Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburg, was found in her home, the apparent victim of homicide. Police discovered her body after her estranged husband, David Frisby, shot himself at a parking garage near the firm, which she'd recently left, reports Channel 6 in Indianapolis. The news outlet reports that the couple was getting a divorce. Police went to Mary Jane Frisby's home after finding a tape recording apparently left by David Frisby in his car, WTHR Channel 13 reports. Late Thursday afternoon, Barnes & Thornburg staff was under lockdown, told by police to stay away from exterior walls which had been penetrated by two bullets, firm partner Don Knebel told Indiana Lawyer. Knebel told the publication that lawyers were getting news updates about the shooting on their BlackBerrys. "Indiana Supreme Court public information officer Kathryn Dolan, who has an office in the 30 S. Meridian building across from the parking garage, said several people in the Division of State Court Administration heard the gunshots and saw the man shoot himself and then fall from the garage," Indiana Lawyer reports. Frisby is believed to have fired six shots from the top floor of the parking garage before shooting himself, then falling to the ground below, according to several news reports. "He turned and it's like he looked directly at us and fired two shots," Barnes & Thornburg lawyer Anthony Prather told Channel 6. Channel 6 reports that David Frisby, 58, had posted Mary Jane Frisby a message on Face book condemning the law firm, writing, "The bad lawyers at the Barnes & Thornburg law firm ... do not respect the institution of marriage and corrupted my wife Mary Jane (sex and drugs). Someone (maybe one of their good lawyers) please make them pay. Justice demands the truth out. It's a tragedy." Barnes & Thornburg Managing Partner Alan A. Levin released a statement Thursday, saying, "The Barnes & Thornburg family is deeply saddened by the tragic incidents that occurred today. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of our beloved former partner, Mary Jane Frisby. Mary Jane was a valued member of Barnes & Thornburg for several years. She will be missed by all of us. This is a very sad day for the firm." Last week, Mary Jane Frisby left the firm to accept a position at Cummins, according to Channel 13. Cached versions of her profile at the firm show that she was a longtime IP lawyer, who handled IP litigation and non-litigation enforcement matters.
By Molly McDonough
The body of Mary Jane Frisby, 44, a former partner at the Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburg, was found in her home, the apparent victim of homicide. Police discovered her body after her estranged husband, David Frisby, shot himself at a parking garage near the firm, which she'd recently left, reports Channel 6 in Indianapolis. The news outlet reports that the couple was getting a divorce. Police went to Mary Jane Frisby's home after finding a tape recording apparently left by David Frisby in his car, WTHR Channel 13 reports. Late Thursday afternoon, Barnes & Thornburg staff was under lockdown, told by police to stay away from exterior walls which had been penetrated by two bullets, firm partner Don Knebel told Indiana Lawyer. Knebel told the publication that lawyers were getting news updates about the shooting on their BlackBerrys. "Indiana Supreme Court public information officer Kathryn Dolan, who has an office in the 30 S. Meridian building across from the parking garage, said several people in the Division of State Court Administration heard the gunshots and saw the man shoot himself and then fall from the garage," Indiana Lawyer reports. Frisby is believed to have fired six shots from the top floor of the parking garage before shooting himself, then falling to the ground below, according to several news reports. "He turned and it's like he looked directly at us and fired two shots," Barnes & Thornburg lawyer Anthony Prather told Channel 6. Channel 6 reports that David Frisby, 58, had posted Mary Jane Frisby a message on Face book condemning the law firm, writing, "The bad lawyers at the Barnes & Thornburg law firm ... do not respect the institution of marriage and corrupted my wife Mary Jane (sex and drugs). Someone (maybe one of their good lawyers) please make them pay. Justice demands the truth out. It's a tragedy." Barnes & Thornburg Managing Partner Alan A. Levin released a statement Thursday, saying, "The Barnes & Thornburg family is deeply saddened by the tragic incidents that occurred today. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of our beloved former partner, Mary Jane Frisby. Mary Jane was a valued member of Barnes & Thornburg for several years. She will be missed by all of us. This is a very sad day for the firm." Last week, Mary Jane Frisby left the firm to accept a position at Cummins, according to Channel 13. Cached versions of her profile at the firm show that she was a longtime IP lawyer, who handled IP litigation and non-litigation enforcement matters.
Suit Seeks to Block Appointment of Kansas Supreme Court Judge
Posted Aug 27, 2010 10:26 AM CDT
By Terry Carter
The supremely successful election-law gadfly, provocateur and mover-and-shaker James Bopp Jr. is at it again, already. The earth is still trembling from the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year, in a case Bopp developed, that the First Amendment protects unlimited corporate spending on independent campaign advertising, in Citizens United v. FEC. Now, Bopp has returned to one of his favorite issues, judicial elections. (Bopp’s extensive work challenging election laws was detailed in a profile "The Big Bopper" in the ABA Journal in 2006.) On Thursday, he filed suit in a federal court in Kansas challenging the privileged role given lawyers in selecting nominees for vacancies on the state supreme court and its appeals court. The system was devised under the state constitution to limit the role of politics in the judiciary by avoiding direct judicial elections, the Wichita Eagle reports. Five of the nine members of the Kansas Supreme Court Nominations Commission are lawyers, including its chairman, and they are elected to the posts by a vote of state-resident members of the Kansas bar. The other four members are lay persons. Bopp argues in his complaint (PDF) that scheme gives the lawyers on the Commission “majority control” in filling judicial vacancies, violating the 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the laws because citizens of Kansas have no say in the election of those commission members The suit comes on the heels of the Aug. 3 resignation of Chief Justice Robert E. Davis, who died the following day. “This restricted election denies the rights of Kansans to vote and the right to participate equally in the selection of justices and judges in Kansas,” Bopp wrote in the complaint, which seeks an injunction and an end to the current system.
By Terry Carter
The supremely successful election-law gadfly, provocateur and mover-and-shaker James Bopp Jr. is at it again, already. The earth is still trembling from the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year, in a case Bopp developed, that the First Amendment protects unlimited corporate spending on independent campaign advertising, in Citizens United v. FEC. Now, Bopp has returned to one of his favorite issues, judicial elections. (Bopp’s extensive work challenging election laws was detailed in a profile "The Big Bopper" in the ABA Journal in 2006.) On Thursday, he filed suit in a federal court in Kansas challenging the privileged role given lawyers in selecting nominees for vacancies on the state supreme court and its appeals court. The system was devised under the state constitution to limit the role of politics in the judiciary by avoiding direct judicial elections, the Wichita Eagle reports. Five of the nine members of the Kansas Supreme Court Nominations Commission are lawyers, including its chairman, and they are elected to the posts by a vote of state-resident members of the Kansas bar. The other four members are lay persons. Bopp argues in his complaint (PDF) that scheme gives the lawyers on the Commission “majority control” in filling judicial vacancies, violating the 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the laws because citizens of Kansas have no say in the election of those commission members The suit comes on the heels of the Aug. 3 resignation of Chief Justice Robert E. Davis, who died the following day. “This restricted election denies the rights of Kansans to vote and the right to participate equally in the selection of justices and judges in Kansas,” Bopp wrote in the complaint, which seeks an injunction and an end to the current system.
Ex-Judge Reprimanded After Vowing to Let Cases Sit ‘Until Hell Freezes Over’
Posted Aug 27, 2010 8:18 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A former Wisconsin judge who complained about a lack of clerical help has been reprimanded for a backlog of about 3,500 cases. Former Judge John Zodrow had worked in the city of Cudahy municipal court, which had an annual caseload of about 4,000 cases, according to an opinion by the Wisconsin Supreme Court published by Leagle.com. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Proof and Hearsay blog has a story. Court officials repeatedly warned Zodrow about the backlog, but he did nothing about it, the opinion says. Zodrow had contended the court's one full-time clerk couldn't handle all the work, and the inadequate staffing forced him to spend time on clerical tasks. He also objected to the city’s decision to cut court access to the police computer system, and he refused to adjudicate parking ticket stipulation cases in protest, the opinion says. He told the Wisconsin Judicial Commission that those cases "can sit and collect dust until hell freezes over” for all he cares. Zodrow lost his bid for re-election in April and he expressed remorse for the backlog. The court said a reprimand is appropriate since it is unlikely he will repeat his conduct.
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A former Wisconsin judge who complained about a lack of clerical help has been reprimanded for a backlog of about 3,500 cases. Former Judge John Zodrow had worked in the city of Cudahy municipal court, which had an annual caseload of about 4,000 cases, according to an opinion by the Wisconsin Supreme Court published by Leagle.com. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Proof and Hearsay blog has a story. Court officials repeatedly warned Zodrow about the backlog, but he did nothing about it, the opinion says. Zodrow had contended the court's one full-time clerk couldn't handle all the work, and the inadequate staffing forced him to spend time on clerical tasks. He also objected to the city’s decision to cut court access to the police computer system, and he refused to adjudicate parking ticket stipulation cases in protest, the opinion says. He told the Wisconsin Judicial Commission that those cases "can sit and collect dust until hell freezes over” for all he cares. Zodrow lost his bid for re-election in April and he expressed remorse for the backlog. The court said a reprimand is appropriate since it is unlikely he will repeat his conduct.
Army Sergeant Charged with Threatening Judge in YouTube Rap
Posted Sep 7, 2010 5:30 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss ABA Journal
A Tennessee serviceman in a years-long battle over custody of his teen daughter took his frustrations to the Internet, posting a YouTube rap that brought charges of threatening a judge.
In his rap, U.S. Army Sgt. Franklin Delano Jeffries II mentions a judge but doesn't give a name, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports. The newspaper cites two statements that landed the Knoxville resident in trouble. "I guarantee you, if you don't stop, I'll kill you,” he rapped in the song posted in July. Then, when the rap was over, he said, "You don't deserve to live and I hope I encourage other dads to go out there and put bombs in their [expletive] car. Blow 'em up."
Last week Jeffries was jailed pending trial on a charge of using the Internet to threaten the Knox County judge in his case. His lawyer, Ralph Harwell, told the newspaper that his client was merely exercising his right of free speech.
By Debra Cassens Weiss ABA Journal
A Tennessee serviceman in a years-long battle over custody of his teen daughter took his frustrations to the Internet, posting a YouTube rap that brought charges of threatening a judge.
In his rap, U.S. Army Sgt. Franklin Delano Jeffries II mentions a judge but doesn't give a name, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports. The newspaper cites two statements that landed the Knoxville resident in trouble. "I guarantee you, if you don't stop, I'll kill you,” he rapped in the song posted in July. Then, when the rap was over, he said, "You don't deserve to live and I hope I encourage other dads to go out there and put bombs in their [expletive] car. Blow 'em up."
Last week Jeffries was jailed pending trial on a charge of using the Internet to threaten the Knox County judge in his case. His lawyer, Ralph Harwell, told the newspaper that his client was merely exercising his right of free speech.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Michael W. Lynch - Former Chairman Of McCook Metals - Fighting Judicial Retaliation Against His Family and Himself for Uncovering Judicial Corruption in Chicago Federal Bankruptcy Court.
