"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.

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Judge Gary Rosa and his law clerk Nancy Deming issue decisions based on personal grudges, not the record

For some time when Judge Gary Rosa was running for the Delaware County Family Court bench, I supported him against his opponent Porter Kirkwood.

Shortly before the elections in November of 2015, on October 29, 2015, I publicly withdrew my support.

I withdrew my support for two reasons:

1) because of Gary Rosa's choice of law clerk - Nancy Deming, a member of judicial qualification commission, which indicated an appearance of corruption, and the wife of Delhi attorney James Hartmann who appeared as a trial counsel for several plaintiffs against my husband Frederick J. Neroni in 2015 in a case that in 2011 caused the loss of my husband's law license;

2) because of Gary Rosa's support by a family court "expert" Eileen Treacy who has caused a highly publicized wrongful conviction of a young woman for mass sexual molestation of daycare children in another state - the famous case of Kelly Michaels.

While support by Treacy does not mean that Gary Rosa endorses her, I was on the alert whether there is an agreement between Rosa to appoint Treacy in his cases as a court-appointed expert, and I alerted potential litigants and their attorneys of the problem with Treacy and with such potential appointments, since Family Court cases are sealed and the public will have no way of knowing whether Rosa "reimbursed" Treacy for her support of his judicial campaign by such lucrative appointments.

In early November of 2015 my husband and I received an affidavit from one of the plaintiffs in the Mokay v Mokay case where Gary Rosa's law clerk's husband was a trial counsel in the ex parte trial.

The affidavit was from the alleged named plaintiff (the litigation lasted 8 years and travelled through several courts).

The affidavit indicated that the alleged plaintiff never hired Richard Harlem (and thus James Hartmann who was hired by Richard Harlem on the plaintiff's alleged behalf) and never sued my husband (once again, the litigation lasted 8 years!!!).

The affidavit indicated that the whole Mokay litigation on behalf of the alleged plaintiff is based on a forged retainer agreement, where Richard Harlem knew of the forgery of the alleged plaintiff's signature and continued to defraud the court by sworn statements that Harlem represents the alleged plaintiff in question, thus committing multiple crimes of perjury and fraud upon the court.

My husband promptly turned Richard Harlem, his partner Eric Jervis, their law firms and attorney James Hartmann into the disciplinary authorities for disbarment.

After Gary Rosa's law clerk's husband James Hartmann was turned in for disbarment by my husband who was defrauded by James Hartmann (and that was done before Judge Rosa even took office, in December of 2015), Judge Gary Rosa sprang into action to retaliate - and stupidly so.  

Judge Rosa (or James Hartmann's wife Nancy Deming on Judge Rosa's behalf) sent me a letter (I will scan and post it shortly) in which he informed me that he will not disqualify "special prosecutor" John Muehl from investigating and prosecuting the so-far botched up case of burglary and attempted arson in our home in Delhi, NY, within walking distance of the Delaware County District Attorney's office that Delaware County DA's office would not investigate and prosecute for over 2 years, and likely colluded with the police in tampering and spoliation of evidence in that case.

Judge Rosa's (or Nancy Deming's) reasoning for the denial of disqualification was because, as a victim, I allegedly have no right to ask for such disqualification.

Of course, it does not make any sense, because the previous prosecutor Richard Northrup recused specifically because of such disqualification from the same case and did not raise the issue that as a victim, I have no right to ask for the disqualification.

Of course, it does not make any sense, because a prosecutor has a dual role in a criminal case - to vigorously prosecute crimes and do justice to the accused.

A prosecutor cannot vigorously prosecute crimes where he is criticized by one of the victims (myself) of his own corruption and misconduct in multiple blogs before he was assigned, and where his Chief Assistant District Attorney Michael Getman has been sued by the other victim (my husband) since about 2009 for fraud and fraud upon the court.

Michael Getman also declared on record that he is "aligned" with Richard Harlem and James Hartmann in the Mokay case, and, thus, may be a party in Richard Harlem's scheme to defraud that was discovered after the Mokay case was closed.

If a prosecutor has a motive to hurt the People's own witness instead of vigorously prosecuting a crime, it surely IS a good point of disqualification of the prosecutor, as a matter of public interest in not wasting taxpayer money into advancing the prosecutor's personal grudges under the guise of criminal prosecution.

