I so far wrote about a District Attorney, from the Alcovy Circuit of the State of Georgia, Layla Zon, who is enthralled with the death penalty that she has reportedly kept a toy electric chair, battery-powered, in her office. Layla Zon, reportedly, has the highest rate of death penalty convictions in the State of Georgia.
And, I also wrote about Philadelphia (PA) DA Ronald Castille who first obtained death penalty sentences by fraud, and then got elected as a judge and fought appeals from convictions that he himself obtained - resulting in a U.S. Supreme Court case, Williams v Pennsylvania, in 2016.
And, I wrote about a mentally ill and perpetually hospitalized (in mental hospitals) prosecutor in Texas dealing with death penalty cases.
And, I recently wrote about the Texas Attorney General who, in a clinically sterile language, was trying to get the federal court release vials of a misbranded drug in order to kill off the Texas death row inmates, the majority of whom got their after convictions by racist juries, and many of whom got sentenced to death as teenagers.
By the way, since the publication of that article, two people have been executed in the U.S. - Christopher Wilkins in Texas, on January 11, 2017, and in Ricky Gray in Virginia yesterday, on January 18, 2017, under circumstances raising questions whether Ricky Gray was tortured to death by an unknown drug of an unknown concentration and unknown labelling, produced by an unknown "compounding pharmacy".
Since there is an ongoing international boycott to supply the U.S. with drugs used for lethal injections, and since the FDA seized the Texas cargo of 1,000 vials since July of 2016 (apparently, Texas was going to share with other death penalty states, since it has 4 times less people on death row than vials it bought), it is reported that the drugs for these two executions were provided by secret "compounding pharmacies" within the US - which still requires an investigation from the FDA as to which are these pharmacies, what is their "compounding process", are they licensed to do that, how the "compounding" was done and labeled.
The people who are so obsessed to continue to carry out executions that, against the ongoing protests inside and outside the country, against the boycott of drug supplies, against the seizure of the purchased mislabeled drugs by the FDA, they go the lengths of trying to engage in concocting their own drugs, likely breaking the law in order to enforce the law of the death penalty - must have, in my opinion, profound flaws in their moral, if not mental makeup.
These people, to me, display a great measure of human degradation, advancing their careers on the government machine of killing people as a punishment for killing people.
Yet, that is not the true bottom of human degradation.
Turning public executions into an issue of art and esthetics, at all, and during the raging public debate on their constitutionality, and especially given the evidence that death penalties are mostly meted out to minorities, as a substitute form of lynching, into an issue of art and esthetics, is hitting the rock bottom of human depravity.
And then, nothing can prepare one for a jurist, a judge who is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of disputes, while the judge's longtime chosen pet project, a research topic of choice, is "the aesthetics of public execution".
No, not the execution of public documents.
Public execution of people.
- flaying (taking the skin off the still-alive person);
- lynching etc.
Before becoming a lawyer and coming to the bench, she was a wholesale art dealer - and her particular area of interest is this:
Here is the list of articles or lectures of Judge Jaffe proudly presented by New York Law Journal in her biography:
In 2012, in another article, the Judge Jaffe describes commemorating the lynchings in murals on the walls of courthouses in Mississippi and Idaho, and placing those murals on the walls of courthouses as a symbol of - access to justice, and to show "typical life and people":
And despite her unhealthy fixation on the "aesthetics of public execution", she is reportedly welcome to and is a member of many professional organizations. I wonder how people who welcome her into her organizations with open arm, can stomach her enthrallment with the "aesthetic" of public executions.
See, for example, an answer by PhD in psychology, Gerald Guild, as to whether Hitler was "a case of schadenfreude":
And, making real public executions of real people, a part of shameful history of this country which has still not ended, into a case of mere esthetics, and images of art, also leads to "tacit acceptance" of it, by desensitizing people from the actual horror of what is going on, into thinking about it "clinically", as a "mere art".
That is especially true when the "art speaker" is a judge, an authority on the law, and when the judge tries to instill into lawyers, the profession whose livelihood she regulates and controls, the ideas about "the art of public execution" instilling "commitment to justice".
- why New York attorneys were interested in the painful executions, as opposed to the "contemporary allegedly painless" (their words, not mine) executions by lethal injection?
- why Judge Jaffe, after having a career as a wholesale dealer, and such a peculiar interest in the "art, image and esthetics of public execution", became a judge?
So, if not for Judge Jaffe's particular enthrallment with the "art of execution", the "art of inflicting suffering" and torture, there would have been nothing particular in her decision in that case - denying legal standing to sue to the chimpanzees.
Here is an excerpt from a case Judge Jaffe decided on August 20, 2016:
It is well known that authorities use people's love of their pets as a tool to exact retribution against critics of the government - as it happened to government misconduct critic Barbara O'Sullivan and her daughter, whose one dog was tasered, battered and left without medical help or pain medication, with a taser stick embedded into his muzzle, by the Delhi, NY dog enforcement officer, the official custodian of the dog after it was unlawfully seized from Barbara's property (after that, the warrant upon which the police arrived to her property was declared by a judge as invalid).
The other dog of Barbara's daughter was killed under the circumstances suggesting retaliation, and the third dog died in the house fire that eliminated Barbara's entire house, while the local firefighters refused to extinguish the fire, and authorities refused to even investigate the fire.
