THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"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.

Wednesday, September 17, 2025

Judge Rosa, why bother? Part V. Buying votes by false promises and then denying it in judicial decisions. And - the 3R revisited again, on the revolving door of recusal-re-entry-retaliation, Judge Rosa's version

This is Part V of the series about the re-election campaign of Judge Gary Rosa, currently of Delaware County Family, County and Surrogate's Court.

Part 1 is here.

Part II is here.

Part III is here.

Part IV is here.

I wrote about this particular episode in 2017, here.

Some time before the judicial elections of 2015, on a sunny day at the square before the courthouse of 3 Court Street, Delhi, NY, Gary Rosa, at that time not a judge yet, was talking to two voters.

Gary Rosa needed their votes badly, and tried to get them at any cost.

The voters told him about a particular Family Court case and about criminal shenannigans of Judge Carl Becker there.

Gary Rosa puffed up and stated that "he would never do something like that", that "if elected, he would be neutral and show integrity".

About THAT PARTICULAR CASE.

That did not happen in reality.

Once Gary Rosa obtained votes from these two voters, he GOT ASSIGNED to the case that he discussed out of court with them, promised a different outcome to them, and got their votes based on that promise.

And, he repeatedly acted Becker-like in that case against the voters who he swindled.

When I made a motion to recuse Rosa after he got assigned to my personal motion and produced a decision against me before I could contest his assignment, and when I pointed out the episode with getting the vote from the party in the case with promises about this particular case, Judge Rosa saw red.  In the motion to recuse, I asked for an evidentiary hearing, where I would call Judge Rosa and the two voters to testify.

Judge Rosa, instead:

(1) granted the motion to recuse and recused - without vacating his improper prior decision, which is the going practice of New York State judges in general.  The granting of the motion precluded me from appealing the decision, and mooted my request for an evidentiary hearing.

At the same time, Judge Rosa 

(2) claimed in the same non-appealable decision that barred an evidentiary hearing where Rosa would have had to testify, that I lied about him.

It was reported to me recently that the local so-called "legal community", specifically, an attorney out of Delaware County Public Defender's Office Russell R. Kassner, coincidentally, a specialist in Intellectual Property, assigned to represent clients in Family Court with predictable abysmal results, has been spreading defamatory rumors about me, a person this attorney never saw and does not know personally, that I am "lying to courts".


The "lying" part was specifically based on Judge Rosa's retreating statement in his decision GRANTING my motion to recuse in order to prevent me from appealing and in order to moot the evidentiary hearing, cancelling the need for Judge Rosa to testify about his fraudulent voter solicitation practices.

Therefore, I was mildly amused when this particular judge was grandstanding in his re-election campaign about the importance of judicial integrity and neutrality.

And - you know under which circumstances the fearless attorney Kassner was accusing me, behind my back, of "lying to courts"?

Oh, no, one can't make it up.

When one of the described voters in question, a party in the proceedings to which Judge Rosa GOT RE-ASSIGNED HIMSELF AFTER RECUSAL!!! - asked Attorney Kassner, her assigned counsel, to make a motion to recuse the damned sucker because HE ALREADY RECUSED FROM THE CASE and had no right to re-enter the case from which he recused.

I wrote on this blog about the practice of New York State judges to re-enter cases from which they recused in order to retaliate against individuals who reported judges to authorities for misconduct or sued them, here, and here.

The practice is alive and well today with Judge Rosa.

Judge Carl Becker did the same as Judge Rosa did - in the same very case, Family File # 6995 and in one other case, Family File # 9197.

I am in possession of two orders.

One is an order of recusal of Judge Rosa from the entirety of proceedings in Delaware County Family Court case, File # 6995, dated February 2017.

The other is an order of 2025, showing that Judge Rosa re-entered the case after recusal and has been trying to put the voter who outed him for his fraudulent solicitation of votes in jail, repeatedly.

Moreover, upon information and belief, after recusal and reentry, Judge Rosa repeatedly hurt the voter's child, to the point that he attempted to bar her school attendance, which required the voter to file - and win, pro se - a writ of mandamus against Judge Rosa in the Appellate Division.

So much for the promise to the voters on that sunny day in 2015 to be different from Carl Becker.

Judge Rosa is a contemptible cheat and a coward.  A grandstanding one.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)