Former Pennsylvania Congressman Suspended From Practicing Law Due To Criticism Of Judges

220px-Donald_A._BaileyFormer Democratic congressman and Auditor General Don Bailey, 68, had his law license suspended for five years by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for allegations and criticism directed at judges in the state. Bailey denounced the ruling and said that he would challenge it in federal court while denouncing the state justices as corrupt and malicious. While some would agree with the case, there is a worrisome line of cases targeting lawyers who criticize judges.


Bailey has accused federal judges of malfeasance, charges found to be baseless. He said that he was targeted by several U.S. Middle District Court judges who set out to ruin his practice.

Bailey was a congressman from 1979 until 1983, when his Westmoreland County seat was eliminated through redistricting. He had a remarkable military career. He served with the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions in Vietnam and was awarded the Silver Star, three Bronze Stars, two with the Valor device, one for meritorious achievement, Army Commendation Medal, with “V” for Valor, Air Medal, and a second Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service.

I have previously expressed concern over cases of discipline for both lawyers and laypersons criticizing judges. One troubling case is unfolding in Indiana where the Indiana Disciplinary Commission is recommending a one year suspension for Indianapolis attorney and blogger Paul K. Ogden, who criticized a judge in emails and refused to apologize for what he considered an exercise of free speech.

Ogden sent emails to another attorney accusing Hendricks Superior Judge David Coleman of mishandling an estate case. One particular email sent to opposing counsel Steve Harris of Mooresville said that Coleman “should be turned in to the disciplinary commission for how he handled this case.” That email is part of the position of hearing officer Robert W. York who finds that he “cannot stress enough the conclusion that (Ogden) has a profound lack of both insight into his own conduct and lack or respect for those who disagree with him in any way.” The case is disturbing on a number of levels including the commission’s position that Odgen should be punished because he believes he is “superior to the courts and the law” and that his criticism of Coleman was “filled with inaccurate claims and slanderous innuendo.”

Ogden insists that it was his criticism of the disciplinary process that led to the charges:

I have long felt that one of our responsibilities as attorney is to speak out about the need for reform of our legal system. While I have broached many topics for reform in the legal system, many times on this blog, it was not until January of 2011 when I first decided to touch the third rail and publish an article on the disciplinary process. That story included my research that during the last three years when the Disciplinary Commission was headed by Donald Lundberg, 397 of the 400 published disciplinary cases had been against small firm attorneys and sole practitioners. It was just a few months after that story that the relatively new Executive Secretary of the Commission Michael Witte began filing grievances against me which ultimately resulted in the charges that were heard yesterday.

I tend to favor the free speech values in such cases. In the Indiana, I fail to see how emails criticizing judges should be the basis for discipline. This is a matter of professional opinion. What do you think?

Source (for Pennsylvania story):

Penn LIve

48 thoughts on “Former Pennsylvania Congressman Suspended From Practicing Law Due To Criticism Of Judges

  1. As a retired Texas trial judge I think that criticism is protected as a form of “redress of grievances” protected by the first amendment and similar free speech protections in state constitutions. Judges simply have to have thick skins. If there is a criminal accusation then it should be made to prosecutors or the judicial commission or both. If unfounded the false accuser can be sued or, in the case of a lawyer, disciplined. But criticism, even disdain just goes with the territory.

  2. From the PennLive article:

    “The system is corrupt. The Supreme Court in Pennsylvania is corrupt and everybody knows it,” Bailey said. “Lawyers do not have the courage to speak up.”

    True or false?

  3. What Mike said without reservation.

    The Black Robe neither makes you an untouchable God nor a paragon of perfection.

  4. We in the US are seeing the birth and growth of a new ruling class including judges, prosecutors, police officers, congress members, presidents and other who feel that criticism or disclosure of behavior that is wrong, inappropriate or criminal in the opinion of the speaker should be treated as a crime or at least an offense with sanctions. When did our “leaders” become infallible or appointed by god? We had an entire revolution to disengage our country from “god and my right” government. I would say that we have a serious problem.

  5. Start with Mike’s opening comment and add Justice Holmes comment and you have a concise picture of the problem. Judges should not be immune from criticism and one would assume that if they are Judges they should understand that on Constitutional grounds.