What is particularly relevant to the execution of the dog Ceasar authorized by the execution esthetics expert Judge Jaffe based on hearsay from unknown sources, is that:
Barbara's daughter's dog seized by Delhi, NY dog enforcement officer and left locked and without medical help or pain relief, with a metal stick embedded into his muzzle, for several days, was also subject to a "dangerous dog" proceedings, and the prosecution (the current Delaware County DA John Hubbard, the sick bird that he is) sought to have the dog euthanized, claiming, on hearsay grounds from unknown sources, that the dog is dangerous, while the dog is not dangerous, is an old dog and has been very good with children, including children not of the family (my own children were safe around the dog on many occasions).
Moreover, the warrant based on which Barbara's dog was seized in the first place, was later rendered invalid - imagine if the dog would have been euthanized before that declaration. It is sheer luck that the dog was not put down. John Hubbard was asking for it.
And, according to my information, DA John Hubbard is responsible for the death of another dog, as a reader reported to me recently, who was put down while his owners desperately tried to get a stay of that execution through an appeal. During that application, reportedly, John Hubbard simply made a phone call and told those who had the dog's custody, to put the dog down. And, the dog was killed.
It is not a rock.
It is not a piece of art.
It is not "just property".
It is a living, breathing animal who loved and was obviously loved by his owners that Judge Jaffe, the aesthetics of public executions expert, refused to protect, and thus authorized to execute, in a "civil" court proceedings, based entirely on rumors from unknown sources.
Even if the dog Caesar was a piece of property under the law, destroying that "piece of property" still involves ending a life, and should be afforded more "process" than rumors from unknown sources. Surely, a judge must realize that.
Also, by issuing such an order based on hearsay, Judge Jaffe set a dangerous precedent in her jurisdiction, and now, in reliance on Judge Jaffe's decision, New York authorities can kill any dog on fabricated evidence, without presenting any witnesses or competent evidence of the dog's alleged "dangerousness".
Judge Jaffe acknowledges in her decision that Respondents do not provide the basis of the sources of such information, so the information is pure hearsay from unproven sources, or may have been made up by Respondents - not that it matters to Judge Jaffe.
Why judge Barbara Jaffe, in my view, is so very dangerous to the public while on the bench?
Not only because now she authorizes the torture (the non-human project) or killing (the dog Caesar) of the animals, and as to killing, she authorizes that entirely on rumors - which, given her infatuation with the "aesthetics" of lynching - raises hair on one's head.
But, Barbara Jaffe may be up for more power, now over human lives, and that should be prevented.
Barbara Jaffe has come on my radar as an investigative journalist because Judge Jaffe, just a couple of weeks before the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States, at the background of protests against Trump and a downpour of criticism, fair and unfair, in the media, incorrectly ruled dismissing the defamation lawsuit against President-elect Donald Trump - in a case where the decision was not in her hands, but in the jury's.
Here is what Judge Jaffe said in Jacobus v Trump:
It was dishonest to say that the claim that the plaintiff "begged" for a job is "not susceptible of objective verification". It is a matter of fact, very much verifiable - a person either begged for a job, or she didn't.
Moreover, it is not for a judge to pronounce, as a matter of mixed question of law and fact that "to the extent that the word 'begged' can be proven to be a false representation of plaintiff's interest in the position", it still means nothing, because it was allegedly, judging by the facts surrounding the statement, a "petty quarrel".
This pronouncement was not for the judge to make, but for the jury. Judge Jaffe usurped the authority of the jury to decide a case, and did not allow the case to proceed to a jury trial, forcing Donald Trump to settle, as he was forced to do in the university fraud case.
That saved Donald Trump a lot of money, potentially, in damages, and obviously in legal fees.
I am not the only one who thinks that the ruling is unlawful.
Which brings me to this scary idea - what did Judge Jaffe try to accomplish by this clear act of brown-nosing the President-elect?
Judge Jaffe's current term on the bench expires in 2021, 4 years from now.
If she is appointed to the federal bench, the appointment is for life.
Trump, as a President of the United States, can give Barbara Jaffe a nomination to the federal bench, and I wonder whether Judge Barbara Jaffe's sweet gesture, the pre-auguration gift dismissing a $4 million dollar lawsuit two weeks before the swearing-in as President, at the time when the mainstream media is crammed with criticism, fair and unfair, of Trump and his family members, when, reportedly, hundreds of thousands of marchers are planning to protest in Washington, D.C. on the day immediately after the inauguration ceremony, the gift may be meant to be especially prominent and especially remembered by the new President.
What is scary is that death penalty is still legal under the federal law, while it is not in New York.
In New York, the death penalty was declared unconstitutional 2 years after Judge Jaffe came to the bench, in 2004.
Judge Jaffe's decision dismissing the defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump was clearly unlawful.
In New York, under New York Constitution, all issues of fact must be tried by a jury.
I do not know whether the plaintiff against Donald Trump was, or was not telling the truth.
Yet, what I do know is that it was not for the judge to decide the case, but for the jury, because there were outstanding triable issues of fact, or mixed issues of fact and law.
It was dishonest for Judge Jaffe to state in her decision that the claims of defamation were too "vague". Nothing was vague in the claim, it was clear and straightforward - and, the dismissal can still be overturned on appeal.
Right now, in state "civil" court, Judge Jaffe's authority to execute is reduced only to killing animals - like she did with the dog Caesar.