See New Jersey Index

Click for Current NJ News & Views

News & Views

December 2006

No going back to Jersey
Joseph Farah, World Net Daily

12-28-06 -- It's official! I have ruled out ever moving back to my home state of New Jersey. And I have ruled out any possibility of opening an office of WND in the Garden State. . . . At least, that is, until some future legislature and governor repeals the incredibly inane, unjust law that prohibits discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual behavior. . . . That's what's in store for New Jersey employers in three months now that Gov. Jon Corzine signed the bill that amends the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination by adding "gender identity or expression" to the list of protected characteristics. . . . One can only assume that prior to this important breakthrough for human rights that New Jersey was rife with examples of homosexuals and bisexuals and transsexuals and transgendereds and lesbians and adulterers being denied gainful employment. What other provocation could have brought this on? . . . Wait a minute! Farah, did you say "adulterers"? . . . Yes, of course. Isn't adultery a form of sexual expression? Isn't a proclivity to group sex? Isn't an inclination to prostitution? Isn't bestiality? I mean, really … what's the quantitative or qualitative difference? Is it simply that practitioners of bestiality haven't yet organized politically? Believe me, it's coming! . . . So, after this law takes effect later next year, an employer in New Jersey no longer has the right – and I use that word advisedly – to hire people of good character, who are morally upright. He doesn't even have the right to set standards of behavior in his own place of employment. Should a homosexual "act out," as they like to say, in his place of business, he better not even think about firing him. Should a man wear a dress to work in his store, he better not think about disciplining him. (Or, maybe he'd like that! Who knows any more?) Should a lesbian kiss her girlfriend in the kids' department of his retail store, he'd better not think about lecturing her on inappropriate behavior.

Politicians only sorry when they get caught

BY Bob Ingle, Gannett State Bureau

12/24/06 -- If you want to know why New Jersey politics continues to stink, just look at the case of John Lynch -- former political boss, state senator and Jim McGreevey mentor, who has been reduced to the ranks of common criminal. . . . U.S. Attorney Chris Christie nailed Lynch for mail fraud and income tax evasion and Lynch was sentenced to three years and three months in the fed's Gray Bar Hotel. Judge Stanley R. Chesler also fined Lynch $50,000 to "send a message to public officials." . . . Lynch's lawyer, John Arseneault, gave the judge 172 letters talking about what a great guy Lynch is. Some of them came from legislators. One gets the impression Lynch and his supporters aren't sorry he used his influence for money, just that he was caught doing it. . . . One can only wonder what must be going through the minds of lawmakers under investigation now that they realize there is a very real possibility they can go to prison, too. Wait until the next ones are indicted and have to step down. Fellow lawmakers will heap praise as if the crooks are the best things that ever happened to this state. And their criminal activity will be but a momentary lack of judgment in a sea of monumental great deeds.

Bob Ingle is Trenton bureau chief for Gannett New Jersey newspapers. He can be reached viae-mail at bobingle@app.com and heard on New Jersey 101.5 FM radio at 5 p.m. Fridays. Join his blog at www.app.com/gsbr.

Justice OK'd by panel in bid for lifetime seat

By Tom Baldwin, Gannett State Bureau

12-20-06 -- State Supreme Court Associate Justice Jaynee LaVecchia won approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday to be reappointed to the high court. . . . There was just one vote against the nomination, from Sen. Joseph Kyrillos Jr., R-Middletown, Monmouth County, who acknowledged his opposition was symbolic to make the point voters in his district and elsewhere are dissatisfied with an array of issues in New Jersey. . . . "My predominant feeling is grateful to the committee," LaVecchia, of Morris Township, told reporters afterward. . . . LaVecchia is 52 and by 10 weeks the youngest person on the high court. Assuming the full Senate OKs her nomination -- almost a certainty -- she will receive the usual lifetime appointment, making her eligible to serve until 2024. . . . Some of the committee members asked about the court's decision Oct. 25 ordering the Legislature to equalize rights accorded to married couples with those offered to gay and lesbian couples. . . . The justice went no further than what the court had said in explaining that nowhere in the state constitution is "marriage" guaranteed to all but that the law does demand that equal rights and privileges are indeed guaranteed.