  6. If there is a mechanism for removing judges from that state then this attack on this person is grounds. Mike, Justice Holmes and Mike Spindell hit the nail on the head regarding the right to petition the government for redress of grievances and (I add) to exercise free speech and to assemble (on the blog) in order to speak and petition the government. Here is a guy who went to Nam to fight for our Constitution getting rear ended by a bunch of snakes in the courts.

  7. The sovereign immunity doctrine has grown perverted in several areas, and it is spreading.

    The king can do no wrong” type of thinking taken to irresponsible levels chills free speech while it heats up oppression –no matter what branch of government becomes infected with it:

    Though the origin of sovereign immunity is obscure, the doctrine, as we know it, developed in England and was based upon the historical fiction that the king could do no wrong, and thus, was free from legal accountability. See generally, Edwin M. Borchard, Governmental Responsibility in Tort, 36 Yale L.J. 1 (1926)

    Bertrand v. Board of County Com’rs, 872 P.2d 223 (1994), emphasis added.

    Prosser was mystified about how it could make its way back into American Jurisprudence through a half-witted concept that forgets that the Declaration of Independence was a long list of unacceptable wrongs done by the king.

    The Bill of Rights followed which counsel that, left to his own, the king will do very little that is not wrong.

    It should be understood that “the king” is a metaphor for government power.

    Experience has shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson

  8. Sad to say, upon this issue, yours truly has become sort of an expert.

    It has become systemic & incestuous protocol of bad faith justices, via Civil Rights violations by “Color of Law” to engage in tyranny, cronyism & corruption – nefariously.

    We are either a nation of the Code & Rule of Law;
    or one of power, money & might makes right.

    Judges are human beings entrusted with great power and given “carte blanche” protection of immunity for their adjudication upon the merits – even if they are clear error and/or biased.

    Therefore, the thick skin of protection should go hand in hand with tolerance of those who criticize (even ridicule).

    Richard Fine was thrown in jail for being right. Crystal Cox has been burdened with $2 million in lost litigation; for being a blogger who told the truth. (Fortunately, in Crystal Cox’s case – UCLA Law Prof Volokh came to the rescue; because that judge seeks to obliterate free speech under perverse logic of who can be one to criticize).

    Attorney Mark Adams of Florida always chants “No Justice – No Peace”. For him it has dual meanings. He refuses to be silent – even though they took his BAR card away – due to his criticism. Mark Adams also has found NO (honorable) Justice – and therefore refuses to grant the judiciary any peace of his quiet.

    These parties, as Don Bailey, are true Red White & Blue American patriots who put it on the line; because they give a damn about the Code & Rule of Law.

    They are all American Heroes.

    As was one of their true to form predecessors – Israel Weinstock. He spoke out about judicial bad faith and fought until his bitter life’s end – to stop judicial tyranny, cronyism & corruption. A Bill was presented before Congress in Israel Weinstock’s name.

    KUDOs to you Don Bailey – I applaud you. It is rare that we find people like Justice Richard B Sanders of Washington State Supreme Court, Judge Tom Tucker of Michigan, Her Honor Elizabeth Weaver (who now champions – as a former justice – the cause to stop abuse of power as a judge). They, along with 11th Circuit Justice Kravitch who told a trustee the axiomatic fact “Lies under oath are Lying Under Oath. Just like all of them and his Honor Judge Rakoff = it is absolutely wonderful to be able to say YOUR HONOR

    and it have some meaning worthwhile!

  9. Bailey’s “problem” seems clear:

    http://donbaileylaw.com/ : “Demonstrated commitment to fair and equal justice for all Americans.”

    “Don Bailey – Civil Rights Attorney, Harrisburg Pennsylvania

    Don Bailey practices law in Harrisburg, PA and is well known for taking on the high-profile and controversial cases many attorneys fear.

    Don adamantly defends the United States Constitution and the rights that it was intended to provide for us.”

  10. It is bad enough that judge have absolute immunity from legal suit for the actions they do, and it makes no difference how bad it is, see my article
    http://www.nolanchart.com/article9741-the-horrifying-extent-of-absolute-judicial-immunity.html

    But now, not content with legal protections under the law, they seek to chill and punish purely speech based criticisms. These punishments are violations of free speech, association, petition of grievance and due process.

    But when the alcoholics are in charge of the liquor store, and the owners do nothing to curb their behavior, this is inevitable.

    There is a disconnect between practical policy and legal theory, and the distance between the two is becoming larger every month.