CHICAGO -- More evidence of $40 Million ''Judicial Bribery Fund'' turned over to civil and criminal authorities On July 11, 2006, without notice or due process, Federal Bankruptcy Court Judge Wedoff ordered Michael Lynch to sit for his third 341 examination. Despite filing for his dismissal of his personal bankruptcy due the discovery by Lynch and Federal authorities of extensive judicial corruption in his courtroom, Judge Wedoff is retaliating against Mr. Lynch's wife, children, brother and mother in attempt to intimidate and silence Lynch, according to Lynch. On July 20, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 744, Judge Wedoff has ordered that Federal Marshals shall take Lynch into custody and force him to attend his third bankruptcy interrogation proceeding. These alleged unlawful orders indicating alleged coercion under duress were entered despite Michael W. Lynch filing motions to dismiss his bankruptcy proceedings March 2006 and July 2006. Instead choosing to lawfully pursue federal actions against the attorneys Ted Cornell and Gus Palioan of Seyfarth Shaw, officers of General Electric Commercial Finance (GECC), and federal court agents for alleged wrongdoing that resulted in the forced collapse of Lynch's McCook Metals in August 2001, Judge Wedoff has allegedly threatened Mr. Lynch and his family for Lynch's now public exposure of Judicial Corruption in his courtroom and the Seventh Circuit. Judge Wedoff's rulings are evidence of apparent judicial retaliation, according to Lynch. Bankruptcy is at the sole discretion of the debtor and cannot be imposed upon a citizen by the government. Judge Wedoff is allegedly using forced bankruptcy proceedings as a weapon against Lynch to cover up for alleged crimes committed by Judge Wedoff for which further material evidence has been turned over to civil and criminal authorities, according to Lynch. Lynch comments, "Operation Greylord came out of Chicago courts. The idea that there may still exist alleged "criminals in black robes" is not foreign to this city. But my heart is heavy to be on the receiving end of actions defiling our great US Constitution by those who have taken oaths to safeguard it, while our young patriots are willing to die abroad fighting for its principles of democracy and due process." In a May 31st, 2006 Business Wire National Press Release, Mr. Lynch announced the discovery of a $40 million judicial bribery fund and his fight against systemic judicial corruption in Chicago's state and federal courts in partnership with Independent Federal Fund Oversight Committee (IFFOC) out of Topeka, Kansas. Federal actions were filed in Chicago (case numbers, 06-CV-2500, 06C 3783) and Kansas (case number 06-4055-JAR) in June 2006 respectively. (See Business Wire National Press Release of June 6, 2006). Due to the alleged judicial corruption in Cook County and the Federal 7th Circuit District Court Mr. Lynch and IFFOC were forced to file a lawsuit in the 10th Circuit Federal court in Kansas.
Federal Auditors hired by IFFOC have allegedly uncovered material evidence of Judicial Corruption pertaining to the forced bankruptcy of Mr. Lynch's former company McCook Metals. The evidence alleges the following was discovered:
1) Lynch's law firm, Seyfarth Shaw conspired with General Electric Commercial Finance (GECC conspired to force McCook Metals into bankruptcy and wrest control of the company from Mr. Lynch.
2) Judge Wedoff released the aluminum giant Alcoa from a $100 million dollar pension liability and forced those obligations onto the Pension Benefit Guaranty Board (PBGC). Former chairman of Alcoa and Secretary of Treasurer, Paul O'Neil who was a Trustee of the PBGC had exparte communications with Judge Wedoff pertaining to dismissal of those obligations, despite being hugely conflicted as Trustee for the PBGC. Like the United Airlines case that Judge Wedoff handled, thousands of workers lost their pensions or received dramatically reduced payouts. Those obligations were not honored by Alcoa or United Airlines, but instead were forced on the US taxpayers.
3) Judge Wedoff admitted on the record to Mr. David Martin Price President of I.F.F.F.O.C., that he still was receiving residuals from his prior law firm, Jenner & Block.
4) McCook Metals was never formally sold to French Aluminum Pechiney.
Instead, the McCook Metals manufacturing equipment and US Military contracts were assigned to Alcoa with no formal written agreement or court order.
5) Seyfarth Shaw, General Electric and Alcoa conspired to raise aluminum prices for the US Military.
6) Despite being a defendant in three lawsuits pertaining to his participation in judicial corruption Judge Wedoff refuses to recuse himself. The law requires an impartial judge and a constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Despite alleged judicial against his family and loved ones, Lynch vows to obey his civil and moral duty to fight judicial corruption in the public interest.
Federal Auditors hired by IFFOC have allegedly uncovered material evidence of Judicial Corruption pertaining to the forced bankruptcy of Mr. Lynch's former company McCook Metals. The evidence alleges the following was discovered:
1) Lynch's law firm, Seyfarth Shaw conspired with General Electric Commercial Finance (GECC conspired to force McCook Metals into bankruptcy and wrest control of the company from Mr. Lynch.
2) Judge Wedoff released the aluminum giant Alcoa from a $100 million dollar pension liability and forced those obligations onto the Pension Benefit Guaranty Board (PBGC). Former chairman of Alcoa and Secretary of Treasurer, Paul O'Neil who was a Trustee of the PBGC had exparte communications with Judge Wedoff pertaining to dismissal of those obligations, despite being hugely conflicted as Trustee for the PBGC. Like the United Airlines case that Judge Wedoff handled, thousands of workers lost their pensions or received dramatically reduced payouts. Those obligations were not honored by Alcoa or United Airlines, but instead were forced on the US taxpayers.
3) Judge Wedoff admitted on the record to Mr. David Martin Price President of I.F.F.F.O.C., that he still was receiving residuals from his prior law firm, Jenner & Block.
4) McCook Metals was never formally sold to French Aluminum Pechiney.
Instead, the McCook Metals manufacturing equipment and US Military contracts were assigned to Alcoa with no formal written agreement or court order.
5) Seyfarth Shaw, General Electric and Alcoa conspired to raise aluminum prices for the US Military.
6) Despite being a defendant in three lawsuits pertaining to his participation in judicial corruption Judge Wedoff refuses to recuse himself. The law requires an impartial judge and a constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Despite alleged judicial against his family and loved ones, Lynch vows to obey his civil and moral duty to fight judicial corruption in the public interest.
Lawyers Overseeing Lawyers: Can lawyers police themselves? A new look at self-regulation
By Charles E. Boyle
July 3, 2006
No country has as many lawyers as the United States - more than 152,000 in California alone - three times as many as in all of France. Nor does any other country rely as heavily on the legal profession to order its affairs. Lawyers run its criminal justice system, prosecute and defend its civil actions, write the contracts for business and individuals, and handle its administrative agencies. They are a majority in Congress and State legislatures (where they write the laws), and on Commissions and Courts (where they interpret them). Having lawyers participate to such an extent in the workings of society inevitably causes resentment. They wield great power. They speak a language that is often incomprehensible. They often appear arrogant, and they cost a lot of money. It's hard to have sympathetic feelings towards their profession. That's nothing new. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," echoed the same sentiment 400 years ago in Shakespeare's Henry VI, part 2. The public loves lawyer jokes. There's even a Web site, www.killalllawyers.com, that specializes in legal humor. Even with all of the jokes and resentment, the legal profession holds America together. The United States is a nation of laws and without the lawyers it simply wouldn't work. As a result, every time a lawyer makes an error, either intentionally (commission in legal parlance) or unintentionally (omission), it has consequences. Whether a lawyer steals money, fails to file a lawsuit on time, is negligent in handling a case, or just doesn't return phone calls, the client is faced with the decision to ignoring the situation, change lawyers, and/or pursue whatever remedies may be available. Each time such an incident occurs, it potentially makes those affected suspicious of the entire legal profession. Most lawyers are intelligent and dedicated to their profession. Unfortunately their sheer numbers make it inevitable that there will always be some who are lazy, overworked, incompetent, mentally deranged, substance abusers, bigots or criminals. They may mirror the society that produced them. Insurance agents and brokers are part of that community. It's a safe bet that any agent reading this has a lawyer - or the agency does - probably a law firm. Lawyers write the agreements that control how the agency works; they act as advisors, and increasingly they're on call to evaluate error and omission claims and how to avoid them. When a lawyer fails to perform those tasks in accordance with the requisite standards, the agency suffers just as other consumers do.
The trouble(s) with lawyers
The failure of a lawyer to act in accordance with legal standards can be catastrophic. In criminal cases incompetence can literally be a matter of life and death. In civil cases a great deal of money may change hands, or not, depending on how competent the lawyers are. Fortunately instances of such magnitude are rare. In fact, most disputes between attorneys and clients are not over the cases themselves.
"The most common dispute [between lawyers and clients] is over fees," revealed Suzanne Blonder, associate counsel of HALT, an Organization of Americans for Legal Reform [www.halt.org]. HALT was founded in 1978 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group and now has more than 50,000 members. It is "dedicated to the principle that all Americans should be able to handle their legal affairs simply, affordably and equitably." The group works to improve access and reduce costs of the legal system. Among the costs it watches is attorney fees. "Fee problems," Blonder continued, "usually involve questions about what hourly rate is being charged, or, if the amount is appropriate under a contingency fee." Lawyers are typically entitled to between 30 and 40 percent of any recovery under such agreements, and when, as sometimes happens, they do little or no work on a case, it causes problems, Blonder noted. Another frequent source of conflict between lawyers and their clients is "benign neglect." Such cases don't involve serious misconduct, but occur when "lawyers have too many cases, and can't give enough time to each one. They don't measure up to the level of care required," Blonder explained. This may also occur when larger firms assign cases to junior associates, who haven't acquired the knowledge and experience to handle them, resulting in delays and mistakes. Instances of actual misconduct do occur, however. These frequently involve fraud or theft, most commonly in situations where a lawyer receives a retainer, but does little or no work, or a lawyer takes a client's money that has been deposited in a trust account for his own use.
How to govern lawyers
Notwithstanding all the disputes and ongoing calls for tort reform, the U.S. legal system will always depend on the lawyers who run it and it will always be faced with what to do when a lawyer fails to live up to the requisite standards. There are three basic approaches to governing lawyers, according to Blonder. In the most serious cases, criminal sanctions should be imposed. For the majority of disputes, the profession should be regulated. Also, civil actions for damages should be permitted. Police and prosecutors investigate and indict lawyers in instances of criminal conduct. They only come into the picture in those relatively rare instances when actual criminal conduct appears likely. The other situations, which Blonder acknowledged comprises a large majority of the complaints against lawyers, are handled by specialized commissions, operating under the mandate of the state court system usually as a state bar association. These bodies are charged with setting qualifications for admission to practice, investigating complaints against attorneys and disciplining those found to have breached the standards of professional conduct. Sanctions run from reprimands and suspensions to temporary or permanent disbarment. If money is involved, all states have client protection funds which can both order the offending lawyer to make restitution and pay the aggrieved client directly. A civil damage action is independent of any findings by a disciplinary body, although in some circumstances they may have evidentiary value. Like all lawsuits, lawyers' malpractice actions depend on finding liability on the part of the defendant and determining the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff. In most cases the accused lawyer will be covered under a professional liability errors and omissions policy. "We don't encourage civil lawsuits," said Blonder, "as the burden of proof is very high." Essentially the plaintiff has to put on "a trial within a trial." They have to show that "but for the conduct of their attorney, they would have prevailed," she continued. "This means that the underlying case, including all the witnesses, has to be presented anew before the jury."
Does self-regulation work?
Many lawyers think that the self-regulatory system works pretty well. But a number of people disagree.
