Love It!

A judge has ordered a U.S. lawyer who defended two Russians accused of operating a large botnet to pay Google's legal fees. It just goes to show there are a few good judges out there. 

The defendants, who initially pursued a strategy of counter suing Google for interfering in their sprawling cybercrime business, later brazenly offered to dismantle the botnet in exchange for payment from Google. The judge in the case was not amused, found for the plaintiff, and ordered the defendants and their U.S. attorney to pay Google’s legal fees.

I hope every lawyer and judges hears about this case. Lawyers do not have legal immunity to crimes they commit when they are representing a client. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to such actions.  

Intentional Torts Not Covered By Malpractice Insurance

If an attorney makes a mistake they are covered by malpractice insurance (assuming they carry it), but if they intentionally commit a crime, well that is a different matter. Most if not all malpractice insurance policies do not cover crimes such as fraud. 

Not that this matters much because the reality is that crimes committed by attorneys are so common they has become normalized. Attorneys are rarely held accountable for such crimes. Rarely but not never. 

Aiding and abetting and conspiracy claims find their roots in criminal law.   In the civil context, they lead to liability for those who help other actors or a main actor (usually for lawyers it is the client) to commit some tort against a third party.  In practice, this often involves a claim that the lawyer helped the client either commit a fraud on a third party or breach some duty (usually a fiduciary duty) to a third party.

A number of jurisdictions have common law protections for attorneys that can shield them from aiding and abetting claims.  These cases say, as a general matter, that attorneys are privileged to perform honest legal services for their clients and they are protected as a matter of public policy from liability arising out of the those honest legal services.  The theory underlying these cases is the concern that if attorneys are worried about being sued by third parties for representing their clients, then attorneys cannot be effective advisors and advocates for their clients.  These cases are typically older than the cases that allow in-concert liability claims against attorneys, and therefore, while they should be used to respond to such claims, these cases may or may not be persuasive to a reviewing court.  Of course, the question of whether an attorney who aids a client to commit a tort is performing honest legal services that public policy would wish to protect could be another weakness to this argument.

My own  case is a bit different in that Nelly Wince knowingly committed fraud herself. Yet even with overwhelming evidence the legal system just ignores it. 

Our society will be a whole lot better off once lawyers are held accountable for their crimes. I do believe this will happen but it will be a long road to get there. 

The Supreme Court is OK With Corruption

The Supreme Court is apparently OK with corruption. 

The first case centered on whether Joseph Percoco’s conduct in taking a $35,000 payment from a real estate developer when managing Cuomo’s re-election campaign in 2014 is covered by a federal law that requires that “honest services” be provided to the public. Percoco says that because he was not working for the government at the time, he had no duty to provide honest services.

The second case involves Louis Ciminelli, a real estate developer based in Buffalo, who was convicted of wire fraud for seeking to rig the bidding process for redevelopment contracts in the city. His lawyers argue that his conduct in ensuring that his company would be a preferred bidder, which involved trying to influence the selection criteria set by the state to benefit his company, did not rise to the level of fraud.

Justices seemed sympathetic to the defendants during both oral arguments. In Percoco's case, a majority of the nine justices appeared concerned that allowing nongovernment employees to be criminally charged would draw in other influential figures in the halls of power, such as lobbyists. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch remarked that Washington is "full of such persons."

So I guess public officials taking bribes and bid rigging are jut fine because such crimes are so common. 

A lawyer recently told me that the issue with my case is not that my facts are in question nor is it that the law isn't clear. The issue is that such crimes are just so common the justice system ignores them. That my friends is called institutional corruption. It could well be the downfall of our country. 

Family Court Judges: Cannibals Of The Courts

The Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts has a really interesting article about family court  judges.

Somehow in the mountains of literature written about family court aberration and dysfunction, the voices that are missing are those of the executioners: the men and women in black robes. Those who speak out about the need for “reform” in family court seem to believe that these judges are not active entities, participants, even prime movers in the corruption.

Perhaps the reformers believe they cannot speak about the judges because judges have “absolute immunity.” That is, they are unaccountable. But their “absolute immunity” leads to a code of conduct that in no way, shape, or form is related to ethical work.

Judicial immunity leads to all sorts of bad behavior by judges. Where there are no strong checks on abusive behavior, such behaviors becomes institutionalized. 

One of my pet irritations in life is when the legal system complains about judges being overworked. Baloney. Most judges, at least in family court, spend as little time in court as possible and rely on clerks or often whichever lawyer in the case they like to write their opinion. Often they don't even read the material in the docket. 

Ignoring the issues of power and money, directed by dangerous unethical authorities in control, is to abandon hope and allow the lives of protective parents and their children to be destroyed.

Where Have All The Men Gone?

There is a distinct lack of men in Russia these days. Where have they gone? It is no secret. Hundreds of thousands have been mobilized. To date over 300,000 have become casualties, including over 75,000 dead, in Putin's disastrous and immoral invasion of Ukraine. Hundreds of thousands more have fled the country because they do not want to fight or are agaisnt the war. Of course the ones who fled tend to be the better educated ones. Russian women complain about the lack of good men to date. 

All of the most reasonable guys are gone," said Tatiana, a 36-year-old Muscovite. 

Somewhat counter-intuitively there has been a marriage boom in Russia. The explanation for this is simple. If you are in a relationship and get drafted, it is beneficial to marry your girlfriend so that she gets spousal compensation when you are killed. Cold logic. 

If women were required to do military service the same as men, I wonder if there would be any wars. Men are often considered disposable. A son, husband or father who dies in battle is a hero. A daughter, wife or mother who dies in battle is a tragedy. Tatiana above wouldn't be worried so much about finding dates if she was drafted herself. 

"IsA" Voting

Unfortunately, in elections there are many races where the incumbent has no challengers. The only option if you do not like the candidate is a write-in. In the election this week where I live not a single county judge had an opponent. Nor did John Choi in his bid to be reelected Ramsey County Attorney.  

I voted write-in candidates for three offices including county attorney and a judge.  In two of those elections, the incumbent ran unopposed.  Why? Because I simply can't vote for criminals. 

In essence, my vote was a protest vote. Now I could have written-in "Mickey Mouse" or my last dog's name but instead I used what I like to call the "IsA" method. Here is how it works:

• Rather than John Choi for county attorney, I wrote in "Choi IsA Crook".
• Rather than Mark Ireland for county judge, I wrote in "Ireland IsA Crook".

It puts a smile on my face. Humor is the best way to cope with adversity. 

Rule Of Law

Rule of Law is the basis of our legal system. Rule of law means the law applies to everyone. It applies to the President, it applies to law enforcement officers, it applies to legislators, it applies to judges, it apples to lawyers. Everyone. 

Unfortunately, this ideal has never quote been achieved in the U.S. We have many people who believe they are above the law, notably including our former President. Also, it seems, lawyers in Ramsey County Minnesota.

When a county does not have rule of law, equally and justly applied to all, the population loses all respect for the law and you end up with situations like this:

Contrast that with a county where rule of law works pretty well.