Divorce papers rejected from same-sex pair

By Carol Comegno, Courier-Post Staff

12-20-06 --A Superior Court judge on Tuesday dismissed a divorce request to dissolve a gay marriage for a former Browns Mills woman, saying state law does not recognize same-sex marriage. . . . But the woman, Luna Foxx, said she never intended to seek dissolution of her marriage in 2005 in Massachusetts to Renee Foxx. Luna Foxx said she wanted to dissolve only the registered domestic partnership that she and Renee Foxx had in New Jersey, but that she had been given the wrong paperwork by family court officials. . . . Her divorce filing is believed to be one of the first in the state for a same-sex union. . . . Superior Court Judge John L. Call Jr. told the couple he could only rule on what he had before him -- a divorce complaint. . . . "The court cannot dissolve that which it cannot recognize," he said in a written opinion. "Therefore, the court must dismiss the divorce complaint."

Embattled judge to step down

By Scott Frost, Staff Writer

Former Mercer County Judge Rosemarie Williams announced yesterday she won’t seek reappointment to the bench, saying she couldn’t take another round of media attention to her personal foibles. . . . In a statement, Williams said didn’t want to subject her family and children to "another round of negative media attention." . . . "If there is one resounding truth, it is that life is not always simple," the statement says. "I have made some mistakes in my personal life that have been the subject of extensive media coverage. . . . "The old stories, including the misstatements of facts, would no doubt be there to haunt me if I were to continue the process of seeking another term." . . . In 2001 the state supreme court suspended the 55-year-old Hopewell Township resident for three months without pay for what was described in court papers as her "incredible" and "irresponsible" public misbehavior. . . . She was charged with judicial code violations for her involvement in two tavern spats on April 14, 2000 with her ex-boyfriend Wes Bridges -- a onetime investigator with the Mercer County Sheriff’s Office.

Metro Associate's Missteps Lead to Do Over, Void $4.6 Million Award

New York Lawyer, By Henry Gottlieb, New Jersey Law Journal

A federal judge in Newark vacated a $4.6 million judgment against a shipping company, finding it was caused by the misrepresentations of an associate at a venerable litigation firm. . . . U.S. District Judge Jose Linares, invoking a rule that protects clients from their lawyers' failings, said in an opinion on Friday that Superior Warehousing Inc. of Edison should not be responsible for missteps by Anthony Sica of Lum, Danzis, Drasco & Positan in Roseland. . . . In rulings earlier this year, Linares granted summary judgment and ordered Superior to pay $4.6 million to a pension fund with ERISA claims because Superior had failed to seek arbitration or rebut the pension fund's claims, even after Sica had been granted extensions of the time to file. . . . As it turned out, Sica did nothing and the client did not know about the failure until it was hit with the judgment, Linares said in his opinion. He gave Superior a chance to re-litigate the case on the merits with a new lawyer. . . . Although Superior clearly had a duty to monitor the status of its case, it deserved a do-over because of "Sica's ongoing and inexplicable misrepresentations and withholding of critical information from his client."

Senate committee should probe judge

12-11-06 -- Bob Ingle is the Trenton bureau chief for Gannett New Jersey newspapers. . . . Gov. Jon Corzine nominated Jaynee LaVecchia for tenure on the state Supreme Court, which opens up an opportunity to ask her about the missing $300 million. . . . When LaVecchia worked for former state Attorney General Peter Verniero, she approved a controversial merger of HIP Health Plan of New Jersey and a Virginia-based company. It was negotiated in secret as an "asset" sale rather than a "complete" sale, as it really was. The difference meant the new owner didn't have to be classified as an HMO, subject to state regulations about maintaining financial reserves. . . . LaVecchia left the AG's office to become insurance commissioner just in time to oversee the liquidation of HIP. That meant she dealt with it on both ends. It gets worse. . . . PHL Health Plan started its drive to take over HIP by hiring Dale Florio, a lobbyist and Republican Party chairman for Somerset County and a friend of former Gov. Christie Whitman, who was in office at the time. . . . Whitman named Verniero attorney general, and Verniero relied on a consultant hired by HIP to determine HIP's market value. The consultant's fee was based on finding a buyer for HIP.

