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 IV. How much does it cost to buy this judge's favor? It depends, right, Nancy Deming?

This is Part IV of my series about Judge Gary Rosa's fraudulent grandstanding in his "re-election" campaign.

Part I is here.

Part II is here.

Part III is here.

Now let's address the issue that Gary Rosa runs on - judicial neutrality and integrity - head on.

Does Judge Rosa have any of these?

I doubt it.

First, there is a sticky issue of Nancy Deming.

She is no longer Gary Rosa's law clerk, I have heard, because of an illness.  But, she was judge Gary Rosa's law clerk from the very beginning of his first term, and for many years - and that is a problem that I have written about at the time Gary Rosa was running for the first term, and after that, when Rosa was elected and already acted as a judge.

Nancy Deming was the usual version of the local political hack of an attorney.

She sat on the local school board while her son was there, to protect her son in case anything comes amiss.

When she started to hurt financially in the local tough market of legal services - because she was no good as an attorney, and I know it because our law office beat her many times in court, often on law school student issues - she devised a simple plan:

(1) make a judge;

(2) have a salary, benefits and pension through that judge;

(3) wag the judge for the benefit of her attorney husband.

The plan worked like a charm with Gary Rosa.

Nancy Deming sat on the "judicial qualifications committee" in the 3rd Department - and made the judge, by recommending him.  Item (1) checked.

I was still in New York, and in Delhi, when Gary Rosa's first campaign started, and I saw that Nancy Deming clung to Rosa like glue, was always seen around with him.

As a result of her judge-making, Rosa was elected, and - voila - Nancy Deming got a law clerkship from him.

She no longer had to pay rent for her law office on Court Street, or try to get clients in order to survive with her substandard legal skills, or figure where to get medical insurance.  It was all given to her by the judge she newly-minted, on a silver platter.




Now she could use her substandard legal skills to write judicial decisions for the judge who she helped making, including through the 3rd Department judicial qualifications committee, and on the campaign trail.

Now she could wag the judge for the benefit of herself and her husband, James Hartmann, who still at that time was alive and active in legal practice in the area.

And DID she wag the judge!  I wrote about it, too, for more, just word-search Nancy Deming and James Hartmann on this blog.

Items (2) and (3) checked.

Rosa is also a very vain man.  Unlike Judge Hubbard who realized his, let's say, lack of legal abilities, and hired, immediately on taking the bench, a brilliant lawyer for his law clerk, Erin Neale, Rosa did not need his law clerk to outshadow his own modest legal abilities - hence, Deming was a great choice.

The problem with the above setup is simple - this judge can be bought, and was already bought.

If that happened in the past, that will continue happening.

We do not know, and likely will never know what it took Rosa, money wise, and promises wise, to get elected the first time.

We do not know, and likely will never know what it took Rosa, money wise and promises wise, to get on the ballot as "unopposed" this time.

But a judge that can be bought is bad news for the next 6 years.

Especially when he knows he was bought, retaliates through his judicial decisions against people who publicly pointed that out, and will be doing it in the future.

Because... bought integrity is not integrity, is it, Gary Rosa?






Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)