"Consumers today are still not adequately protected by state systems that investigate only a fraction of cases, almost never impose sanctions, attempt to intimidate and silence victims, hide misconduct behind a veil of secrecy, and often take years to process cases," Blonder stated in HALT's 2006 Annual Report on how the legal profession deals with the public. She charged that after 35 years of ignored calls for reform by her organization, the American Bar Association and ethics scholars across the country, the situation is not getting any better. HALT has been grading disciplinary systems in all 50 states and the District of Columbia for years and its findings aren't encouraging. The group has issued what it calls a "scathing indictment of attorney discipline agencies nationwide." More than half the states received grades below C. Utah flunked outright. No state earned an A. While Connecticut took top honors, it received only a meager B-minus. During the past four years, the new report indicates, only three states - New Jersey, Tennessee and Pennsylvania - had improved since a 2002 report. Twenty-two states were found to have deteriorated even further: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. HALT's report alleged major deficiencies in several key areas, including a low rate of complaint investigations and lack of formal sanctions. According to the report, the average state investigates only 58 percent of the complaints it receives, and investigations rarely result in discipline. What's more says Bonder, a "whopping" 24 states impose formal public sanctions - disbarments, suspensions and public reprimands - in just five percent of investigated cases. In addition, many states continue to prohibit the public from attending disciplinary hearings. Hamstrung by rules that require them to keep the process secret, officials refuse to release information about attorneys' discipline histories. A handful of states still prohibit consumers from disclosing information until the disciplinary body imposes public discipline in the case, HALT contends.
Blonder maintains that "the bar associations are aware of the problems, but they are the only forums of recourse available. In order to weed out the unethical lawyers, people have to file complaints." HALT provides assistance for claimants along with advice on how clients can help themselves. "You need to get it all in writing," she stressed. Even in cases where verbal agreements have worked in the past they may not do so in the future. "If you file a complaint, keep it short - one page - be specific." Bar associations that handle complaints are chronically overworked and understaffed, so it's important to "get their attention." There will be time later to elaborate, if the complaint has merit, Blonder advised.
High profile cases make the news
HALT studies are not alone in raising concerns about the deficiencies of the self-regulatory system. The public's confidence in lawyers is also shaken by high profile legal cases. This past May a federal grand jury in Los Angeles filed a 20-count indictment against Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, the well-known securities class action firm. Directors and officers liability underwriters have been shaking in their boots for years at the mere mention of the firm and its two best-known members, Melvyn Weiss and William Lerach, who split from Weiss and started his own law firm in 2004. It's estimated that since 1965 the firm has settled or won damage awards from corporate and individual defendants that exceed $40 billion. The courtroom accusations stem from charges that the firm paid illegal kickbacks to "clients" who agreed to serve as lead plaintiffs in up to150 class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits the firm brought over the years. The firm and two individual partners, David Bershad and Steven Schulman, are accused of various acts of fraud, conspiracy, money laundering and violations of the RICO statute. They are accused of paying millions in kickbacks - including more than $2 million to attorney, Seymour M. Lazar, who became a lead plaintiff in a number of securities fraud cases. Milberg Weiss and the accused lawyers have steadfastly denied any violations of law, and have vowed to fight the charges. At a Professional Liability Underwriters Society meeting in 1999 Lerach, who is not involved in the indictments, vigorously defended Milberg Weiss as the necessary "watchdogs" who identify and prevent corporate wrongdoing. But the indictment of his former firm makes it look like they were more interested in being attack dogs than watchdogs. There is also the civil lawsuit brought by the Independent Federal Fund Oversight Committee (IFFOC) in Kansas. It names the Seventh Circuit Bankruptcy Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Chief Judge Eugene R. Wedoff, a number of federal and state court judges and eight law firms. The suit alleges that they conspired in a $40 million bribery scheme related to the McCook Metals bankruptcy case in Chicago. It remains to be seen if IFFOC President David Martin Price has any evidence to back up his allegations. But the mere fact that an obscure organization (it has a phone number, but no Web site) can haul all of these lawyers and law firms into court serves to further diminish courts, judges and lawyers in the eyes of the public.
Malpractice suits
Despite Blonder's caveat about the difficulty of prevailing in malpractice actions against lawyers, they remain numerous enough to cause concern among legal professionals and, of course, make insurance almost mandatory. While lawyers for states and in class action settlements are pressuring insurance brokers across the country to disclose their fees and commissions, the legal profession faces its own controversy over disclosure. Should a lawyer be required to tell prospective clients that he has - or doesn't have - malpractice insurance? The American Bar Association has adopted a model disclosure rule, which 12 states have so far adopted. Some other states have similar requirements. Pennsylvania, Alaska, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Dakota are among the states that now require lawyers to provide written disclosure to clients if they do not carry minimum limits of professional liability insurance. Eleven other jurisdictions require some form of insurance disclosure on their annual registration statements. In June, California State Bar President John Van de Kamp appointed a task force to study whether lawyers in that state should be required to disclose if they maintain professional liability insurance, and if so, how such a requirement should be accomplished. California had such a provision until 2000, when it expired. Trial lawyers associations opposed renewal of the disclosure mandate on the grounds that it created too heavy a burden on lawyers, especially solo practitioners and smaller firms.
Burdensome, or not, America's litigious society means lawsuits will continue to be filed, and those targeted will seek the protection insurance coverage provides to pay for defending themselves and the damages assessed against them.
July 3, 2006
No country has as many lawyers as the United States - more than 152,000 in California alone - three times as many as in all of France. Nor does any other country rely as heavily on the legal profession to order its affairs. Lawyers run its criminal justice system, prosecute and defend its civil actions, write the contracts for business and individuals, and handle its administrative agencies. They are a majority in Congress and State legislatures (where they write the laws), and on Commissions and Courts (where they interpret them). Having lawyers participate to such an extent in the workings of society inevitably causes resentment. They wield great power. They speak a language that is often incomprehensible. They often appear arrogant, and they cost a lot of money. It's hard to have sympathetic feelings towards their profession. That's nothing new. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," echoed the same sentiment 400 years ago in Shakespeare's Henry VI, part 2. The public loves lawyer jokes. There's even a Web site, www.killalllawyers.com, that specializes in legal humor. Even with all of the jokes and resentment, the legal profession holds America together. The United States is a nation of laws and without the lawyers it simply wouldn't work. As a result, every time a lawyer makes an error, either intentionally (commission in legal parlance) or unintentionally (omission), it has consequences. Whether a lawyer steals money, fails to file a lawsuit on time, is negligent in handling a case, or just doesn't return phone calls, the client is faced with the decision to ignoring the situation, change lawyers, and/or pursue whatever remedies may be available. Each time such an incident occurs, it potentially makes those affected suspicious of the entire legal profession. Most lawyers are intelligent and dedicated to their profession. Unfortunately their sheer numbers make it inevitable that there will always be some who are lazy, overworked, incompetent, mentally deranged, substance abusers, bigots or criminals. They may mirror the society that produced them. Insurance agents and brokers are part of that community. It's a safe bet that any agent reading this has a lawyer - or the agency does - probably a law firm. Lawyers write the agreements that control how the agency works; they act as advisors, and increasingly they're on call to evaluate error and omission claims and how to avoid them. When a lawyer fails to perform those tasks in accordance with the requisite standards, the agency suffers just as other consumers do.
The trouble(s) with lawyers
The failure of a lawyer to act in accordance with legal standards can be catastrophic. In criminal cases incompetence can literally be a matter of life and death. In civil cases a great deal of money may change hands, or not, depending on how competent the lawyers are. Fortunately instances of such magnitude are rare. In fact, most disputes between attorneys and clients are not over the cases themselves.
"The most common dispute [between lawyers and clients] is over fees," revealed Suzanne Blonder, associate counsel of HALT, an Organization of Americans for Legal Reform [www.halt.org]. HALT was founded in 1978 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group and now has more than 50,000 members. It is "dedicated to the principle that all Americans should be able to handle their legal affairs simply, affordably and equitably." The group works to improve access and reduce costs of the legal system. Among the costs it watches is attorney fees. "Fee problems," Blonder continued, "usually involve questions about what hourly rate is being charged, or, if the amount is appropriate under a contingency fee." Lawyers are typically entitled to between 30 and 40 percent of any recovery under such agreements, and when, as sometimes happens, they do little or no work on a case, it causes problems, Blonder noted. Another frequent source of conflict between lawyers and their clients is "benign neglect." Such cases don't involve serious misconduct, but occur when "lawyers have too many cases, and can't give enough time to each one. They don't measure up to the level of care required," Blonder explained. This may also occur when larger firms assign cases to junior associates, who haven't acquired the knowledge and experience to handle them, resulting in delays and mistakes. Instances of actual misconduct do occur, however. These frequently involve fraud or theft, most commonly in situations where a lawyer receives a retainer, but does little or no work, or a lawyer takes a client's money that has been deposited in a trust account for his own use.
How to govern lawyers
Notwithstanding all the disputes and ongoing calls for tort reform, the U.S. legal system will always depend on the lawyers who run it and it will always be faced with what to do when a lawyer fails to live up to the requisite standards. There are three basic approaches to governing lawyers, according to Blonder. In the most serious cases, criminal sanctions should be imposed. For the majority of disputes, the profession should be regulated. Also, civil actions for damages should be permitted. Police and prosecutors investigate and indict lawyers in instances of criminal conduct. They only come into the picture in those relatively rare instances when actual criminal conduct appears likely. The other situations, which Blonder acknowledged comprises a large majority of the complaints against lawyers, are handled by specialized commissions, operating under the mandate of the state court system usually as a state bar association. These bodies are charged with setting qualifications for admission to practice, investigating complaints against attorneys and disciplining those found to have breached the standards of professional conduct. Sanctions run from reprimands and suspensions to temporary or permanent disbarment. If money is involved, all states have client protection funds which can both order the offending lawyer to make restitution and pay the aggrieved client directly. A civil damage action is independent of any findings by a disciplinary body, although in some circumstances they may have evidentiary value. Like all lawsuits, lawyers' malpractice actions depend on finding liability on the part of the defendant and determining the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff. In most cases the accused lawyer will be covered under a professional liability errors and omissions policy. "We don't encourage civil lawsuits," said Blonder, "as the burden of proof is very high." Essentially the plaintiff has to put on "a trial within a trial." They have to show that "but for the conduct of their attorney, they would have prevailed," she continued. "This means that the underlying case, including all the witnesses, has to be presented anew before the jury."
Does self-regulation work?
Many lawyers think that the self-regulatory system works pretty well. But a number of people disagree.
"Consumers today are still not adequately protected by state systems that investigate only a fraction of cases, almost never impose sanctions, attempt to intimidate and silence victims, hide misconduct behind a veil of secrecy, and often take years to process cases," Blonder stated in HALT's 2006 Annual Report on how the legal profession deals with the public. She charged that after 35 years of ignored calls for reform by her organization, the American Bar Association and ethics scholars across the country, the situation is not getting any better. HALT has been grading disciplinary systems in all 50 states and the District of Columbia for years and its findings aren't encouraging. The group has issued what it calls a "scathing indictment of attorney discipline agencies nationwide." More than half the states received grades below C. Utah flunked outright. No state earned an A. While Connecticut took top honors, it received only a meager B-minus. During the past four years, the new report indicates, only three states - New Jersey, Tennessee and Pennsylvania - had improved since a 2002 report. Twenty-two states were found to have deteriorated even further: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. HALT's report alleged major deficiencies in several key areas, including a low rate of complaint investigations and lack of formal sanctions. According to the report, the average state investigates only 58 percent of the complaints it receives, and investigations rarely result in discipline. What's more says Bonder, a "whopping" 24 states impose formal public sanctions - disbarments, suspensions and public reprimands - in just five percent of investigated cases. In addition, many states continue to prohibit the public from attending disciplinary hearings. Hamstrung by rules that require them to keep the process secret, officials refuse to release information about attorneys' discipline histories. A handful of states still prohibit consumers from disclosing information until the disciplinary body imposes public discipline in the case, HALT contends.