Deborah T. Poritz, Former Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, Joins Drinker Biddle

12-11-06 -- PRNewswire/ -- Deborah T. Poritz, who served 10 years as the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, today joins Drinker Biddle & Reath as Of Counsel to the firm. Poritz, who stepped down from the high court in October 2006, will concentrate her law practice in government and corporate investigations, mediation and arbitration, and appellate matters. . . . "It is an honor to have such a distinguished jurist join our firm," said Jonathan Epstein, partner-in-charge of Drinker Biddle's Princeton office. "Chief Justice Poritz was an innovative and outstanding leader of our court system, which enjoys a well-deserved reputation as one of the best in the country. She brings a unique perspective to the practice of law from her experience as a jurist, as Attorney General and as Governor's Counsel, and that will benefit our clients. We are thrilled to have her at Drinker Biddle."

Win Without a Lawyer Affordable Step-by-Step Self-Help Tutorials Show How If You Have a Lawyer - KNOW WHAT SHOULD BE DONE If You Don't Have a Lawyer - KNOW WHAT YOU MUST DO Created by an Attorney with 20+ Years Experience Winning Lawsuits Click for instant on-line access Jurisdictionary®

State's use of private attorneys questioned

By Gregory J. Volpe, Gannett State Bureau

12-06-06 -- A letter from Attorney General Stuart Rabner about private lawyers hired by the state to defend a whistle-blower lawsuit against the Board of Public Utilities raises new questions over whether a prominent Democratic Party lawyer was properly pre-approved to represent BPU President Jeanne Fox. . . . The letter, in response to Assemblywoman Amy H. Handlin's concerns about the rising costs paid to private lawyers involved in the suit, includes a list of private lawyers eligible to represent public agencies and employees when the state Department of Law and Public Safety has a conflict or is unable to handle a case. . . . The list ties lawyers, by their request, to handle specific areas of litigation. It lists "civil rights defense" for Angelo Genova, who formerly represented the Democratic State Committee and is assigned to defend Fox against a suit filed by Joseph Potena, the BPU's chief fiscal officer. Potena alleges retaliation after alerting the state Treasury Department about an $80 million to $100 million bank account established by the BPU without treasury approval. .

New Hightstown judge sees importance of 'first level'

By: Dick Brinster, Staff Writer

To Judge James Newman, the importance of justice at the municipal-court level should not be overlooked.
"It's the first level," said the judge, who begins sitting on the bench in the borough Dec. 20. "But sometimes, it's the only court where the public ever seeks justice.". . . Certified as a matrimonial law attorney by the state Supreme Court, and a partner in the Freehold law firm of Newman Scraola, he has 20 years of experience on the bench. He currently bangs the gavel in the Monmouth County towns of Manalapan, Englishtown and Fair Haven. . . . He also sat until earlier this year in Farmingdale and Marlboro, where he makes his home. The 60-year-old graduate of the New York University Law School also has a political background. He's the former deputy mayor of Marlboro, and knows what it's like to stare up at the bench as a former public defender there.. . . Perhaps that post has given Judge Newman a perspective from the accused's point of view. At times, he says, he doesn't like meting out punishment, but sees certain sentences as positive experiences even through the recipients might not realize it at the time.

Court Admonishes Judge Newman Who Arraigned His Client's Adversary
Charles Toutant, NJ Law Journal

12-05-2006 -- A New Jersey municipal judge has drawn an ethics sanction for arraigning a man on charges of harassing a woman whom the judge - as an attorney - represented in a related matrimonial case. Admonishing James Newman for violating judicial-conduct rules, the state Supreme Court on Monday warned that municipal judges who commit such infractions under the guise of ministerial acts will receive "significantly more severe . . . discipline" in the future. . . . "It is a clarion call to all the municipal judges who have done similar things," Newman's lawyer, Kenneth Grispin, says of the disciplinary ruling. The Court acted on the complaint of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, which found Newman violated three canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and a court rule barring conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judiciary into disrepute.