    People in general are comfortable enough, and busy enough with their own lives to just not care about what appears to be obscure peccadillos in hidden parts of our jurisprudence. People of course do not and cannot understand that the violations in obscure places act as precedents, and grow and metastasize into other areas of our civil life, and by then it is too late to do anything about them.

  11. The way attorneys take care of themselves it is usually a serious offense to have your law license suspended or revoked. The attorneys I know[~7] who had their licenses suspend or revoked were real shitbirds. Based on the info provided, it doesn’t look @ all warranted. It’s the same w/ docs, if you have an action taken against you then you really screwed the pooch.

  12. There used to be a chancery court judge in Rankin County, Mississippi. He only served one term before being voted out of office. It is a good thing he was unable to read the minds of most of the lawyers in the county. The entire lot of them would have been jailed for contempt in extremis. And although not a lawyer myself, I was of a like mind. The entire bar in central Mississippi breathed a sigh of relief when he went down in flames at the ballot box.

    I knew a judge who had an argument with a local citizen over who got to the service station gas pump first. He wrote out a contempt citation right there in the parking lot. That judge got his little citation slapped down and a reprimand from the judicial oversight committee.

    One of my friends, who is both a physician and lawyer, has a wicked sense of humor. After being in court one day with a judge who was really full of his own self-importance, my friend observed that when they put on those black robes they take on aspects of the Deity.

  13. I was required to take a legal course during my graduate school work. One was taught by a retired judge who was brilliant and “down to earth.” As the course was 35 years ago the one comment I distinctly remember was his explanation of the judge’s dictatorial control of the court. He said someday you may be in court and be on the stand and want to elaborate on an answer to a question asked of you and the judge will allow elaboration. You will think but I need to fully explain myself and he will not allow me. You will then get steamed and want to look directly at that judge sitting pompously high above everyone else and say (but you better not), Why you “black robed son-of-a bitch.” I’ll never forget that verbatim, eloquent, succinct description. It sort of sums up the judges in the above article.

  14. http://pennsylvaniacivilrightslawnetwork.com/2011/08/09/civil-rights-lawyer-don-bailey-under-attack-and-he-and-clients-to-sue-for-corruption/

    http://pennsylvaniacivilrightslawnetwork.com/2011/08/11/the-opening-statement-at-todays-inquisition-of-don-bailey-and-civil-rights/

    Opening Statement of Respondent Don Bailey: August 11, 2011

    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fulton, and Attendees,

    I very much appreciate the opportunity to defend myself, to the extent I can under the limitations I must endure, against charges that I wrote in a pleading that certain federal judges were misbehaving. I confess that I did so. Because objectively speaking, they were. And I also confess that I still believe every word that I said.

    The Federal judicial system, at least in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, has been corrupted by certain errant and dishonest judges. There is no need to address what we have suffered, as of late, in our state judicial system. And even greater than the injustices that I am suffering right here are the deprivations of American citizens who deserve, but have been denied, their day in court. Political and personal misconduct by judicial officers continues in our system. The evidence is overwhelming. Favoritism, selective law firm influence, cronyism and political retribution are common place. Corruption in Pennsylvania has become a pervasive way of life. There isn’t a lawyer, nor is there a functionary in this system, who is not aware of these facts. And just because there’s always been some wrongdoing doesn’t mean this is okay. There are two generic classes of victims in this orchestration. The unfortunate spill off reflects on the large maturity of our judges, the decent and honest judges whose service we are privileged to enjoy, countless citizens are required to depend upon a class of dishonest and corrupt public officials to try and seek redress of their grievances. There is no greater example of the corruption which exists in Pennsylvania today than this very proceeding. Pennsylvania’s so-called Lawyer’s Disciplinary System is a fraud. If a lawyer dares to complain then his or her profession and livelihood are threatened and destroyed. Furthermore, as Paul Killian’s behavior demonstrates, in one place you apply standards, in the next place you don’t, it all depends on who the favor is being done for.

    Please allow me to finish with a brief personal story.

    … We found the disjointed chopped skeletons of over 200 people who had been marched out of Nam Hoa in 1968. Their names had been on a list because they had said things critical of the Communists. That’s all they did. They had criticized the political structure. Now the story, which is true, is certainly an exaggeration to press the point here. But how far removed is this so-called hearing or process? Perhaps not as far as some of you would like to think? You would take my right to earn a living, but more important my right to represent people that not one of you has the courage to stand up and fight for. That I voiced substantive criticisms is not important. You haven’t the slightest interest in the accuracy or efficacy of what I said about these judges’ and their misbehavior. Your only fear is that someone will hear what my clients and I said and might pay attention to it. You see what you seek to stop is any attorney saying anything critical of any judge at any time. The judicial system charged with the responsibility for protecting American citizens from First Amendment intrusions by the government is the greatest abuser of all.

