"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.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

I am no longer supporting Gary Rosa in Delaware County judicial race

I wrote a lot of posts on this blog criticizing judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood currently running for Delaware County Family Court in opposition to Gary Rosa, a judge of Middletown Town Court.

I stand by every word I wrote about Porter Kirkwood.  My posts are based on my personal experience, reports from credible witnesses and verifiable and verified documentary evidence.

Yet, at the end of some posts, I put in, as a conclusion for my criticism of Porter Kirkwood - "vote for Gary Rosa".

Those words I withdraw.  I no longer support Gary Rosa, mainly because of his recent shady pick of a law clerk.

Here is a support letter for Gary Rosa from a Delhi attorney Nancy Deming:

She seems to say all the right words.  Yet, she omits important information, which, to me amounts to a misrepresentation and she misrepresents her experience and specialization to the public, which Gary Rosa and his campaign endorses.  Not a good sign for Gary Rosa.  While Kirkwood is a known crook, Gary Rosa starts to show potential in the same direction, and I do not know which case is worse for a judge.

First of all, Nancy Deming's main practice was matrimonial, for years, and that is Supreme Court.  She started to do Family Court only when divorces became far between in Delaware County.  As I wrote recently on this blog, when I brought a judgment roll in a divorce case (finalizing documents) to the Delaware County Clerk's office several months ago, they were extremely surprised that divorces are still happening in Delaware County and told me that they did not finalize a divorce for a long time.

I wrote about Nancy Deming's role in the current judicial elections back in February of 2015.

In that blog I pointed out, among other things, that Nancy Deming is a member of the Judicial Qualifications Committee for New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department, and her approval of all judicial candidates for purposes of elections gives her favored position in front of all the judges if elected.

After my blog, Becker retired and Northrup ran for his place.

Nancy Deming had to approve Northrup, too, as qualified to run for a judge.

So, Nancy Deming had and continues to have her finger in three pies at the same time.

Even if Gary Rosa who "chose" her as his future law clerk, is not elected, Nancy Deming and her attorney husband James Hartmann, also of Delhi, will have favored positions in front of judges Kirkwood and Northrup - because Nancy Deming approved judicial qualifications for judicial elections of both of them.  Sweet deal.

I wrote in my February 2015 blog that it is not the first time when Nancy Deming timely enters public offices with resulting personal return on such an investment.  That several years ago Nancy Deming was a member of Delaware Academy School Board - when her son was in school, and stopped offering her candidacy for the board when her son graduated.

The return was very clear - that board never disciplined a child of a member, no matter what that child did, I know about it as an attorney representing students before that Board.

So, the return on being the school board member for Nancy Deming was hedging against the risks that her son would do something stupid (as all youths may do), be disciplined and mar his reputation and record for college.  So, Nancy Deming added a record of "public service" for herself while the true reason was protecting her son and continuing with the board's corrupt practice of not disciplining board members' children.

It was questionable from the very beginning for Nancy Deming to join the judicial qualifications committee to approve of judicial candidates in the very courts where she and her attorney husband practice.

It was to allow Nancy Deming to plant dragon seeds of corruption and see them grow into favoritism in court cases.

Yet, Nancy Deming went farther than simply having favoritism in court cases now.

See, court cases in Delaware County have become few and far between, actually making it questionable why two judicial seats are needed

 Very possibly, the current caseload that Nancy Deming has cannot sustain her well-being as an attorney.

So, Nancy Deming now has an even better return on investment than it initially appeared, not simply favoritism in court cases that may come or not come, but a stable state job, with pension and medical benefits for herself and her attorney husband James Hartmann, as well as a favored position for her attorney husband James Hartmann as being related to a judge's court attorney, which instantly grants him a favored position in any court.

Courts are notoriously reluctant to impose sanctions upon attorneys who are related to court personnel, especially to a judge's law clerk.  At this very time, an appeal is pending asking for costs and attorney fees in an 8-year litigation, against Nancy Deming's husband James Hartmann, attorney fees that can bankrupt the Deming/Hartmann family.  So, getting a cloak of employment with a judge is a way to insulate Deming's husband Hartmann from any possibility of ever getting sanctioned by any court and giving him a carte blanche in committing any misconduct with impunity.

And the medical coverage of Nancy Deming's family for Delaware County and state taxpayers will be staggering.

According to court records, James Hartmann had a major surgery in 2013 and a major surgery in 2014.

His medical care must be extremely expensive.

So, the Deming/Hartmann family caught the opportunity where three judicial candidates are obligated to Deming for approving them as a judicial candidate, and got an offer from one of the three candidates for a law clerk, a position that pays well over $100,000 and fully covers medical benefits of Deming and her spouse.