The case is IMO Judge James M. Newman,
A Judge of the Marlboro Township Municipal Court, D-25-06.

Judge’s Words Cost Him a Suspension of 30 Days

By Laura Mansnerus

12-01-06 -- In a 50-page opinion issued on Thursday, the New Jersey Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed a defendant’s bad behavior. Nothing unusual — except that the defendant was a judge. . . . The judge, Bill Mathesius of Superior Court in Mercer County, is to be suspended for 30 days without pay for — among other things — writing acerbic comments about the state’s death penalty laws, disparaging appellate judges, asking a jury that returned an acquittal “what the hell” they were thinking and saying to a defendant who refused a plea bargain, “Are you nuts?” . . . Before taking the bench, Judge Mathesius, 66, was a federal and county prosecutor and Mercer County executive — a post in which many knew him as Wild Bill for his outspokenness and temper. He was nominated to the Superior Court by Acting Gov. Donald T. DiFrancesco and took the bench in January 2002. . . . The court’s unanimous opinion, written by Associate Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, acknowledged the judge’s “overall good reputation,” but said that his frequent intemperate remarks violated the code of judicial conduct. . . . “Judge Mathesius presents an almost indecipherable riddle,” the court’s opinion said. “On the one side,” it said, the judge had been portrayed as “a longtime public servant who is learned in his craft, willing to assist his colleagues and generous with his time and knowledge.” . . . “On the other side,” the court said, was “indisputable proof of repeated and unremorseful instances of petulance, sarcasm, anger and arrogance.” . . . In the end, the court rejected a recommendation by its Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct that the judge be suspended for six months. . . . Judge Mathesius noted in a statement that the charges “involve no allegation of criminal or civil wrongdoing, no personal misbehavior, no embarrassing conduct — in short, no allegations remotely involving moral turpitude.” . . . “I have, however, spoken and written what I believe to be the truth,” the statement said, “and to that I plead guilty.” . . . The judge did not dispute the accounts given to the committee on judicial conduct.

D-166-05 IMO Wilbur H. Mathesius (Mercer County and Statewide)

November 2006

New Jersey's Most Dangerous Branch of Government
-- The Judiciary --

Ruling sparks call for impeachment

By Michael Rispoli, Gannett State Bureau

11-10-06 -- On the heels of the state Supreme Court's ruling that gay couples must have the rights afforded by marriage, one assemblyman is calling for the impeachment of all the judges who ruled on the case. . . . Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Mendham Township, has "drawn a line in the sand" and proposed resolutions to impeach all of the court's justices, including recently retired Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, for "an invasion of legislative power" and violating the separation of powers granted in the state's constitution. . . . However, Merkt said that although the setting for his proposal may be the court's decision in the Lewis v. Harris case, the issue is not about gay marriage. . . . "This is about self-government and who governs the state of New Jersey," said Merkt. . . . "The decision is merely the latest constitutional problem in New Jersey. For decades, the court has escaped all meaningful accountability." . . . Merkt further said that the court is a "judicial bully" by making the legislative branch act on its ruling. He called it "the most dangerous branch of government."

Highlights Of NJ Corruption Humor

From the “Untouchables Group” blog

THE UNTOUCHABLES GROUP

Citizens dedicated to ending the tyranny of corruption in American politics. To join call 609-921-0253 or send an e-mail to cyberesquire@aol.com. To contribute: send a check to "The Untouchables Group, 66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 414, Princeton, NJ 08542." Contributors sending $15 or more receive "Shakedown: The Fleecing of The Garden State" the classic book on NJ corruption.

New Jersey's court-appointed legislature
Craige McMillan, WorldNetDaily.