A prosecutor can actually orchestrate and indictment of THE WITNESS instead of the perpetrator of a crime - for something like "lying to the grand jury", a D felony with up to 7 years in state prison, and a prosecutor who is the legal advisor of the grand jury, and while grand jury proceedings are secret, can always contrive such a retaliatory indictment and conviction.  A person with John Muehl's abysmal record of corruption and misconduct can surely do that. 

Of course, we are not idiots to "comply" with "investigation" by John Muehl, which means, assignment of John Muehl to the case where we are victims of a crime would have meant that the case will not be prosecuted, and we will be accused of not cooperating with the investigation as the reason for that non-prosecution (Muehl already accused me in an e-mail for that).

Even if Muehl would be assigned to my case, Judge Gary Rosa who employs James Hartmann's wife, under the circumstances where James Hartmann is involved in a scheme to defraud the court in the same case that is a basis of a lawsuit for fraud and fraud upon the court against Muehl's Chief Assistant District Attorney Michael Getman, and where my husband turned James Hartmann in for disbarment in connection with that case, Judge Gary Rosa should not have touched any cases involving my husband in any capacity, including that a victim.

That is, if Judge Gary Rosa had any shred of integrity.  Obviously, he doesn't.

My husband's complaint against Gary Rosa's law clerk's husband was filed in December of 2015, before Gary Rosa even took office, so he might have been seeking assignment to any case of my husband to hurt him in any way.

But, if Gary Rosa thought he hurt myself and my husband, he fell flat on his face in a mud puddle by denying me disqualification of John Muehl as a special prosecution.

Had he read the order of assignment and the record, he would have known that he cannot deny me a disqualification of John Muehl, for the simple reason that John Muehl misrepresented to me that he was even assigned to our case - he wasn't.  

As it turned, out

  • Northrup did not read the record when applying for the order of assignment, 
  • Judge Mulvey did not read the record while signing the order of assignment, 
  • Muehl did not read the record while asserting to me that he is the special prosecutor in the case where my husband and I are victims, and
  • Gary Rosa and Nancy Deming, following the tradition of not reading the record before issuing court orders, did not read the record of the case when denying me disqualification of Muehl.

As I wrote before on this blog,  Muehl, as it turned out in January of 2016, WAS NOT assigned to the case of burglary and attempted arson in our house, he was assigned to the case investigating a burglary in our neighbor's house.

I applied to Delaware County Court for Muehl's disqualification based on verbal representation of Muehl, his letter and his emails claiming to me that he is handling the case of burglary into our home.

When I, as a point of double-checking, asked Muehl to send me his order of assignment, he has sent me an order of assignment to a case that has nothing to do with us.

So - if Gary Rosa denied disqualification of John Muehl in connection with an investigation into the burglary to 205 Main Street, Delhi, NY - good for him, we are not involved in that case, not as victims, not as witnesses, even though the perpetrator is likely the same as burglarized our house.

But, apparently for Gary Rosa and Nancy Deming it was not necessary to read the record - as long as my name was on the request, it had to be denied, according to a tradition established in New York.  

That's what happens when you and your law clerk are lazy and bent on revenge no matter what.

So much for the alleged integrity of the newly-elected Judge Gary Rosa.

So much for diligence in reviewing the record of the newly-elected Judge Gary Rosa.

And, of course, Gary Rosa, now that he is a judge, is immune from lawsuits for doing anything malicious, fraudulent and downright stupid that he - or his law clerk on his behalf - does, even if it is done in retaliation.

In retaliation on his own behalf for publicly criticizing him for the suspicious declaration that he chose a member of judicial qualification commission for his law clerk before his election.

In retaliation on that law clerk's behalf for a complaint requesting disbarment of her husband, based on an affidavit of a witness.

Judge Rosa was promising his voters to base his determination on the facts of the case.

Judge Rosa based his determination on anything but the facts of the case, he did not even care to see whether it is the same case - as long as there was a potential to use his newly-acquired judicial position as a tool of revenge, against his critics, and against critics of his law clerk's husband.

What can I say.

It appears it took Gary Rosa less than a month to cast to the winds all his promises of integrity and fairness he made to his voters.

If his judgeship starts this way, imagine what awaits people in Judge Rosa's courtroom during 10 years of his term...

No comments:

Post a Comment