Blonder maintains that "the bar associations are aware of the problems, but they are the only forums of recourse available. In order to weed out the unethical lawyers, people have to file complaints." HALT provides assistance for claimants along with advice on how clients can help themselves. "You need to get it all in writing," she stressed. Even in cases where verbal agreements have worked in the past they may not do so in the future. "If you file a complaint, keep it short - one page - be specific." Bar associations that handle complaints are chronically overworked and understaffed, so it's important to "get their attention." There will be time later to elaborate, if the complaint has merit, Blonder advised.
High profile cases make the news
HALT studies are not alone in raising concerns about the deficiencies of the self-regulatory system. The public's confidence in lawyers is also shaken by high profile legal cases. This past May a federal grand jury in Los Angeles filed a 20-count indictment against Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, the well-known securities class action firm. Directors and officers liability underwriters have been shaking in their boots for years at the mere mention of the firm and its two best-known members, Melvyn Weiss and William Lerach, who split from Weiss and started his own law firm in 2004. It's estimated that since 1965 the firm has settled or won damage awards from corporate and individual defendants that exceed $40 billion. The courtroom accusations stem from charges that the firm paid illegal kickbacks to "clients" who agreed to serve as lead plaintiffs in up to150 class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits the firm brought over the years. The firm and two individual partners, David Bershad and Steven Schulman, are accused of various acts of fraud, conspiracy, money laundering and violations of the RICO statute. They are accused of paying millions in kickbacks - including more than $2 million to attorney, Seymour M. Lazar, who became a lead plaintiff in a number of securities fraud cases. Milberg Weiss and the accused lawyers have steadfastly denied any violations of law, and have vowed to fight the charges. At a Professional Liability Underwriters Society meeting in 1999 Lerach, who is not involved in the indictments, vigorously defended Milberg Weiss as the necessary "watchdogs" who identify and prevent corporate wrongdoing. But the indictment of his former firm makes it look like they were more interested in being attack dogs than watchdogs. There is also the civil lawsuit brought by the Independent Federal Fund Oversight Committee (IFFOC) in Kansas. It names the Seventh Circuit Bankruptcy Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Chief Judge Eugene R. Wedoff, a number of federal and state court judges and eight law firms. The suit alleges that they conspired in a $40 million bribery scheme related to the McCook Metals bankruptcy case in Chicago. It remains to be seen if IFFOC President David Martin Price has any evidence to back up his allegations. But the mere fact that an obscure organization (it has a phone number, but no Web site) can haul all of these lawyers and law firms into court serves to further diminish courts, judges and lawyers in the eyes of the public.
Malpractice suits
Despite Blonder's caveat about the difficulty of prevailing in malpractice actions against lawyers, they remain numerous enough to cause concern among legal professionals and, of course, make insurance almost mandatory. While lawyers for states and in class action settlements are pressuring insurance brokers across the country to disclose their fees and commissions, the legal profession faces its own controversy over disclosure. Should a lawyer be required to tell prospective clients that he has - or doesn't have - malpractice insurance? The American Bar Association has adopted a model disclosure rule, which 12 states have so far adopted. Some other states have similar requirements. Pennsylvania, Alaska, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Dakota are among the states that now require lawyers to provide written disclosure to clients if they do not carry minimum limits of professional liability insurance. Eleven other jurisdictions require some form of insurance disclosure on their annual registration statements. In June, California State Bar President John Van de Kamp appointed a task force to study whether lawyers in that state should be required to disclose if they maintain professional liability insurance, and if so, how such a requirement should be accomplished. California had such a provision until 2000, when it expired. Trial lawyers associations opposed renewal of the disclosure mandate on the grounds that it created too heavy a burden on lawyers, especially solo practitioners and smaller firms.
Burdensome, or not, America's litigious society means lawsuits will continue to be filed, and those targeted will seek the protection insurance coverage provides to pay for defending themselves and the damages assessed against them.
Judicial Watchdog Demands Commission On Ag Alberto Gonzales Promotion Of Bradley Schlozman After Schlozman’s Voting Rights Act Violations
Topeka, KS (1888PressRelease) May 10, 2007 - Topeka, KS. 5-10-2007 David Price, founder of Independent Federal Fund Oversight Committee (IFFOC) called today for US Attorney Alberto Gonzales to make US Attorneys and Assistant US Attorneys available nationwide for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and town hall meetings to address main Justice’s involvement in violations of The Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 2, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. Along with the United States Attorney for the District of Kansas Eric F. Melgren, the former US Attorney for Missouri Bradley J. Schlozman brought the most voter fraud indictments. It has now been revealed the voter fraud defendants targeted by Melgren and Schlozman were part of a nationwide conspiracy coordinated by Bradley J. Schlozman to ignore civil rights violations and selectively prosecute Democrat get out the vote drives in minority and socially disadvantaged neighborhoods. The goal of the plan executed by Melgren and Schlozman was to bring vote fraud allegations just five days before the elections in Missouri, the state with the closest US Senate race to save Republican Jim Talent from being defeated by Claire McCaskill and in Kansas to build on Bradley J. Schlozman’s work with officials in several states that included Missouri, Georgia and Arizona to impose voter I.D. legislation known to reduce election participation by African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians believed to vote predominately for Democrat candidates.
On April 26, 2007 US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promoted Bradley J. Schlozman to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys where he will be able to control career Department of Justice attorneys across the nation. Under the threat of firings and smear campaigns from main Justice, US Attorneys are no longer free to exercise their own legal judgment in the conduct of their offices. The United States Attorney for the District of Kansas Eric F. Melgren was not targeted but had to demonstrate his loyalty. Melgran’s office caused City of Topeka police instead of US Marshalls to serve a summons for a May 20th, 2004 deposition to Rosemary Price a witness in the Kansas District Court civil rights case Melvin E. Johnson v. John E. Potter, USPS No. 01-CV-4182-SAC on May 26th, six days after Rosemary Price appeared and testified as scheduled. The police threatened to shoot Rosemary Price’s dog if she did not open the door.
Eric F. Melgran’s office caused the summons to be served knowing Rosemary Price had attended the deposition because Johnson’s lawyer had warned Melgran’s Assistant US Attorney D. Brad Bailey that Melgran’s office needed to stop suborning obstruction of justice through intimidation and retaliation against witnesses coming to give testimony in Kansas District court, calling Assistant US Attorney D. Brad Bailey’s his attention to federal and state officials taking retaliatory actions against the African American Kansas national guardsman Mark Hunt and the plaintiff Melvin Johnson for appearing in U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson’s courtroom to give testimony against the City of Topeka and misconduct of City of Topeka police officers in Kansans for the Separation of School and State v. Adams, Ks Dist. Ct. Case No. 04-cv-04034-JAR-KGS on May 3, 2004.
Bradley J. Schlozman worked with Tim Griffin, now US attorney for Arkansas and Karl Rove to misuse voting law enforcement to challenge the votes of African American soldiers deployed overseas and to develop the caging lists of 70,000 names and addresses of voters in largely African-American and Democratic areas of Florida during the 2004 election. The Justice Department refuses to identify the officials that added U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, of New Mexico to the list of US Attorneys to be targeted because Iglesias was refusing to bring pretext voter fraud indictments to interfere with Democrat voting by Hispanic and American Indian minorities. Both Bradley J. Schlozman and Tim Griffin were installed as US Attorneys under an unconstitutional use of the USA PATRIOT Act.
As head of the Civil Rights Division at USDOJ, Bradley J. Schlozman tried to implement a barrier to minorities voting in Georgia, the 2005 Georgia voter I.D. law that a federal judge compared to a Jim Crow-era poll tax. During his work in Georgia, Bradley J. Schlozman made connections with state lawmakers benefiting from reduced African American voting and was able to build for them the high level relationships that gave them protection from USDOJ law enforcement, including the False Claims Act investigation of Georgia GOP state representative David E. Ralston. US Attorney David Nahmias for Georgia and Assistant US Attorney Laura Kennedy Bomamder declined to prosecute the case even though the IRS filed tax liens against Rep. David E. Ralston for the false claims revealed by the complaint.
As U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri Bradly J. Schlozman obtained search warrants in September 2006 which the FBI would use to raid the home of Columbia, Missouri businessman and Muslim philanthropist Shakir Hamoodi to attempt to help Jim Talent’s reelection campaign by appearing to be fighting terrorism, even though Hamoodi is not involved in terrorism and only was a member of an ethnic group Schlozman thought Missouri voters would believe was a terrorist.
Bradley J. Schlozman used his previous position in main Justice to improperly screen new hires on political party affiliations. Schlozman also changed the job performance evaluations of career civil servant attorneys including Tobey More a geographical analyst in Schlozman’s section in retaliation for not supporting Karl Rove’s voting suppression policies. Eric F. Melgran’s Assistant US Attorney D. Brad Bailey was able to use a threat of Justice Department prosecution in May 2004 against Melvin Johnson’s attorney if Johnson’s attorney made a criminal complaint regarding the intimidation of witnesses with testimony against the City of Topeka. The State of Kansas is now bringing an ethics prosecution against a second private attorney who brought out evidence of the City of Topeka’s corrupt misuse of Housing and Urban Development funds as well as Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) funds in Topeka’s minority neighborhoods.
The promotion of Bradley J. Schlozman to main Justice where he can continue to misuse his office to obstruct justice in voting rights investigations and assist Karl Rove in preventing public corruption from being prosecuted gives American citizens the impression that this has become the policy of the US Department of Justice. Already since Bradley J. Schlozman’s return to Washington D.C., main justice has started to employ the tactics pioneered in Kansas, the smearing of honest attorneys and the use of a Justice Department Ethics prosecution against Monica Goodling to intimidate her despite Congress’s grant of immunity to testify fully and freely on the retaliatory firings of US Attorneys.
“Our nation cannot go through what we lived through here in Kansas, a Republican Attorney General, Phil Kline receiving the benefit of dollars from out of state corporations for refusing to enforce laws to protect consumers. A department Phil Kline entrusted to a conservative party operative attorney Bryan Brown despite Brown’s arrests and sanctions for misconduct. With the promotion of Bradley J. Schlozman we are seeing the US Department of Justice taking the same wrong turn. Its time for Alberto Gonzales to fire Bradley J. Schlozman and for all US attorneys and Assistants to come forward in every community and tell the truth of what happened so our nation can start to heal” said David Price.
The original TRC : The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up by the Government of National Unity to help deal with what happened under apartheid. The conflict during this period resulted in violence and human rights abuses from all sides. No section of society escaped these abuses. The TRC is based on the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No 34 of 1995."... a commission is a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation."
On April 26, 2007 US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promoted Bradley J. Schlozman to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys where he will be able to control career Department of Justice attorneys across the nation. Under the threat of firings and smear campaigns from main Justice, US Attorneys are no longer free to exercise their own legal judgment in the conduct of their offices. The United States Attorney for the District of Kansas Eric F. Melgren was not targeted but had to demonstrate his loyalty. Melgran’s office caused City of Topeka police instead of US Marshalls to serve a summons for a May 20th, 2004 deposition to Rosemary Price a witness in the Kansas District Court civil rights case Melvin E. Johnson v. John E. Potter, USPS No. 01-CV-4182-SAC on May 26th, six days after Rosemary Price appeared and testified as scheduled. The police threatened to shoot Rosemary Price’s dog if she did not open the door.