"We are an independent branch of government constitutionally entrusted with the fair and just resolution of disputes in order to preserve the rule of law and to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States and this State." – Mission statement of the NJ State Supreme Court

11-2-06 -- It has long been a policy of the Party of Dhimmitude (Democrats) to obtain by judicial usurpation that which the legislative process has denied them. If you'd like to see what lies at the end of the road, look no further than the state of New Jersey. . . . So ignorant of the Dhimmitude Party's anti-democratic agenda is the national press – or so complicit – that when the robed royalty in New Jersey's highest court ordered the state Legislature to sanctify homosexual couplings as if they were marriage – commentators everywhere missed the real issue. . . . Some, such as USA Today, actually editorialized on the "judicial restraint" exercised by New Jersey's criminally insane court in giving the Legislature a choice – as long as the product of legislators' penance looked like homosexual "marriage." Their choice? You can call it "civil unions." You really can't buy that kind of editorial spin with a George Soros campaign contribution! . . . And penance the New Jersey Legislature looks set to do, for enacting into law – or not – the will of the people of New Jersey. A single legislator seems to have recognized the issue: . . .

"Judges are charged with deciding cases impartially based on laws enacted by the people's elected representatives," said Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris.

Why The NJ Supreme Court Ruled When It Did  

READER COMMENT: Submitted by Kevin Churchill

The Sun and perhaps many others, wonder why the NJ Supreme Court ruled when they did, the answer is very simple and very bad. . . . The NJSC ruled on Gay Marriage just days before the Nov 7th election because its chief justice, Deborah Poritz retired the very next day. This is a extreme liberal judge that even the liberal professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard University criticized as "irresponsible". In 2002, Chief Justice Deborah Poritz authored an opinion ordering the Legislature to pay the full cost of preschools for 3- and 4-year-olds. She quoted the education clause of the NJ Constitution but left out the crucial words "between the ages of five and eighteen years." because these words in the Constitution didn't fit her opinion. Then a few months later, in an opinion that permitted the state to bond for billions without voter approval, she quoted the debt-limitation clause, which reads: "The Legislature shall not in any manner create in any fiscal year a debt or debts ... ." The words "in any manner" contradicted her opinion. So she left them out. . . . During her tenure, New Jersey's Supreme Court wrote many ridiculuous and legally-speaking very poor decisions. Where and when the Poritz Court wanted to write law, it did. Disregarding a Court's obligation to only interpret law. . . . In the NJSC ruling on Gay Marriage, the Court ordered the state's legislature to write a law in one of two ways to satisfy the Court's liberal agenda because "Times are changing..." At least they will be changing without Poritz making law.

Are judges the new angels?

Commentary, By Jay Ambrose

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?"
-- Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural, March 4, 1801. --

No, President Jefferson, no one much believes in the divine right of kings to lord it over the rest of us anymore, but as a recent court ruling in New Jersey showed, plenty of left-leaning, constitution-eschewing, democracy-shucking political activists think we have found those angels in the form of judges who ought to be allowed to usurp legislative prerogatives, skip possible executive vetoes and dictate law. . . . The Supreme Court in that state decided it would not trust the elected representatives of the people to decide on one of the most controversial issues of the day. It told the state's legislators _ no ifs, maybes or buts _ that they had to devise a statute allowing gays to enter into either civil unions or marriage and send the legislation back to the court for review to make sure they got it right. There is no "public need" not to give gay couples equal standing to heterosexual married couples, the court said, and so the legislature has to salute its will. . . . I know what I would be tempted to do if I were a New Jersey legislator _ instigate proceedings to impeach the court's judges on the grounds that there is no "public need" for a group of people who have so radically misconstrued their role in the governance of the state. I would say to these judges that you got it not just a little bit wrong, but very, very wrong in supposing your job is to enforce your own moral understandings in contravention of democratic proceedings unless you have a sound, principled basis in legal, political, social and historical tradition, and you don't. . . . "This is a civil court judge elected, serving in criminal court. But talk about irresponsible applications of the law and lack of judgment. I can't think of anything worse," Bloomberg said. . . . "We ask our police officers to go out there every day and put their lives at risk. And when somebody tries to mow them down ... don't incarcerate the kid at least until he stands trial? It's crazy," the mayor said.

