"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.

Monday, January 13, 2020

Will Judge Gary Rosa (NY, Delaware County) be taken off the bench after his profound fiasco in a juvenile case?

I have patiently followed the scandal (one of many) in Delaware County, New York concerning a fight between the County Commissioner of Social Services and the County attorney who represented the Commissioner in court, as a petitioner in a juvenile delinquency (criminal proceedings for teens in Family Court) case.

As always, the bold and courageous local press, thumping on Trump lately all the time as allegedly acting against the U.S. Constitution (while regularly turning a blind eye to corruption in the local government, and especially the judiciary), have missed the main point in the squabble.

The incompetence of Judge Gary Rosa who could have ended the conflict in one decision - saving 
  • much heartache and physical injury for the teen, 
  • the position for Commissioner Dana Scudderi-Hunter and 
  • tens of thousands of dollars for Delaware County taxpayers, including my husband and myself.
But - no.

Being a coward that he is, he did not do what he was supposed to, as a judge.

The point is that BOTH the Commissioner of Social Services (Dana Scudderi-Hunter) and the County Attorney (Amy Merklen) had IRRECONCILABLE conflicts of interest in that juvenile case and could not possibly be part of that (sealed, by the way) proceeding.


Well, that much was out in the open.

The teen in question was in foster care of the Commissioner.

So, the Commissioner could not possibly - as a person in the position of a parent of the teen, his legal guardian - PROSECUTE that same teen in a juvenile quasi-criminal proceeding.

It was, of course, County Attorney Amy Merklen's job to so advise the Commissioner - but she did not.  Which is malpractice and incompetence in itself, and it is Merklen who should have been booted along with Dana Scuderi-Hunter.

Instead, Merklen came into conflict with her own client, took in litigation the position of the County Supervisors who pays her salary but had no right to know anything that is going on in a juvenile proceeding.

The position of the County was to save money - which may not be an issue in litigation at all, and, which resulted in the opposite, in grossly wasting tens of thousands of our hard-earned dollars.

Merklen also took the position the County's probation office against the position of her own client.

When the client, the Commissioner, did not cave in, Merklen complained about the position of her own client in litigation (in a SEALED juvenile case) to the County Board, which is a violation of the teen's privacy, and made sure that her own client has lost a job.

Mind that Amy Merklen MUST be disbarred for what she did - but she never will be.


Because remember Porter Kirkwood, Merklen's predecessor as County Attorney?  

The crook who constantly engaged in ex parte communications with his predecessor as Deputy County Attorney - Judge Carl Becker?

The crook who boasted in his own judicial election campaign that he allowed illegal mental health experimentation on teenagers in his foster care?

Porter Kirkwood is now a law clerk for a judge in the attorney licensing court, the 3rd Department (unless "his" judge Molly Fitzgerald has left him behind - his registration still shows that he is in Binghamton, in the court assigning judges to cases across the judicial district -

while she has been transferred to the 3rd Department long time ago), 

and he will never allow disbarment of "his own", of another local loyal crook.

But, my question remains - WHY didn't Judge Rosa end this whole thing with one decision, a SUA SPONTE (on the court's own motion) decision, seeing very plainly in front of him a legal guardian of a child prosecuting, in a quasi-criminal proceeding, her own ward?

Why didn't he disqualify the Delaware County Commissioner Dana Scudderi-Hunter because of her irreconcilable conflict of interest?

Why didn't he dismiss the proceeding as being void since it has been filed by a person with an irreconcilable conflict of interest, and thus, disqualified from filing such petitions?

And, why NOBODY, not one of the multiple attorneys handling this case from all sides - has pointed that out, in any of the multiple court and administrative hearings relevant to the case?

And why NO JOURNALIST covering this whole story raised this issue?

So, why did Judge Rosa continue to adjudicate a void proceeding?

Costing the actual physical and mental harm to the teenager in question, a job to the Commissioner and tens of thousands of dollars WASTED of taxpayers' (including my husband's and my own) money?

Will you re-elect this incompetent twit to the bench again?

Will you keep him rule over your lives for the remainder of his term?

Or will you do something to get him off the bench?

No comments:

Post a Comment