Eric F. Melgran’s office caused the summons to be served knowing Rosemary Price had attended the deposition because Johnson’s lawyer had warned Melgran’s Assistant US Attorney D. Brad Bailey that Melgran’s office needed to stop suborning obstruction of justice through intimidation and retaliation against witnesses coming to give testimony in Kansas District court, calling Assistant US Attorney D. Brad Bailey’s his attention to federal and state officials taking retaliatory actions against the African American Kansas national guardsman Mark Hunt and the plaintiff Melvin Johnson for appearing in U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson’s courtroom to give testimony against the City of Topeka and misconduct of City of Topeka police officers in Kansans for the Separation of School and State v. Adams, Ks Dist. Ct. Case No. 04-cv-04034-JAR-KGS on May 3, 2004.
Bradley J. Schlozman worked with Tim Griffin, now US attorney for Arkansas and Karl Rove to misuse voting law enforcement to challenge the votes of African American soldiers deployed overseas and to develop the caging lists of 70,000 names and addresses of voters in largely African-American and Democratic areas of Florida during the 2004 election. The Justice Department refuses to identify the officials that added U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, of New Mexico to the list of US Attorneys to be targeted because Iglesias was refusing to bring pretext voter fraud indictments to interfere with Democrat voting by Hispanic and American Indian minorities. Both Bradley J. Schlozman and Tim Griffin were installed as US Attorneys under an unconstitutional use of the USA PATRIOT Act.
As head of the Civil Rights Division at USDOJ, Bradley J. Schlozman tried to implement a barrier to minorities voting in Georgia, the 2005 Georgia voter I.D. law that a federal judge compared to a Jim Crow-era poll tax. During his work in Georgia, Bradley J. Schlozman made connections with state lawmakers benefiting from reduced African American voting and was able to build for them the high level relationships that gave them protection from USDOJ law enforcement, including the False Claims Act investigation of Georgia GOP state representative David E. Ralston. US Attorney David Nahmias for Georgia and Assistant US Attorney Laura Kennedy Bomamder declined to prosecute the case even though the IRS filed tax liens against Rep. David E. Ralston for the false claims revealed by the complaint.
As U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri Bradly J. Schlozman obtained search warrants in September 2006 which the FBI would use to raid the home of Columbia, Missouri businessman and Muslim philanthropist Shakir Hamoodi to attempt to help Jim Talent’s reelection campaign by appearing to be fighting terrorism, even though Hamoodi is not involved in terrorism and only was a member of an ethnic group Schlozman thought Missouri voters would believe was a terrorist.
Bradley J. Schlozman used his previous position in main Justice to improperly screen new hires on political party affiliations. Schlozman also changed the job performance evaluations of career civil servant attorneys including Tobey More a geographical analyst in Schlozman’s section in retaliation for not supporting Karl Rove’s voting suppression policies. Eric F. Melgran’s Assistant US Attorney D. Brad Bailey was able to use a threat of Justice Department prosecution in May 2004 against Melvin Johnson’s attorney if Johnson’s attorney made a criminal complaint regarding the intimidation of witnesses with testimony against the City of Topeka. The State of Kansas is now bringing an ethics prosecution against a second private attorney who brought out evidence of the City of Topeka’s corrupt misuse of Housing and Urban Development funds as well as Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) funds in Topeka’s minority neighborhoods.
The promotion of Bradley J. Schlozman to main Justice where he can continue to misuse his office to obstruct justice in voting rights investigations and assist Karl Rove in preventing public corruption from being prosecuted gives American citizens the impression that this has become the policy of the US Department of Justice. Already since Bradley J. Schlozman’s return to Washington D.C., main justice has started to employ the tactics pioneered in Kansas, the smearing of honest attorneys and the use of a Justice Department Ethics prosecution against Monica Goodling to intimidate her despite Congress’s grant of immunity to testify fully and freely on the retaliatory firings of US Attorneys.
“Our nation cannot go through what we lived through here in Kansas, a Republican Attorney General, Phil Kline receiving the benefit of dollars from out of state corporations for refusing to enforce laws to protect consumers. A department Phil Kline entrusted to a conservative party operative attorney Bryan Brown despite Brown’s arrests and sanctions for misconduct. With the promotion of Bradley J. Schlozman we are seeing the US Department of Justice taking the same wrong turn. Its time for Alberto Gonzales to fire Bradley J. Schlozman and for all US attorneys and Assistants to come forward in every community and tell the truth of what happened so our nation can start to heal” said David Price.
The original TRC : The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up by the Government of National Unity to help deal with what happened under apartheid. The conflict during this period resulted in violence and human rights abuses from all sides. No section of society escaped these abuses. The TRC is based on the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No 34 of 1995."... a commission is a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation."
NJ Judge Apologizes for Rant Against Pro Se Litigant
Posted Sep 4, 2010 7:02 AM CDT
By Mark Hansen
A New Jersey judge accused of launching into a tirade against a pro se litigant in court has apologized for his remarks, which he says may have been in artful but were well-intentioned. Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Max Baker, in his response to a disciplinary complaint against him, says he was only trying to help the litigant, a woman seeking a restraining order against her husband, understand that denying her husband access to their child would ultimately prove harmful to the child in the long run. "While the message should have been impartedmore cordially and patiently, it was a heartfelt message with the hope of doing justice to the family, not to demean either of the litigants," Baker told the state's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct in a written statement Aug. 26, according to a report Thursday in the New Jersey Law Journal. The committee has accused Baker of violating judicial canons that require judges to be patient and courteous with litigants, maintain high standards of conduct and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Baker, then the county's presiding family court judge, is accused of going off on a rant against litigant Dana Pilla during a hearing last December when she expressed concern about the temporary visitation schedule he had set for her husband, Michael, with the couple's minor child. The committee says Baker became irate, screamed at Pilla, accused her of being a bad parent and threatened to jail her if she disobeyed his order concerning visitation. Baker denies becoming irate or screaming at Pilla, but acknowledges that his words "could have been so interpreted."
I.F.F.O.C. President has discovered that these judges hold pro se litigants (acting as you own attorney) to a heightened standard. They want to control the outcome of the case by assigning attorneys to your case in domestic actions. When you act as a pro se litigant they have a tendency to act out or rule in the attorney’s favor criticizing your legal work or arguments, even though you may be correct. This is to divert our attention to either hire another counsel or maybe think that your work is insufficient to act as a pro se litigant.
Statics are now showing that more are now acting as a pro se litigant in a court of law in the United States. This is because people do not trust attorneys, and they end up doing the research and find out that either their attorney is incompetent to be a trial or domestic attorney, or that they decide that if I am doing all the research, I should be able to handle my own case, since my attorney is not doing his basic research or homework for my case. This is prejudicial to pro se litigants, and shows us that there is no equality in our halls of justice, only a premonition that you will get equality and justice in our courts.
By Mark Hansen
A New Jersey judge accused of launching into a tirade against a pro se litigant in court has apologized for his remarks, which he says may have been in artful but were well-intentioned. Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Max Baker, in his response to a disciplinary complaint against him, says he was only trying to help the litigant, a woman seeking a restraining order against her husband, understand that denying her husband access to their child would ultimately prove harmful to the child in the long run. "While the message should have been impartedmore cordially and patiently, it was a heartfelt message with the hope of doing justice to the family, not to demean either of the litigants," Baker told the state's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct in a written statement Aug. 26, according to a report Thursday in the New Jersey Law Journal. The committee has accused Baker of violating judicial canons that require judges to be patient and courteous with litigants, maintain high standards of conduct and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Baker, then the county's presiding family court judge, is accused of going off on a rant against litigant Dana Pilla during a hearing last December when she expressed concern about the temporary visitation schedule he had set for her husband, Michael, with the couple's minor child. The committee says Baker became irate, screamed at Pilla, accused her of being a bad parent and threatened to jail her if she disobeyed his order concerning visitation. Baker denies becoming irate or screaming at Pilla, but acknowledges that his words "could have been so interpreted."
I.F.F.O.C. President has discovered that these judges hold pro se litigants (acting as you own attorney) to a heightened standard. They want to control the outcome of the case by assigning attorneys to your case in domestic actions. When you act as a pro se litigant they have a tendency to act out or rule in the attorney’s favor criticizing your legal work or arguments, even though you may be correct. This is to divert our attention to either hire another counsel or maybe think that your work is insufficient to act as a pro se litigant.
Statics are now showing that more are now acting as a pro se litigant in a court of law in the United States. This is because people do not trust attorneys, and they end up doing the research and find out that either their attorney is incompetent to be a trial or domestic attorney, or that they decide that if I am doing all the research, I should be able to handle my own case, since my attorney is not doing his basic research or homework for my case. This is prejudicial to pro se litigants, and shows us that there is no equality in our halls of justice, only a premonition that you will get equality and justice in our courts.
Lawyer Suspended for Destroying Law Firm Docs in Court Restroom and After Hearing
Posted Aug 27, 2010 7:54 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
An Ohio lawyer has been suspended for a year, in part because he destroyed law firm documents in a courthouse bathroom during a recess and after a civil case claiming a violation of his employment agreement. The Ohio Supreme Court said the documents had potential evidentiary value and Columbus lawyer David Robinson had engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving lying and misrepresentation under oath, according to an opinion (PDF) issued on Wednesday. The National Law Journal has the story. Robinson had removed seven boxes of documents from his law firm, Schottenstein Zox & Dunn, after he initiated job talks with two other firms, the opinion says. He sent one of the firm’s detailed information about his clients and client-billing reports after obtaining a confidentiality agreement governing the information. Schottenstein filed a civil suit against Robinson claiming he had violated non-solicitation and nondisclosure provisions of his employment agreement. At a deposition, Robinson said he didn’t take any client files or marketing plans for his firm’s lobbying subsidiary, the opinion says. Then at a hearing for injunctive relief two days later, he said that, to the best of his knowledge, he didn’t take business plans, and didn’t recall taking any information about the lobbying subsidiary. At a recess during the hearing on an injunction, Robinson tore up a law firm report of his billable hours and threw it in the trash bin in the courthouse restroom, the opinion says. After the hearing, he took several boxes of firm documents from his home and put them in his car, then drove off and stopped three times to tear them up and throw them away. He later self-reported the document destruction and returned remaining documents to the law firm. Two dissenting judges said Robinson should be suspended for two years, as recommended by the state's Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline.
By Debra Cassens Weiss
An Ohio lawyer has been suspended for a year, in part because he destroyed law firm documents in a courthouse bathroom during a recess and after a civil case claiming a violation of his employment agreement. The Ohio Supreme Court said the documents had potential evidentiary value and Columbus lawyer David Robinson had engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving lying and misrepresentation under oath, according to an opinion (PDF) issued on Wednesday. The National Law Journal has the story. Robinson had removed seven boxes of documents from his law firm, Schottenstein Zox & Dunn, after he initiated job talks with two other firms, the opinion says. He sent one of the firm’s detailed information about his clients and client-billing reports after obtaining a confidentiality agreement governing the information. Schottenstein filed a civil suit against Robinson claiming he had violated non-solicitation and nondisclosure provisions of his employment agreement. At a deposition, Robinson said he didn’t take any client files or marketing plans for his firm’s lobbying subsidiary, the opinion says. Then at a hearing for injunctive relief two days later, he said that, to the best of his knowledge, he didn’t take business plans, and didn’t recall taking any information about the lobbying subsidiary. At a recess during the hearing on an injunction, Robinson tore up a law firm report of his billable hours and threw it in the trash bin in the courthouse restroom, the opinion says. After the hearing, he took several boxes of firm documents from his home and put them in his car, then drove off and stopped three times to tear them up and throw them away. He later self-reported the document destruction and returned remaining documents to the law firm. Two dissenting judges said Robinson should be suspended for two years, as recommended by the state's Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline.