October 2006

Attorney Ethics Update

By: John Paff, New Jersey Bartender, Org.
The Bartender has been updated to include the Office of Attorney Ethics' monthly reports through September 30, 2006 and the quarterly discipline reports through June 30, 2006. . . . To see the new complaints filed since the last update, go to http://www.cjnj.org/html/newentries.html / For our main page, go to www.njbartender.org

New Jersey Supreme Court Mandates Rights of Marriage for Homosexuals

By Guest: Tom Fitton

In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor questioned why there is such an “intensity of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary.” Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court gave her an answer. . . . On Wednesday, in an act of raw judicial power, the New Jersey Supreme Court discovered that the New Jersey Constitution, which was last written 60 years ago, requires that homosexual couples have a right to all the benefits of marriage.  The court has given the legislature 180 days to rewrite laws governing marriage, but why bother?  The laws have effectively been rewritten.  As one delighted gay activist put it, when choosing between homosexual marriage and civil union, “[Legislators] get to decide between chocolate chip and double chocolate chip.” In other words, for homosexual activists, it’s a win no matter what the legislature decides to call the result, whether it is “civil union” or “marriage.” . . . In its ruling, which overruled two lower courts and invalidated at least 28 New Jersey statutes, the Court found these new rights in specific language of the New Jersey State Constitution:  “All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.” Certainly the authors of the Constitution did not contemplate the notion of same sex-marriage when rafting this language. . . . So how on earth did the court find in this language a mandate that authorizes a court to require a legislature to change the law to give the rights of marriage to homosexuals?  I’ll tell you how.  They made it up.  That is what judicial activists do.  They “find” rights where none exist in the U.S. Constitution (or state constitutions).  All the legal talk about substantive due process and equal protection of the law is smoke and mirrors.  Even the New Jersey Supreme Court acknowledged the dangerous temptations of judicial activism in their decision:  “Under the guise of newly found rights, we must be careful not to impose our personal value system on eight-and-one-half million people, thus bypassing the democratic process as the primary means of effecting social change in this State.” Of course, they went ahead and did just that. . . . When judges impose their personal politics from the bench, as the New Jersey Supreme Court has done, they are no longer “independent” arbiters of justice.  They become unelected politicians in black robes, entitled to no more respect than elected politicians.  Americans who care about the rule of law must nominate and confirm more conservatives to the bench – men and women who will refuse the temptation to become policy makers.

Where's judicial restraint?

N.J. court just can't go around ordering Legislature to make laws.

By Peter Sprigg

10-27-06 -- The New Jersey Supreme Court has professed respect for judicial restraint by refusing to change the definition of “marriage.” But they have imperiously commanded the state Legislature to either redefine marriage itself, or create a “statutory structure” (such as “civil unions”) to grant 100% of the legal rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. . . . This is not judicial restraint. Courts have no power to command the legislative branch to enact a particular law. That the court has given the Legislature a choice (the frying pan or the fire) in no way mitigates this violation of the separation of powers. . . . The New Jersey Legislature should therefore simply ignore this command. Indeed, we urge them to go further and follow the lead set by 19 other states, by amending the state constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman (and to make clear that only the Legislature may determine and distribute the “benefits of marriage”).

Why submit to judicial tyranny?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

10-27-06 -- If Gov. Jon Corzine wished to make himself a hero to Middle America, the opportunity is at hand. All he need do is inform the New Jersey Supreme Court he will neither submit nor sign the law it has ordered enacted -- to put homosexual unions on a par with marriage. . . . At root, what that 4-3 decision, ordering the legislature to enact a new law sanctioning civil unions or gay marriage, is about is: Who governs New Jersey? It is about who decides what law shall be -- elected legislators or judges appointed for life. . . . In our War of Independence, in which New Jersey was overrun repeatedly by British troops, at issue was whether George III and a Parliament sitting in London, in which Americans had no voice, would govern us, or whether we would rule ourselves. From April 1775 to Yorktown in 1781, Americans fought and died to end that rule of kings -- only to have their meek and timid heirs submit to a rule of judges. . . . Let us go back to the era of Earl Warren that began in 1954, and consider what, in the span of a half-century, U.S. judges and Supreme Court justices, abetted by state jurists, have done to America.