  15. ” … Your only fear is that someone will hear what my clients and I said and might pay attention to it. …” (from ap’s post at 12:07pm)

    Thanks … looks like that fear was realized … ;)

  16. I was prepared to go somewhat against the flow here as to the possible justification for the order. An attorney who has lost his way in conspiracy theories can do real damage to clients by providing legal advice and services affected by those theories. While the attorney is chasing unicorns, he can fail to take the action necessary to preserve those claims with actual legal merit or leave clients liable to others However, a fair reading of the order suggests that the concern was really with the criticism rather than the effect of his views on his clients-so never mind.

    http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out/11DB2011-Bailey.pdf

  17. Every couple of years I receive requests from the state bar asking me to evaluate specific judges I have litigated before. I know that it is the judges themselves who submit the names of the attorneys who have tried cases before them during the review period, and although the bar always assures me that they will keep my comments anonymous, I’m pretty sure the judges can figure out who’s saying what. I’ve also recently had a specific request from the state bar to comment on a judge that had complaints against her. I assume this judge had put my name down as an attorney reference because I had done a jury trial in front of her several years ago which resulted in a not guilty verdict ( it was strange that she had to go back several years to come up with my name) . I think she thought I would give her a good review based on this trial. Ironically this was such a good case that had it been in front of almost any other judge I would have waived the jury and done a bench trial. This judge is a hack but I was afraid to say as much as I knew it would get back to her. As far as I know she was not disciplined in any way and is still on the bench. She was doing some bat-shit crazy things that I heard about (e.g. raising bonds when defendants wanted continuances instead of excepting offers on arraignment dates on misdemeanor cases). Every year in the state I primarily practice in (Illinois) the state supreme court continues to ban cameras in the court room. I’m convinced the main reason is to shield judges from criticism for their hijinks. While it may not be beneficial to your clients to be openly critical of judges ( and this is the real reason I hold my tongue ) I really don’t see how such an opinion means an attorney puts himself above the law. If anything it may mean he’s concerned with the system remaining fair. The logic hear seems to mirror that where a person is branded as unpatriotic for criticizing the country/government/military etc.

  18. “This judge is a hack but I was afraid to say as much as I knew it would get back to her.”

    Seamus,

    Thank you for your honesty. It is something I’d suspect, but given that you are a practicing lawyer it lends more credibility to the notion that there is little to restrain bad Judges.

  19. No one should be beyond criticism when doing the public’s business: they’re judges, not gods. I agree with Mike at the top of the thread and Justice Holmes.

  20. seamus,

    If I had a dime for every lawyer I’ve heard tell that same story, only with differing details, I’d be Slim Picken’s best friend.

  21. “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”- James Madison

  22. Thank you for the reference to the Peck case.

    As detailed above, I’m familiar with many parties who are ostracized for their criticisms. Judge R.B. Sanders spoke out the words “tyrant” when then current “Acting” U.S. Attorney General Mukasey was in earnest effort (begging of sorts) that President Elect Obama understand GW Bush is a law abiding POTUS.

    After being boo’d by the crowd, Mukasey was emboldened to continue upon the line of incongruous self-serve. Resultantly, Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders was compelled to bark out again “tyrany – TYRANT”!

    His honor was removed from the room – and became infamously known – due to the fact that U.S.A.G Mukasey passed out unconscious – at the podium.

    Later on, due to that and other stances of His Honor – Justice R.B. Sanders was blind sided with a false story by a nefarious ‘Seattle Times’ article; just 2 weeks before the final Re-Election was to occur.

    His Honor lost by several thousand votes.

    WHY WE SHOULD BE HONORED to have a justice such as “R.B. Sanders” and disdain for judges who abuse their position of trust; is that Richard (he always desires that I call him such – and not Your Honor {but I adore that I can do so “sincerely”} – is that Justice Sanders does not regret what he did. Though he does regret the possibility that his outspokenness might have frustrated U.S.A.G. Mukasey; his Honor Richard B Sanders only regrets that

    He had not done something more than just yell the words tyrant!

