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":
Quote
--------
Unquote
----------
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