In my previous blog, I pointed out that the lawsuit of a Washington State non-profit #NWIRP may be not as heroic as it is presented in the pro-Clinton and anti-Trump (right or wrong) press, especially that there was no legal basis for filing and prosecuting that lawsuit, and especially that the temporary restraining order was granted without an explanation or legal grounds by a court where at least two attorneys for NWIRP in the lawsuit were the court's interns or law clerks.

I have read the materials from the lawsuit, and am continuing to publish and analyze them.

Apparently, there were more smoke and mirrors, more conflicts of interest and more self-serving hypocrisy and conceptual mess in this lawsuit.

First of all, the players in the NWIRP lawsuit are definitely no heroes, and in this blog I will point out potential conflicts of interest of board members, officers and employees of NWIRP.

Here is the composition of the NWIRP's Board of Directors, obtained by me from their 2014 tax report (the latest report available), published on guidestar.org, a comprehensive website providing information about the U.S. non-profits.



Here is the composition of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff, NWIRP, as of today, from their own website, and a comparative table of dynamics of the board members.
    The current composition of the board of directors:
    2014 Board
    2017 Board
    Background
    Potential conflicts of interest
    1.
    #MonicaBatraKashyap, President
    Stayed on Board
    Professor of Seattle School of Law in charge of externship with the presiding court
    Personal connections with the court, potential for ex parte communications, for influence upon the court through the use of former externs and law clerks (two attorneys representing NWIRP in the lawsuit are former law clerks/externs of the court, likely placed by Kashyap);
    2.
    #HilaryHan, Vice-President
    Left the Board

    The break NWIRP obtained in the lawsuit for its own lawyers and lawyers “associated” with it benefits Han’s private business
    3.
    Marie Higuera, Director
    Left the Board
    The break NWIRP obtained in the lawsuit for its own lawyers and lawyers “associated” with it benefits Higuera’s private business
    4.
    Kristen Kussman, Secretary
    Stayed on the Board
    Lawyer, powerful lobbyist

    5.
    Omar Riojas, Director
    Became the President


    6.
    Julie Frye, Treasurer
    Stayed the Treasurer


    7.
    Huy Nyugen, Director
    Left the Board


    8.
    Teresa Mosqueda, Director
    Stayed on Board
    Political and Strategic Campaign Director, Washington State Labor Council
    A conflict of interest, as Teresa Mosqueda is a state employee while the State AG, without participation in the lawsuit as a party, but after endorsing Mosqueda in her political run for the Council of Seattle, supported her non-profit in the lawsuit asserting “state statutory interest” in the lawsuit, but in reality making sure that the non-profit will not be sanctioned and will not lose fundraising capabilities
    9.
    Steven Severin, Director
    Stayed on Board
    NY attorney, NWIRP says “retired”, but the registration in NY does not show retirement
    May financially benefit from practicing in immigration courts
    10.
    Jorge L. Baron, Executive Director
    Left the Board


    11.
    Francoise Maxie, Finance Director
    Left the Board


    12.

    Luanda Arai, Board member
    Immigrant, grant manager for Washington Youth & Families Fund at Building Changes, not a lawyer

    13.

    Richa Arora, Board member
    Immigrant, former client of NWIRP, not a lawyer

    14.

    Susi Collins
    Immigrant, not a lawyer

    15.

    Renata Garcia
    Immigrant, lawyer, manager of mandatory CLE program with mandatory Washington State Bar, part of the state government (NWIRP version), or “staff liaison” of the Washington State MCLE program (the Bar Association’s version)
    Washington State did not participate in the lawsuit as a party, but Washington State Attorney General asserted “state statutory interest” in support of the lawsuit through an amicus brief, and asserted that NWIRP is a partner of Attorney General’s office in fighting “notario fraud” (its own competition), to the point that:
    1)      NWIRP snitches on “notaries” to AG;
    2)      AG, in return, refers clients to NWIRP;
    3)      AG gave NWIRP a $125,000 grant to help AG fight “notario fraud” (competition);
    4)      AG does not prosecute NWIRP for participating in unregistered representation of immigration clients, including through non-attorney employees
    16.

    Wamaitha Kiarie
    Immigrant, former NWIRP client, not a lawyer



    Sarah Litt
    NY lawyer, formerly of Courtroom TV Network, NY registration site does not show retirement
    May financially benefit in practicing in immigration courts



    NWIRP has conflicts of interest in this lawsuit not only through its Board members, but also through its staff where there are a lot of non-attorney "advocates" and "legal assistants" providing legal services to immigrants - without any indication that those "advocates" and "assistants" are approved by the immigration Review Board and immigration courts to practice.

    So, NWIRP at the same time "fights" "notario fraud" - consisting sometimes only in giving people advice regarding federal immigration proceedings for money (without regard whether the advice was correct or not, good or bad) - while allowing its personnel to do the very same thing, engage in notario fraud, employing, through its own admission, at least 11 "legal advocates" who are not registered representatives in immigration courts or Review Board:














    By the way, practice by paralegals is not allowed in immigration courts.

    Now, NWIRP is suing Trump's Attorney General and somehow asserts that they are violating NWIRP's "constitutional rights", while the rule that they are asking the court to lift (and that the court already stayed nationwide without an explanation or legal grounds, because the court's former law clerks/interns, now representing NWIRP, asked for it) existed since 2008, and was introduced by the Obama administration.

    In other words, Trump's AG is being sued for enforcing Obama's rule.

    And, the rule is a requirement for a representative in an immigration court:


    1. to be registered with the court (for an attorney) and approved for representation (for a non-attorney);
    2. to announce participation in a certain case and thus own up to the attorney's or representative's work;
    3. to stay in the case until the court relieves the attorney or representative.

    The rule is actually THE SAME rule as exists in federal court, so Judge Richard Jones, by imposing a stay upon such a rule in immigration courts, and by doing it nationwide, shot federal courts, including his own, in their proverbial feet - because in ALL federal court proceedings and attorney, once stepped into the case, may not get out of the case without the court's permission.

    NWIRP, through a sympathetic judge from a court that formerly employed some of their attorneys, changed that rule for themselves now.

    Did it help consumers?

    Did it protect NWIRP's current and potential clients?

    Did it help clarify what constitutes the practice of law?

    Did it help clarify who regulates the practice of law, and the practice in immigration courts and why?

    I will write about that in one of my next blogs.

    Stay tuned.

    Search This Blog
    Powered by Blogger.

    Populer Post

    Pages