Courts, Agencies, & Profits, Are our Children Lost in our system of Justice?
I.F.F.O.C. has discovered that there is an illusion in our system of Justice, when it comes to our children. Somewhere in the average day to day operations the courts, agencies and subcontracted services have lost perspective on constitutional family rights. The way the system is run in the current world is to interfere with parental rights to their children. Basically to complicate things to make huge profits off of Federal Title IV Funds, up to One-Hundred Thousand per child per year. Then the system requires you to complete a psychological examination to use against you, so they can keep you or your children in the system. The Courts subcontract out the therapy, in which goes into the court general funds, in which 15% to 25% of that goes into the judges retirement funds. Have we actually lost perspective on the best interest of our children? This would show the average American that this is not about a institution of justice, but in retrospective it is about a financial institution profiting off of our children and families. They are actually destroying our families for profits. “Oh what a web we weave, when we practice to deceive.” I.F.F.O.C. has discovered that the system we call justice, has intentionally left children in the system for profits. I.F.F.O.C. has also discovered that these agencies have concealed abuse, neglect, and crimes against our children, so they can make profits. I.F.F.O.C. now questions our system of justice looking out for the best interest of our children.
Lawyer Accused of Sexual Harassment Says Testosterone Meds Made Him Do It
Posted Aug 13, 2010 2:28 PM CDT
By Mark Hansen ABA Journal
A Kansas lawyer accused of sexually harassing five judicial assistants over a two-year period claimed that a medication he was taking for low testosterone levels made him do it. Chauncey M. Depew, who does criminal and traffic defense work, told the court that a testosterone medication he had been taking had made him aggressive, excitable, nervous, agitated and depressed. Depew also said that he didn't view his behavior as wrong because he was friends with most of the women he was accused of harassing and was only joking around. Neither excuse seemed to carry much weight with the Supreme Court of Kansas, which issued a one-year suspension to Depew Aug. 6, according to a report on Kansas City TV station WDAF. The court also ordered Depew to obtain psychological treatment for his depression and write letters of apology to the assistants and the judges for whom they work. However, one dissenting judge questioned whether the punishment was too light, considering that Depew himself admitted at times he knew he had crossed the line. Depew, who also served occasionally as a municipal court judge, was accused of leaving a note on one woman's desk saying he wanted to lick her butt. He asked another woman to expose her breasts. He sent a picture of his genitals in a text message to a third woman.
I.F.F.O.C. is curious of what Kansas Barr Association, or Kansas Law School is now educating there students on, due to these types of behavior for someone trained in the law, in which lawyers should be held to a heightened standard, due to their training in these types of legal areas and should know better, or are they just a good old boy system trained to circumvent what the average American already knows.
I.F.F.O.C. wants to know why is it our judicial system that always advises us that ignorance is no excuse for the violations of the law, but it doesn't apply to one of there own. This makes you reconsider the option that they consider themselves above the law, in which now raises the question, are they a individual class and equality and justice does not apply on their specific level. This raises some serious concerns with I.F.F.O.C. that these individuals can get a slap on the wrist, whereas you or I if charged would get some serious time and labeled as a sex offender. I.F.F.O.C. has stated that only attorneys, who are labeled as “Doctors of Deception” can find a way out of criminal prosecution for such heinous crimes committed.
By Mark Hansen ABA Journal
A Kansas lawyer accused of sexually harassing five judicial assistants over a two-year period claimed that a medication he was taking for low testosterone levels made him do it. Chauncey M. Depew, who does criminal and traffic defense work, told the court that a testosterone medication he had been taking had made him aggressive, excitable, nervous, agitated and depressed. Depew also said that he didn't view his behavior as wrong because he was friends with most of the women he was accused of harassing and was only joking around. Neither excuse seemed to carry much weight with the Supreme Court of Kansas, which issued a one-year suspension to Depew Aug. 6, according to a report on Kansas City TV station WDAF. The court also ordered Depew to obtain psychological treatment for his depression and write letters of apology to the assistants and the judges for whom they work. However, one dissenting judge questioned whether the punishment was too light, considering that Depew himself admitted at times he knew he had crossed the line. Depew, who also served occasionally as a municipal court judge, was accused of leaving a note on one woman's desk saying he wanted to lick her butt. He asked another woman to expose her breasts. He sent a picture of his genitals in a text message to a third woman.
I.F.F.O.C. is curious of what Kansas Barr Association, or Kansas Law School is now educating there students on, due to these types of behavior for someone trained in the law, in which lawyers should be held to a heightened standard, due to their training in these types of legal areas and should know better, or are they just a good old boy system trained to circumvent what the average American already knows.
I.F.F.O.C. wants to know why is it our judicial system that always advises us that ignorance is no excuse for the violations of the law, but it doesn't apply to one of there own. This makes you reconsider the option that they consider themselves above the law, in which now raises the question, are they a individual class and equality and justice does not apply on their specific level. This raises some serious concerns with I.F.F.O.C. that these individuals can get a slap on the wrist, whereas you or I if charged would get some serious time and labeled as a sex offender. I.F.F.O.C. has stated that only attorneys, who are labeled as “Doctors of Deception” can find a way out of criminal prosecution for such heinous crimes committed.
Party and Sexual Encounter Lead to Proposed Suspension for 2 Ex-BigLaw Associates
Posted Aug 4, 2010 8:23 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss ABA Journal
An Illinois hearing board has recommended short suspensions for two former BigLaw associates for their conduct during a long day of partying in Wisconsin that ended with a sexual encounter and allegations of rape. The hearing board report recommends a 60-day suspension for Stephan Addison, who formerly worked at Seyfarth Shaw, and a 30-day suspension for Benjamin Butler, who had worked at Schiff Hardin. Addison now has a solo legal practice and is a consultant for a private equity company, while Butler is a solo and an independent contractor with Collins, Bargione and Vuckovich. Both are 2004 graduates of the University of Wisconsin Law School. Addison and Butler had entered no-contest pleas in December 2006 to lesser charges in a criminal case based on the accusations of a woman they met in a bar after a day of drinking in August 2005, the report says. The woman agreed to drive the men to Addison’s summer house, and ended up having sex on the hood of the car with the men. She told police she had been raped; they said the sex was consensual. Addison pleaded no contest to second-degree reckless endangerment and sexual gratification in public, and was sentenced to 30 days in jail with work release, three years of probation and 500 hours of community service. Butler pleaded no contest to second-degree endangerment, and was sentenced to three years of probation and 300 hours of community service. The pleas outraged some in the community, according to a January 2007 Milwaukee Journal article. The Legal Profession Blog noted the hearing board recommendation. Law Shucks has a longer account of the case.
By Debra Cassens Weiss ABA Journal
An Illinois hearing board has recommended short suspensions for two former BigLaw associates for their conduct during a long day of partying in Wisconsin that ended with a sexual encounter and allegations of rape. The hearing board report recommends a 60-day suspension for Stephan Addison, who formerly worked at Seyfarth Shaw, and a 30-day suspension for Benjamin Butler, who had worked at Schiff Hardin. Addison now has a solo legal practice and is a consultant for a private equity company, while Butler is a solo and an independent contractor with Collins, Bargione and Vuckovich. Both are 2004 graduates of the University of Wisconsin Law School. Addison and Butler had entered no-contest pleas in December 2006 to lesser charges in a criminal case based on the accusations of a woman they met in a bar after a day of drinking in August 2005, the report says. The woman agreed to drive the men to Addison’s summer house, and ended up having sex on the hood of the car with the men. She told police she had been raped; they said the sex was consensual. Addison pleaded no contest to second-degree reckless endangerment and sexual gratification in public, and was sentenced to 30 days in jail with work release, three years of probation and 500 hours of community service. Butler pleaded no contest to second-degree endangerment, and was sentenced to three years of probation and 300 hours of community service. The pleas outraged some in the community, according to a January 2007 Milwaukee Journal article. The Legal Profession Blog noted the hearing board recommendation. Law Shucks has a longer account of the case.
Prominent Kansas Lawyer Charged in Child Pornography Case
Posted Jul 23, 2010 3:04 PM CDT
By Martha Neil ABA Journal
A litigation partner in the largest law firm in Kansas has been charged in a child pornography case. Samuel Logan, 45, is accused of sending webcam photos of himself masturbating from what appears to be a law office, as well as child and adult pornography, to an undercover officer posing as a 14-year-old, reports the Kansas City Star. On the walls of the office can be seen diplomas and framed certificates, reports NBC News. A criminal complaint was filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan., charging Logan with enticing a minor to have sex and a count of sending and receiving child pornography. His father, James Logan, is a former federal appeals court judge and a former dean of the University of Kansas School of Law, the Star notes. A partner of Foulston Siefkin, Samuel Logan was no longer listed on the firm's website today. However, James Oliver, the partner in charge of the firm's Overland Park office, says it has taken no action concerning Logan's job there, reports the Kansas City Business Journal. The firm was called yesterday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is cooperating, Oliver says. “We first learned of his difficulties yesterday afternoon,” Oliver told the Business Journal today. “We are really just not able to comment because the facts are just developing.” The articles don't include any comment from Logan or his counsel.
By Martha Neil ABA Journal
A litigation partner in the largest law firm in Kansas has been charged in a child pornography case. Samuel Logan, 45, is accused of sending webcam photos of himself masturbating from what appears to be a law office, as well as child and adult pornography, to an undercover officer posing as a 14-year-old, reports the Kansas City Star. On the walls of the office can be seen diplomas and framed certificates, reports NBC News. A criminal complaint was filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan., charging Logan with enticing a minor to have sex and a count of sending and receiving child pornography. His father, James Logan, is a former federal appeals court judge and a former dean of the University of Kansas School of Law, the Star notes. A partner of Foulston Siefkin, Samuel Logan was no longer listed on the firm's website today. However, James Oliver, the partner in charge of the firm's Overland Park office, says it has taken no action concerning Logan's job there, reports the Kansas City Business Journal. The firm was called yesterday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is cooperating, Oliver says. “We first learned of his difficulties yesterday afternoon,” Oliver told the Business Journal today. “We are really just not able to comment because the facts are just developing.” The articles don't include any comment from Logan or his counsel.
