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

#JudgeRosa, why bother? Part III. When will political candidate's incomplete term fraud upon taxpayers end?

 This is Part III of my pre-election series of articles about the "election" campaign of the sitting Family, County and Surrogate's Court judge Gary Rosa.

Part I is here. 

Part II is here.

I have a question to taxpayers and voters in Delaware County, New York.

Why does the State of New York even allow candidates to run when it is clear from the candidate's age - as it is clear from Judge Rosa's - that the candidate will not be able to serve the entire term in office, which will require early re-election costs imposed on taxpayers?

As a result of ... let's say, inactivity of the local lawyers, Judge Rosa is running for re-election unopposed.

Which means exactly this - the result of such an "election" is a given, the local area will be saddled with Judge Rosa for additional ... well-well-well - what is the "truthful" local press not reporting here? About its own "Democratic" candidate?

Let's see.

Here is the official attorney registration information of Judge Gary Rosa on the website of the New York State Unified system:


Based on this - official - information about Judge Gary Rosa, let's count on fingers.

Attorney Rosa was admitted to practice law in 1986.  Given that people graduate from high school at 18, from college at 22, and from law school at 25 (at the minimum), that puts Gary Rosa's date of birth at 1961, at the minimum.

Thus, Gary Rosa will turn 70, the mandatory age of retirement for New York State judges, at the very least in 2031.  

Thus, out of a 10-year term that he is running for he will only be able to serve 60% of it, 6 years, and then the poor (in all senses) Delaware County will be saddled with costs of new election on his retirement in at least 2031.

Are you happy, Delaware County taxpayers, for such an additional expense imposed upon you by Judge Rosa?

He is not the only judge recently who did this trick with taxpayers.  Judge Carl Becker did the same - and got off the bench even faster than his mandatory retirement approached, requiring an early re-election in 2015 - when Rosa was elected.

So, wouldn't you think it would take just a little of the self-professed integrity of Judge Rosa to simply NOT run for a reelection where he cannot serve the entirety of the term he is trying to get re-elected to?

To save the local, already struggling, taxpayers the huge expense of the unnecessary early re-election campaign of a new judge when Gary Rosa will be forced to retire?


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)