“When the 'system' allows victims to be crushed in order to silence them forever, the foundations of the entire society are shaken to their roots.” Such was the conclusion of New York based The Black Star News upon covering the state court disbarment of then veteran lawyer, the late Israel Weinstock, as part of reporting on corruption in New York's judicial system.

​

But perhaps your mind more quickly navigates to this thought: “Of all the victims of legal abuse, why propose that I lament some lawyer's disbarment . . . especially when all attorneys at the bottom of the ocean is said to be a 'good start' ? . . .”

​

​

The Coup d’état 

Your skepticism undoubtedly harkens to the somewhat cruel irony that courts are generally the most accessible forums for challenging abuse of the American legal system. As only licensed lawyers represent people and entities before most courts, the ability and availability of a lawyer to practice law can be critical to positive legal reform. Logically, the receptiveness of courts to positive reform makes it more likely to happen.



​

Now − imagine the coup d’état of American courts systematically eliminating (by disbarment, removal, suspension, and/or threat of discipline) all attorneys and judges willing to link actual miscarriages of justice to specific instances of judicial misconduct or corruption. Is the problem becoming clearer and getting closer to home?





​

The Weinstock Act​

In 2005, NJCDLP proposed federal judicial whistleblower protection and dubbed the model legislation, “The Weinstock Act”. POPULAR subsequently adopted the language of that proposed Act and made it part of a white paper, Protecting Judicial Whistleblowers in the War on Poverty, as well as the group's quest for exclusive, national regulation of lawyers' speech. NFOJA later joined POPULAR's quest for federal judicial whistleblower protection.





​



​