Ethics Commission Lawyers Blasted for Doing Private Work on State Time
Posted Jul 16, 2010 12:21 PM CDT
By Mark Hansen ABA Journal
Two Georgia State Ethics Commission lawyers have been criticized in a new report for working on their private law practice on state time and for using state computers to do research for their private clients. The report, issued by the Georgia inspector general's office, found that commission lawyers Thomas Plank and Yasha Heidari, who had created their own firm while working full-time for the state, met with clients and attended hearings on state time, used state computers to research private cases and abused sick leave, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported Thursday. The inspector general also found that the two lawyers had had represented a lobbying group, Bright Ideas Consulting, that is regulated by the commission, according to the newspaper. The commission's former human resources and budget director filed a whistle-blower suit against the ethics commission earlier this month. She said in her complaint that she told the then-commission director Rick Thompson that Heidari and Plank were moonlighting on state time. When Thompson left the commission and Plank subsequently replaced him as acting director, Plank fired Ward. In the suit, Ward said her firing was in retaliation for her complaint; Plank said her firing was not for that reason but otherwise declined to comment. Around the time of Ward's firing, the inspector general began its investigation of Heidari and Plank. Plank couldn't be reached for comment, the newspaper said. But Heidari, who left the commission several months ago, called the report "pathetic" and said it was "50 pages of fluff." Heidari also suggested that the inspector general's office, which spent a year investigating him and Plank, had uncovered little evidence of wrongdoing but had produced the lengthy report in part to justify its existence to lawmakers. The report recommended that the commission establish clear policies on outside employment and set up clear punishments for infractions. It also suggested that the commission monitor sick leave use to look for signs of employees faking illness.
By Mark Hansen ABA Journal
Two Georgia State Ethics Commission lawyers have been criticized in a new report for working on their private law practice on state time and for using state computers to do research for their private clients. The report, issued by the Georgia inspector general's office, found that commission lawyers Thomas Plank and Yasha Heidari, who had created their own firm while working full-time for the state, met with clients and attended hearings on state time, used state computers to research private cases and abused sick leave, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported Thursday. The inspector general also found that the two lawyers had had represented a lobbying group, Bright Ideas Consulting, that is regulated by the commission, according to the newspaper. The commission's former human resources and budget director filed a whistle-blower suit against the ethics commission earlier this month. She said in her complaint that she told the then-commission director Rick Thompson that Heidari and Plank were moonlighting on state time. When Thompson left the commission and Plank subsequently replaced him as acting director, Plank fired Ward. In the suit, Ward said her firing was in retaliation for her complaint; Plank said her firing was not for that reason but otherwise declined to comment. Around the time of Ward's firing, the inspector general began its investigation of Heidari and Plank. Plank couldn't be reached for comment, the newspaper said. But Heidari, who left the commission several months ago, called the report "pathetic" and said it was "50 pages of fluff." Heidari also suggested that the inspector general's office, which spent a year investigating him and Plank, had uncovered little evidence of wrongdoing but had produced the lengthy report in part to justify its existence to lawmakers. The report recommended that the commission establish clear policies on outside employment and set up clear punishments for infractions. It also suggested that the commission monitor sick leave use to look for signs of employees faking illness.
A ‘Disappointed & Shocked’ Top Judge is Reprimanded for Refusing Execution-Eve Appeal
Posted Jul 16, 2010 10:14 PM CDT
By Martha Neil ABA Journal
The top criminal appeals court judge in Texas was reprimanded today for refusing to accept a late appeal hours before an inmate was executed and hence failing in her duty to maintain open access to the courts. The Commission on Judicial Conduct found that Presiding Judge Sharon Keller of the state Court of Criminal Appeals engaged in “willful or persistent conduct that casts public discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice” by neither instructing the court clerk to wait a short time for the appeal filing nor telling the clerk that another judge was assigned to handle last-minute execution appeals that day, according to the Dallas Morning News and the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram.
Michael Richard, a convicted rapist and murderer, was put to death later that same evening on Sept. 25, 2007. Keller's lawyer, Chip Babcock, says she is "disappointed and shocked" about the reprimand and will challenge it, apparently to the state supreme court, according to the New York Times (reg. req.). He had argued that defense lawyers erred by going to Keller instead of directly to the duty judge for execution-eve appeals. The commission could have removed Keller from office. However, in reprimanding her with a "public warning" it went beyond the recommendation of a special master, District Judge David Berchelmann Jr., who found after an ethics hearing that Keller should be exonerated even though her conduct "was not exemplary."
The Focal Point blog of the Austin American Statesman provides a link to the commission's report (PDF).
By Martha Neil ABA Journal
The top criminal appeals court judge in Texas was reprimanded today for refusing to accept a late appeal hours before an inmate was executed and hence failing in her duty to maintain open access to the courts. The Commission on Judicial Conduct found that Presiding Judge Sharon Keller of the state Court of Criminal Appeals engaged in “willful or persistent conduct that casts public discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice” by neither instructing the court clerk to wait a short time for the appeal filing nor telling the clerk that another judge was assigned to handle last-minute execution appeals that day, according to the Dallas Morning News and the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram.
Michael Richard, a convicted rapist and murderer, was put to death later that same evening on Sept. 25, 2007. Keller's lawyer, Chip Babcock, says she is "disappointed and shocked" about the reprimand and will challenge it, apparently to the state supreme court, according to the New York Times (reg. req.). He had argued that defense lawyers erred by going to Keller instead of directly to the duty judge for execution-eve appeals. The commission could have removed Keller from office. However, in reprimanding her with a "public warning" it went beyond the recommendation of a special master, District Judge David Berchelmann Jr., who found after an ethics hearing that Keller should be exonerated even though her conduct "was not exemplary."
The Focal Point blog of the Austin American Statesman provides a link to the commission's report (PDF).
Now-Disbarred Attorney: ‘I Knew I Was Creating My Own Disaster’
Posted Jul 9, 2010 12:18 PM CDT
By Martha Neil ABA Journal
Earlier this year, the future looked bright for Mary Ann Giebink. In addition to a Sioux Falls law practice, the South Dakota lawyer was a Democratic candidate for the state legislature. Then she fell off the wagon. On May 7, the recovering alcoholic had a relapse and led Minnehaha County sheriff's officers on a high-speed, booze-fueled chase, according to the Argus Leader and KELO. But that wasn't all. Within a month or so prior to her arrest, Giebink misappropriated $24,000 from the law firm's trust account, authorities say. She allegedly wrote checks two checks totaling $2,000 in April to two bars, once of which also operates a casino. Since then, Giebink has done her best to make things right. She quickly withdrew from the legislative race, closed her law practice and was voluntarily disbarred in South Dakota. Yesterday she pleaded guilty to drunken driving and eluding charges from the May incident, as as well offering an open guilty plea to a new charge of grand theft by embezzlement of property received in trust that was filed earlier the same day, the articles say. This permits the judge in her case potentially to impose the maximum 12-year penalty when she is later sentenced. Giebink, who is 50, told the judge yesterday that she had repaid some of the money taken from the trust account and promised to make full restitution. Minnehaha County State's Attorney Aaron McGowan described the situation as an ongoing cooperative effort. She also admitted to police when they interviewed her about the missing money that she had made a serious mistake, reports KELO. According to court documents, she stated: "I admit that I have committed a felony, grand theft. I knew I was creating my own disaster." As a result of her cooperation, charges of marijuana and drug paraphernalia possession were dropped.
I.F.F.O.C. President thinks there needs to be better oversight on attorneys and judges.
I.F.F.O.C. recommends a 12 panel of citizens who has the power to recommend suspension, or request a grand jury investigation. This would eliminate the good old boy system. These citizens would not be in the legal field, but have two legal advisors who would only give legal advise to the panel. This would give the citizens back our legal system, our forefathers had originally set in place for the people. Not the way our system is currently run by those who abuse our system of justice for profits, and ignore our constitutional rights guaranteed by law. This gives us as the people equality back in our system of justice, as well as, our State and Federal Courts.
By Martha Neil ABA Journal
Earlier this year, the future looked bright for Mary Ann Giebink. In addition to a Sioux Falls law practice, the South Dakota lawyer was a Democratic candidate for the state legislature. Then she fell off the wagon. On May 7, the recovering alcoholic had a relapse and led Minnehaha County sheriff's officers on a high-speed, booze-fueled chase, according to the Argus Leader and KELO. But that wasn't all. Within a month or so prior to her arrest, Giebink misappropriated $24,000 from the law firm's trust account, authorities say. She allegedly wrote checks two checks totaling $2,000 in April to two bars, once of which also operates a casino. Since then, Giebink has done her best to make things right. She quickly withdrew from the legislative race, closed her law practice and was voluntarily disbarred in South Dakota. Yesterday she pleaded guilty to drunken driving and eluding charges from the May incident, as as well offering an open guilty plea to a new charge of grand theft by embezzlement of property received in trust that was filed earlier the same day, the articles say. This permits the judge in her case potentially to impose the maximum 12-year penalty when she is later sentenced. Giebink, who is 50, told the judge yesterday that she had repaid some of the money taken from the trust account and promised to make full restitution. Minnehaha County State's Attorney Aaron McGowan described the situation as an ongoing cooperative effort. She also admitted to police when they interviewed her about the missing money that she had made a serious mistake, reports KELO. According to court documents, she stated: "I admit that I have committed a felony, grand theft. I knew I was creating my own disaster." As a result of her cooperation, charges of marijuana and drug paraphernalia possession were dropped.
I.F.F.O.C. President thinks there needs to be better oversight on attorneys and judges.
I.F.F.O.C. recommends a 12 panel of citizens who has the power to recommend suspension, or request a grand jury investigation. This would eliminate the good old boy system. These citizens would not be in the legal field, but have two legal advisors who would only give legal advise to the panel. This would give the citizens back our legal system, our forefathers had originally set in place for the people. Not the way our system is currently run by those who abuse our system of justice for profits, and ignore our constitutional rights guaranteed by law. This gives us as the people equality back in our system of justice, as well as, our State and Federal Courts.
Lawyer Accused of Smuggling Witness Hit List From Jailed Client
Posted Jul 9, 2010 2:56 PM CDT
By Martha Neil ABA Journal
A California lawyer has been accused of smuggling--perhaps unknowingly--a witness hit list from a jailed client. It allegedly contained highlighted names that would have understood by the recipient to be those of witnesses to be eliminated.While representing then-longtime client Yusef Bey IV in a case in which he is accused of ordering that journalist Chauncey Bailey and two other individuals be killed, attorney Lorna Patton Brown allegedly took unauthorized materials from him out of the Santa Rita jail and smuggled materials into the jail on multiple occasions, reports the Chauncey Bailey Project in an article published in the San Jose Mercury News. The article relies on an affidavit by Kathleen Boyovich, an inspector with theAlameda County district attorney's office. The affidavit was reportedly included in a court filing that seeks to prevent Bey from having unrecorded phone calls while representing himself in a separate real estate fraud case, due to concerns about witness safety. Brown stepped down from the criminal representation of Bey in April, citing a conflict of interest that was not detailed, reports KTVU. She has not herself been charged with any crime and it appears from the article that no action was ever taken by anyone to put the claimed witness hit list to use. She did not respond to a request for comment from the Chauncey Bailey Project and her lawyer declined to comment.
By Martha Neil ABA Journal
A California lawyer has been accused of smuggling--perhaps unknowingly--a witness hit list from a jailed client. It allegedly contained highlighted names that would have understood by the recipient to be those of witnesses to be eliminated.While representing then-longtime client Yusef Bey IV in a case in which he is accused of ordering that journalist Chauncey Bailey and two other individuals be killed, attorney Lorna Patton Brown allegedly took unauthorized materials from him out of the Santa Rita jail and smuggled materials into the jail on multiple occasions, reports the Chauncey Bailey Project in an article published in the San Jose Mercury News. The article relies on an affidavit by Kathleen Boyovich, an inspector with theAlameda County district attorney's office. The affidavit was reportedly included in a court filing that seeks to prevent Bey from having unrecorded phone calls while representing himself in a separate real estate fraud case, due to concerns about witness safety. Brown stepped down from the criminal representation of Bey in April, citing a conflict of interest that was not detailed, reports KTVU. She has not herself been charged with any crime and it appears from the article that no action was ever taken by anyone to put the claimed witness hit list to use. She did not respond to a request for comment from the Chauncey Bailey Project and her lawyer declined to comment.