Just know that when you are voting for Rosa now, you must be voting to approve the expenses of medical treatment for James Hartmann, Rosa's court attorney's husband, even if you yourself do not have money for your own medical treatment and medical treatment of your spouse and children - but money for Hartmann's expensive medical treatment will be squeezed out of your pocket through taxes anyway.

I also noticed recently one more shady supporter of Gary Rosa, a "court expert" Eileen Treacy, and I am wondering whether her support is a result of another sweet deal in the making - her support in return for her appointment as a court expert in child sexual abuse cases if Gary Rosa is elected as Family Court judge.

Here is Eileen Treacy's support of Gary Rosa.

As part of her support of Gary Rosa, Eileen Treacy writes the following:

"I have been qualified as an expert witness in family and criminal courts throughout New York state about 450 times in the areas of developmental psychology and child sexual abuse over the past 31 years. I have had ample opportunity to observe many judges’ temperament and intellect. There is no question in my mind that the person who is unquestionably qualified and capable of being our Family Court judge is Judge Gary Rosa."

Eileen Treacy's name, in fact, is well known in civil rights litigation, because Eileen Treacy has orchestrated one of the worst wrongful conviction for alleged "ritual sexual abuse" of children - which was all a lie, and where Eileen Treacy, in my opinion, should have been criminally prosecuted for her role in the case.

It is interesting that Eileen Treacy does not mention in her support of Gary Rosa that she testified as an expert outside of New York State.

The case of People v Kelly Michaels was in New Jersey.  I had that case as part of my civil rights litigation curriculum in law school.

Here is one description of the case, with a quote from that description:

"The state's main expert witness, Eileen Treacy, testified for eight days. Yet, she had no real academic qualifications. She was eight years away from obtaining her PhD in psychology. She was not licensed as a therapist in New York where she worked at a clinic for sexually abused children, nor in New Jersey, where she testified. In a gross conflict of interest, Treacy both helped to choose which of the children would testify, and also functioned as the "independent" expert vouching for their credibility. Meanwhile, Kelly's defense attorneys were not permitted to bring in their own expert witnesses who would have testified that their client did not exhibit the normal signs for a child molester."
Please, note what happened to the person against whom Eileen Treacy so creatively testified for 8 hours in New Jersey:

"After a nine month trial and 13 days jury deliberation Michaels was convicted on all 115 counts and given a 47 year sentence."

The 21-year-old female, a pianist who worked in the daycare when she was charged with alleged sexual abuse, to the point of smearing feces upon her piano chair and putting daggers up children's anuses - after which children (according to their interviews) smiled and said "thank you" - that is just a fraction of what Eileen Treacy elicited out of children in her interviews which were later branded inappropriate by the New Jersey Supreme Court and described in a book "No Crueller Tyrannies":



So, Eileen Treacy "explained away" even the children's statements that Kelly Michaels DID NOT touch them - to mean the very opposite.

Her "indicators" of child abuse were later ruled as not based on any scientific evidence by the reversing court, and the author of those "indicators" later made a statement in the press pointing out that the "indicators" that he published were never meant for diagnosing sexual child abuse, and were never scientifically proven to be able to make a differentiated diagnosis.  Yet, Eileen Treacy used those unproven theories to put a young woman in prison for 47 years, and it is not Eileen Treacy's effort at all that got Kelly Michaels out of prison in "JUST" 5 years.  Imagine 5 years of a young woman's life wrongfully spent in prison on horrible charges of child sexual molestation.

Eileen Treacy sent an innocent woman to prison for 47 years while damaging children with interview suggesting sexual abuse which did not and could not happen.  Think about a child who suffers an injury where a dagger is being put up his anus.  Will he smile and say thank you?  How about no damage to his anus?  That did not deter Eileen Treacy one bit.

Eileen Treacy should have been cast out of her profession after the Kelly Michaels case, prohibited to practice therapy, psychology and definitely prohibited to testify as a court expert in sexual abuse cases.

That she continued to do that, as she says, for decades, after the Kelly Michaels case, shows very well that courts in sexual abuse cases (which Family Court handles as a civil matter) are not interested in the truth, and are not interested in protecting children from "child protectors" who put ideas into children's heads which were not there to begin with - as Eileen Treacy did in the Kelly Michaels case.

Here is yet another report about the Kelly Michaels case.

If Eileen Treacy moved to Margaretville (as her letter suggests) and is now expecting a handout from Gary Rosa in court appointments as an expert in return for support of his candidacy in judicial elections - I am against Gary Rosa.

No comments:

Post a Comment