    —————————————————————-

    Mark Adams, Israel Weinstock, Richard B Fine, James Traficant, Rick Convertino, Mary Alice Gwynn – all punished by the BAR or powers that be – for speaking out against tyranny, cronyism and corruption.

    We need to applaud their good faith efforts and ostracize the tyrants out of office who would dare deprive American citizenry of good quality public servants such as Don Bailey.

    —————————————————————-

    The autocrats only get away with it – When we Allow them to Do So!

  23. juan r sanchez threatened to incarcerate me. “I mean it. I’ll do it.” i was pro se, a plaintiff in a civil case. it was the first time i appeared before him representing myself and had done nothing wrong. the next time i was before him, i asked him why he threatened me with incarceration and called me a criminal. he looked at defense counsel who said he had not heard him threaten me. he denied it and said he never threatened any one in a civil case with incarceration. who would like to see the transcript? anyone care to hear the court produced digital audio recording? judges who violate the canons and codes of conduct are to receive consequences.

    after one year i bypassed brad baldus and left a message for scirica at penn. i asked him if he had reviewed my complaint. a week later he dismissed it. 60 days was the limit of time he was allowed. in the meantime, he was teaching a law class in florence italy, all expenses paid.

    not one lawyer agreed to look into this matter. lawyer, too, are bound by their own codes to report judicial misconduct.

  24. Dear paulalombardi edwardo stumpf, gregg haltermann and other good people here;

    Thank you all for your efforts in pursuit of justice.

    Know that it is your right to seek to affirm culpability and accountability of those who delight in their bad faith pursuits; and I both applaud and would seek to encourage your efforts.

    As for the vex of the various troubling matters and the questions upon the facts that there seems to not be one single solitary lawyer or a possibility of any changes to come. To those dynamics, once again, I would seek to encourage you in the quests resolute.

    What you have to realize is that YOU are the change that may come;
    and that you ARE the attorney that needs be.

    What we must do, of course, is unite in our efforts.

    Please try to understand the reality of the complexities that we are dealing with here! I’ve learned the hard way that it serves no good purpose to compel honest & good people to be bold in their fiduciary duty. Only to have those decent persons wind up upon wind up on a hit list (as exampled by anonymous reflection of the tyranny of Judge Peck upon the noble counsel Lawless).

    In my decade plus battle against Romney & his RICO Gang I’ve had the pleasure of witnessing extraordinary people who try to serve goodness with honor and distinction, along with victims refusing to suffer in silence and events that would encourage U.S. all to have a greater hope for justice.

    If you wish to see a change in the world;
    ask yourself how far further you are willing to go to make such occur!

    Our enemies are autocrats, Tyrants, syndicated bosses, Robber Barons and betrayers of the public’s trust exceptional. They steal our money, media, liberties and more;

    but they can’t take the heart of you unless you permit them to do so.

    Don’t waste your time trying to convince bad people and Jacobite’s who have nothing else than a hell bent desire to defeat your honorable efforts.

    As I’m walking my amoeba arse up to the lion’s den and kicking him square in the proverbial’s (yours truly recent Haas v Romney Fed Court case); it is quite possible that the old adage of nixing the messenger to arrest delivery of the message may occur. As there are many dead in my saga already.

    I would therefore seek to implore you to understand that Robert Alber now knocking on heaven’s door after shooting Sesseyoff is the collateral damage of our (YOURS & mine) Civil War.

    Marty Lackner too, has given his life, whether freely Suicided or otherwise; as has John “Jack” Wheeler. With other fantastic people such as Anna Schaeffer in Minnesota and Harry Alexander doing what they could when they (purportedly) were dying of illness causes.

    Please stop being half-arsed about this affair?

    You ARE entitled to recompense, punitive damages and more; from the coffers of the nefarious hordes. You also damn sure ARE entitled to gripe about the injustices so prevalent among U.S.

    Please, I beg you all, stop being half arsed about these affairs and unite together? If you see you brother or sister combatant waning or in need – then DO SOMETHING (as you can) – About it!

    Unless you accept the fact that we are in a CIVIL WAR with enemies DOMESTIC and DESPOTIC assaulting the Constitution of the United States and its good citizenry;

    the bad faith parties will continue to win and slaughter others innocents!

