And says in the lawsuit - hypothetically, this:
- "Judge Gary Rosa solicited and obtained, in his two election campaigns, in 2012 and in 2015, votes of a party in a certain court proceeding, based on Judge Rosa's statements that, if the party gives him her vote and if Judge Rosa is elected as a result, Judge Rosa will clean up the judicial stables in Delaware County Family Court, will not commit misconduct that his predecessor, Judge Carl F. Becker, was in-famous for - and that Judge Rosa specifically condemns sanctions imposed upon the party and her attorney by Judge Becker, for pointing out Judge Becker's misconduct and conflicts of interest;
- Once Judge Rosa obtained the party's vote in two elections, he then turned around and asserted validity of Judge Becker's misconduct in the very cases, when the party's attorney made a motion to vacate those same 2011 sanctions based on later-decided (2015 and 2016) U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the very case which Judge Rosa discussed with the party, ex parte, out of court, making an election campaign pledge that those sanctions are judicial misconduct and that Judge Rosa will come to the bench to prevent such behavior and to prevent people from suffering like the party and her attorney suffered from Judge Becker's sanctions;
- Judge Rosa was not supposed to be assigned to that case because of his ex parte communications with the party and because of his pledges in his election campaign based specifically on discussion of that case and sanctions imposed by Judge Becker in that case that Judge Rosa characterized as judicial misconduct and the reason whey he was running for judicial office - to clean the bench;
- Judge Rosa failed to disclose his self-assignment to the case (which he did because the attorney, since then, criticized Judge Rosa for misconduct and appearance of corruption) - and made it so that the attorney who moved to vacate her sanctions on submitted basis learnt about the change of judge only when Judge Rosa already made his decision - denying her motion despite a clearly applicable U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and while refusing to conduct analysis of legal issues required by the U.S. Supreme Court;
- Judge Rosa's failed to disclose he even talked with the party ex parte about the case, and proceeded without disclosure, which is a gross ethical violation and fraud upon me as a person whose constitutional rights were hurt through fraud upon voters by Judge Rosa;
- I want Judge Rosa to be held accountable for his fraud and violations of my constitutional rights."
- conspired with the mother of a minor child,
- without proper court proceedings,
- without jurisdiction,
- without notifying the mother's minor daughter, and
- without appointing an attorney for that minor daughter;
- agreed with the mother that her minor teenage daughter was "promiscuous" and that the "cure" for the child's supposed "promiscuity" lies in persuading the child to undergo a false surgery that the child did not medically need, after persuading the surgeon to agree to such a surgery, too - supposedly for appendicitis, while it will be in reality to sterilize her.
- in the first precedent, content-based regulation of speech without strict scrutiny (whether regulation of content of speech was of a commercial sign or of a pleading), and,
- in the second, precedent, that a judge acted in the same proceeding as an accuser (brought proceedings for sanctions, acted there as an investigator, prosecutor and unsworn witness on his own behalf, alleged harm to himself personally from my pleadings), and as an adjudicator, imposing sanctions upon me -
Remember - the lawsuit described was hypothetical, but Judge Gary's misconduct - real.