Abuse Hotline Call Dismissed Months Before Baby's Death
The Harvey County Sheriff's Department says an abuse hotline call regarding 19-month-old Vincent Hill was dismissed two months prior to his death.
Reporter: Stephanie Diffin / KAKE News March 31, 2010
The Harvey County Sheriff's Department confirms someone called an SRS abuse hotline more than two months before 19-month-old Vincent Hill was allegedly beaten to death. But Newton SRS and Harvey County law enforcement say they were never informed of the call. The call came in from a couple who lived in the same duplex as Hill, his mother, Katheryn Nycole Dale, and her boyfriend, Chadd Carr. Dale and Carr are both charged in the case. "Nothing ever gets done until it's too late, and unfortunately, it's too late," said Jason Monarez, the victim's neighbor. Vincent Hill's father describes the little boy as happy and always smiling. "He's never going to be able to play catch with me, I'm never going to teach him how to learn how to fish," said Ricky Hill, Vincent's father. "I''m not going to get to see him do anything." Now, Ricky Hill wonders if he would have gotten the chance to see those things if social services had further investigated a call it received on January 20th, two months before Vincent's death. "We tried to stop it, we tried... me and my girlfriend both," said Monarez. "You could just hear through the wall, the child screaming." So Monarez' girlfriend called an SRS abuse hotline. But the center dismissed the call saying it didn't indicate there was any harm taking place to the child. The last sentence of the report reads, "This completes the initial assessment with no further action needed." "It just makes me angry, really, to know that i tried and it wasn't taken seriously," said Jessica Link, who placed the call. Since the call stopped at the call center, Newton SRS says it never got word of the suspected abuse. "If they would have had the report, they probably would have notified us, and something would have gotten done," said Harvey County Sheriff T. Walton. SRS will not comment about specific cases, but did release this statement on the process of investigating calls to its hotline; "SRS receives reports of alleged abuse and neglect through our Kansas Protection Report Center, 1-800-922-5330. In State fiscal year 2009 SRS received 56,207 reports of alleged abuse or neglect. Of those, 49% or 27,340, cases were assigned for further investigation." "Intake workers receive protective services training to elicit specific information about the situation. Information requested is focused on the extent of the situation, circumstances of the situation, child’s functioning, parenting practices and caregiver function, in addition to information regarding the child’s age, person alleged to have caused harm to the child, where the child is located, other individuals or agencies who may have information regarding the incident and the availability of a non-abusing adult to protect the child from further harm."The information gathered through the intake process is then provided to a licensed social worker to review and determine whether the incident requires further investigation. This decision is based on specific safety and risk factors, including but not limited to: seriousness of the incident, prior agency involvement with the family, and seriousness of injury to child." "All reports assigned for further investigation involving allegations of maltreatment of child must be investigated within either a 24 hour or 72 hour timeframe, depending on the nature of the allegation. Situations requiring a 24 hour response include, but are not limited to: life threatening situation, sexual abuse with the alleged perpetrator in the home, child in protective custody, or a child with current visible injuries." "Certain reports, not alleging maltreatment, may be investigated within 20 working days. An example of this type of case would be truancy."
Reporter: Stephanie Diffin / KAKE News March 31, 2010
The Harvey County Sheriff's Department confirms someone called an SRS abuse hotline more than two months before 19-month-old Vincent Hill was allegedly beaten to death. But Newton SRS and Harvey County law enforcement say they were never informed of the call. The call came in from a couple who lived in the same duplex as Hill, his mother, Katheryn Nycole Dale, and her boyfriend, Chadd Carr. Dale and Carr are both charged in the case. "Nothing ever gets done until it's too late, and unfortunately, it's too late," said Jason Monarez, the victim's neighbor. Vincent Hill's father describes the little boy as happy and always smiling. "He's never going to be able to play catch with me, I'm never going to teach him how to learn how to fish," said Ricky Hill, Vincent's father. "I''m not going to get to see him do anything." Now, Ricky Hill wonders if he would have gotten the chance to see those things if social services had further investigated a call it received on January 20th, two months before Vincent's death. "We tried to stop it, we tried... me and my girlfriend both," said Monarez. "You could just hear through the wall, the child screaming." So Monarez' girlfriend called an SRS abuse hotline. But the center dismissed the call saying it didn't indicate there was any harm taking place to the child. The last sentence of the report reads, "This completes the initial assessment with no further action needed." "It just makes me angry, really, to know that i tried and it wasn't taken seriously," said Jessica Link, who placed the call. Since the call stopped at the call center, Newton SRS says it never got word of the suspected abuse. "If they would have had the report, they probably would have notified us, and something would have gotten done," said Harvey County Sheriff T. Walton. SRS will not comment about specific cases, but did release this statement on the process of investigating calls to its hotline; "SRS receives reports of alleged abuse and neglect through our Kansas Protection Report Center, 1-800-922-5330. In State fiscal year 2009 SRS received 56,207 reports of alleged abuse or neglect. Of those, 49% or 27,340, cases were assigned for further investigation." "Intake workers receive protective services training to elicit specific information about the situation. Information requested is focused on the extent of the situation, circumstances of the situation, child’s functioning, parenting practices and caregiver function, in addition to information regarding the child’s age, person alleged to have caused harm to the child, where the child is located, other individuals or agencies who may have information regarding the incident and the availability of a non-abusing adult to protect the child from further harm."The information gathered through the intake process is then provided to a licensed social worker to review and determine whether the incident requires further investigation. This decision is based on specific safety and risk factors, including but not limited to: seriousness of the incident, prior agency involvement with the family, and seriousness of injury to child." "All reports assigned for further investigation involving allegations of maltreatment of child must be investigated within either a 24 hour or 72 hour timeframe, depending on the nature of the allegation. Situations requiring a 24 hour response include, but are not limited to: life threatening situation, sexual abuse with the alleged perpetrator in the home, child in protective custody, or a child with current visible injuries." "Certain reports, not alleging maltreatment, may be investigated within 20 working days. An example of this type of case would be truancy."
I.F.F.O.C. Discovers New Technique Federal Prosecutors Use
I.F.F.O.C. has discovered in cases that Federal Prosecutors use a new technique
in which, they hand pick the doctors to get the results they want in order to control
the case. I.F.F.O.C. has discovered that one doctor in particular doctor that I.F.F.O.C.
had done research was named Dr. Robert G. Lucking out of North Carolina. His
specialty for the government was to discredit the individuals if they needed, as well
as, prescribe heavy medication such is what is known as a haladrol. Thanks to modern technology (the internet) I.F.F.O.C. has discovered the following information:
1). A pattern of practice of Dr. Robert G. Lucking to mislead or perjure himself, as well as, inappropriately secure a Sell Order, without an Harper Hearing, before initiating a Sell Litigation, in which Dr. Robert G. Lucking has now violated C.F.R. § 549.43 See ref USDC of Arizona case no: CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09 by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia.
2). “This is also a pattern of practice of inconsistencies in Dr. Lucking’s testimony that remains unexplained.” As stated in CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09 by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia.
3). Now the Defendant has recently discovered that “this is not the first time that a court within the District of Arizona has been addressed the Federal Medical Center’s attempts to inappropriately secure a Sell Order. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar, 446 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (D. Ariz. 2006).”
4). Dr. Robert Lucking testified that he had opened mail after it was sealed and stamped without a warrant, in which is a federal crime, whereby now it discredits the doctors testimony , as well as, creditibility in any future pending case.
I.F.F.O.C. then begins to questions the motivations of the U.S. prosecutors, in which are supposed to protect the rights of the accused and prevent this type of injustice from occurring, or are the U.S. prosecutors building up their résumés to build up their careers at the cost of defendants lives and injustice.
It is amazing to I.F.F.O.C. that these individuals had taken an oath to uphold all laws, statutes, and the constitution of our government, as well as, to protect all liberties and rights of all citizens of the United States, and have all the access to the information we as I.F.F.O.C. has provided, but they cannot even do a background check on this doctor to make sure he is reliable in a court of law.
I.F.F.O.C. is only publishing this as a dedecation to those who suffered under false pretenses, (better known as constructive or extrinsic fraud) and to show that the average citizens or individuals can find the truth under the smoke screen that these corrupt individuals use or put in place to better their careers, at the price of those who fall into their trap of deceit. But what you do in the dark will eventually come into the light, as we now have shown. I.F.F.O.C. wants the average public to know their dirty little secrets to protect all from their harm these corrupt individuals may cause, because they don’t have a conscious when they use deceitful tactics like this, and to expose it would be I.F.F.O.C.’s gift to all it may help.
This is exactly why I.F.F.O.C. refers the ideology that attorneys are true to their character, better known as doctors of deception.
in which, they hand pick the doctors to get the results they want in order to control
the case. I.F.F.O.C. has discovered that one doctor in particular doctor that I.F.F.O.C.
had done research was named Dr. Robert G. Lucking out of North Carolina. His
specialty for the government was to discredit the individuals if they needed, as well
as, prescribe heavy medication such is what is known as a haladrol. Thanks to modern technology (the internet) I.F.F.O.C. has discovered the following information:
1). A pattern of practice of Dr. Robert G. Lucking to mislead or perjure himself, as well as, inappropriately secure a Sell Order, without an Harper Hearing, before initiating a Sell Litigation, in which Dr. Robert G. Lucking has now violated C.F.R. § 549.43 See ref USDC of Arizona case no: CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09 by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia.
2). “This is also a pattern of practice of inconsistencies in Dr. Lucking’s testimony that remains unexplained.” As stated in CR-05-0099-02-PHX-MHM order dated 09/28/09 by the Honorable Mary H. Murguia.
3). Now the Defendant has recently discovered that “this is not the first time that a court within the District of Arizona has been addressed the Federal Medical Center’s attempts to inappropriately secure a Sell Order. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar, 446 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (D. Ariz. 2006).”
4). Dr. Robert Lucking testified that he had opened mail after it was sealed and stamped without a warrant, in which is a federal crime, whereby now it discredits the doctors testimony , as well as, creditibility in any future pending case.
I.F.F.O.C. then begins to questions the motivations of the U.S. prosecutors, in which are supposed to protect the rights of the accused and prevent this type of injustice from occurring, or are the U.S. prosecutors building up their résumés to build up their careers at the cost of defendants lives and injustice.
It is amazing to I.F.F.O.C. that these individuals had taken an oath to uphold all laws, statutes, and the constitution of our government, as well as, to protect all liberties and rights of all citizens of the United States, and have all the access to the information we as I.F.F.O.C. has provided, but they cannot even do a background check on this doctor to make sure he is reliable in a court of law.
I.F.F.O.C. is only publishing this as a dedecation to those who suffered under false pretenses, (better known as constructive or extrinsic fraud) and to show that the average citizens or individuals can find the truth under the smoke screen that these corrupt individuals use or put in place to better their careers, at the price of those who fall into their trap of deceit. But what you do in the dark will eventually come into the light, as we now have shown. I.F.F.O.C. wants the average public to know their dirty little secrets to protect all from their harm these corrupt individuals may cause, because they don’t have a conscious when they use deceitful tactics like this, and to expose it would be I.F.F.O.C.’s gift to all it may help.
This is exactly why I.F.F.O.C. refers the ideology that attorneys are true to their character, better known as doctors of deception.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)