  25. This judge is terrible, and I shudder when I see that he has been assigned to a case I file. Even though he gives parties time to present argument, he makes up his mind quickly (if he hasn”t made it up before you open your mouth). He allows his prejudices to color the litigation, but puts on a good appearance of evenhandedness by appearing to be emotionally detatched. He does not follow the law when he knows he can get away with it. (e.g., when he knows the your client does not have the resources to pay for an appellate challenge). I would ordinarily give him a higher rating for scholarship, because it is clear he is smart, but he does not care about scholarship if he wants to get rid of your case. In other words, he is a sneak. I have also heard that when he was a public defender in Chester County, he was essentially a lap dog for the district attorney”s office. Overall awful. comment submitted by a defense counsel

    jonathan, where are the dutiful lawyers who MUST report judges when they learn of credible accounts of serious judicial misconduct? lawyers, generally speaking, are not known for timidity. just as don bailey was raped of his license to practice law for allegedly breaking a few rules, shouldn’t all lawyers face severe reperrcussions for ignoring similar infractions?

  26. gregg haltermann;

    In a legitimate realm of justice, you are correct. It is against the Law to sit idle by. (18 U.S.C. $ 4 MisPrision of a Felony and 18 U.S.C. $ 3057(a); which commands Judges even point out bad faith of other judges, trustees and attorneys).

    Unfortunately, legitimacy takes a back seat to power & money.

    Counsels like Rick Convertino (a former Asst U.S Attorney), bloggers like Roger Shuler, International attorneys and tax activists like Richard Fine, or Mark A Adams Esq, former Congressman James Traficant, Governor Siegelman and the late GREAT Israel Weinstock (who actually had a Bill named after him presented to Congress) are all FANTASTIC American Patriots who paid huge prices for speaking out against corruption and bad faith.

    Common sense tells smart men/women that you don’t go before your realm and make accusations against a judge; without a mob of attorneys, DA’s, AG’s and others doing the same.

    Lest you find all your future clients screwed.

  27. [Senate Hearing 106-399]
    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

    S. Hrg. 106-399 Pt. 2

    CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

    =======================================================================

    HEARINGS before the

    COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
    UNITED STATES SENATE

    ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

    SECOND SESSION

    on

    CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTEES TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY

    __________

    FEBRUARY 22, MARCH 23, APRIL 27, AND MAY 10, 2000

    __________

    Senator Specter. I would like to acknowledge the presence
    here today of Thomas Kline of the distinguished law firm of
    Klein & Specter, who is the chairman of the Pennsylvania
    Nominating Panel for the Eastern District who goes through a
    merit bipartisan selection process.
    Tom, if you would stand, we would appreciate it, to be
    acknowledged. arlen specter BEFORE THE

    13 years ago, tom kline, shanin specter’s law partner, recommended judicial candidates to shanin’s dad arlen, to seats on the bench of the u.s district court for the eastern district of pennsylvania. after their confirmation tom, shanin and arlen took cases before these hand picked judges and tried to persuade them to rule in their favor. guess how they fared?

    THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IS PROHIBITED AMONG JUDGES

  28. Simmply want to say your article is ass amazing. The
    clarity in your post is simply spectaculpar and i can assume you are an expert on this subject.
    Weell with yoiur permission allow me to grab yoyr RSS
    feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep
    uup the gratifying work.

  29. no comment, Jonathan? where is the passion for justice? writing about legal issues has its place. doing something to return the courts to their rightful, esteemed status is critical and of historical significance.

  30. I know this is an old story, but this is EXACTLY what is being written about in an article recently published on Family Courts and 1st Amendment violations, where attorneys are petrified of criticizing judges for fear of retaliation, quote:

    “Practicing lawyers in front of such judges are effectively silenced by the sheer occupational hazard of having to practice in front of the same judge they were complaining about. In many jurisdictions any such criticism is presumptively considered professional misconduct; for many such reasons attorney criticism would be professional suicide and all attorneys know it.”

  31. WordPress has been hacked by feminists, who hate the website, A Voice For Men, and have convinced the administrators at WordPress that the site is a hate speech site, which it is not.
    The above post is from an article on a voice for men website, called American Family Courts, the First Amendment, and Violations of Free Speech.
    Interesting how free speech is even being censored here on WordPress.

  32. I.M. Hipp – One tills, another one seeds, another one waters – etc…

    I harp at the Professor – all the time – for staying away from the risky;
    because he does good work and it is my wish for faster change that’s

    impatient….

    ————————————–

    Gary T

    I feel ya – Free speech is free until it ruffles the wrong ——-

Comments are closed.