THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.


Wednesday, September 17, 2025

#JudgeRosa, why bother? Part VI. The fraudulent "drug court" sail into judgeship.

 This is Part VI of the series about the re-election campaign of Judge Gary Rosa, currently of Delaware County Family, County and Surrogate's Court.

Part 1 is here.

Part II is here.

Part III is here.

Part IV is here.

Part V is here.

In his re-election campaign, Judge Rosa, as did judge Carl Becker before him, tries to use the so-called "drug court" as a sail into judgeship.

He doesn't have to use any sail into judgeship, because, as I exlained in Part I, he runs unopposed and thus only needs his own vote to get "reelected".

But, he puts out the misinformation about the "drug court" nevertheless, and that fraud needs to be addressed.

First of all, here is the full transcript of an interview given by Delaware County District Attorney Shawn Smith when he tried to quickly bow out of that same "drug court" a week after a squatter/apparent confidential informant was found dead - who was put into our house to destroy it, intimidate our daughter and to run a drug surveillance operation and fentanyl lab for the County.

Despite the fact that Shawn Smith is once again, sort of, good and dandy with Judge Rosa with drug court, the issues raised by him in the interview did not go away, and remain tainting the claims of Judge Rosa as to the project's alleged wholesome goodness.

You can read the transcript here.  I have personally transcribed the interview from an audio file that I downloaded from DA Smith's official Facebook page.  

I also did some investigation, including through FOIL requests, of what exactly the "drug court" is.

I found out that, first, it is, very simply, not a "court", as Judge Rosa claims it to be.  It is a project based on federal grant that does not qualify as a "court" under New York State Judiciary Law, and, as such, all claims that it is a "court" are illegal.

Moreover, many participants of the "drug court" claimed that they participate in such "court" on consent and based on a "contract".

My efforts to receive a copy of the "contract" through FOIL from Delaware County and the New York State Office of Court Administration (NYS OCA) were so far unsuccessful.

I FOILed Delaware County Public Defender Joe Ermeti, Delaware County District Attorney Shawn Smith and Delaware County Sheriff Craig Dumond for documents indicating existence of a contract upon which they participate in "drug court" - which was publicized many times in the local press.

No such "contract" was produced.

Both Delawrae County Attorney Merklen and the NYS OCA give me currently a runaround as to the "drug court" documents, now claiming that they are wholly and entirely "private".

Moreover, these entities claimed to me that, even though court proceedings MUST be public, according to Judiciary Law 4, the "drug court" is covered by federal privacy regulations because it is - guess what? - a patient treating facility.

I wonder where is Judge Rosa's medical degree to run such a "patient treating facility", and in the Delaware County courthouse, no less.

In other words, dear voters, the "drug court" is a grant-eating sham spewing into the community violent criminals and drug dealers, as DA Smith explained in his radio interview in great detail.

And judges, such as Rosa now, should stop using this project to sail onto the bench on its coattails.

Because it stinks.


No comments:

Post a Comment