New Jersey Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage
Ed Whelan, Bench Memos, NRO Online

10-27-06 -- Just a few comments: / 1.  In an obvious parallel to the opening clauses of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Article 1, paragraph 1, of the New Jersey constitution reads:

“All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”

Based on this provision, and on previous judicial decisions construing it, the New Jersey Supreme Court has just ruled (unanimously) that all the rights and benefits of marriage need to be made available to same-sex couples.  This is, simply put, judicial activism run amok, even if it reflects the gradual judicial accretion of power over some decades.  So many judges today view judicial decision making as essentially an autonomous process, unmoored from the meaning of the actual text.  Not a single justice on the New Jersey Supreme Court did a simple sanity check:  Is it remotely plausible, remotely compatible with democratic principles, to read this constitutional provision as supporting the court’s result?  One could, with equal implausibility, maintain that the Declaration of Independence declares that the rights and benefits of marriage must be extended to same-sex couples. 

Imperial NJ Supreme Court Mandates Same-Sex "Marriage" or Equivalent

Opinion here or here

Matt Bowman -- Constitutionally Correct

10-26-06 -- The New Jersey Supreme Court today declared that "committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples."  This decision makes the upcoming ballot measures to protect marriage throughout the country even more critical than they were just a few hours ago, because the new regime in New Jersey potentially threatens male-female marriage everywhere.  . . . The court found this “right” of equality in the New Jersey Constitution (written in 1844).  Based on its judicial magic, the court ordered the state of New Jersey to change its laws to equalize male-female marriage and same-sex relationships within six months. There is no room for any substantial distinction between the two kinds of relationships. The court will, however, permit the state to continue banning polygamy and incestual marriage.  How generous!  Perhaps the people of New Jersey should make a burnt offering to the Justices in thanksgiving. . . . The court could find no rational basis for distinguishing male-female marriage from same-sex relationships. No rational basis? Not even one? By this the court shows that it is willing to inflate any whim and fancy it has into a mandatory constitutional principle.  Judges of this ilk are utterly disconnected from the views of not only most Americans, but most people worldwide and throughout history, not to mention all major world religions.  The court dares to say that all of these people, groups, churches, nations, and civilizations, are not only wrong, but are irrational.  That kind of arrogance is hard to even discuss, and constitutes the very essence of "judicial activism":  the exertion of will rather than judgment.

Judicial Opinions Shield NJ Trial Court Judges

John Paff, President, New Jersey Citizens for Justice, Inc., www.njbartender.org

Judge who was reversed on appeal: Ann R. Bartlett, J.S.C
Tenured? No. Eligible for Tenure Date: 07/27/2008
Case: State v. Slota, Family Division, Somerset County

Quotes from Opinion:
"We reverse the conviction because the facts as found by the trial .judge do not support the conclusion that defendant violated the FRO.". . . "Indeed, the verdict in this case only makes sense if the judge actually believed the husband's testimony, but she did not make such a finding. Instead, she concluded that she could not determine which witness was telling the truth. That factual conclusion fatally undermines the defendant's conviction."
EXPLANATION:

The New Jersey Appellate Division, as a matter of policy, does not include within its opinions the names of judges whose orders are reversed. It does, however, often identify and publicly praise judges whose orders are affirmed. . . . I don't expect judges to be perfect, and I understand that good judges are sometimes reversed on appeal. However, the Appellate Division's policy makes it difficult to identify those judges who may issue a string of faulty decisions and thus helps shield them from criticism and public accountability. Judges, more than anyone else, need to be held publicly accountable for the work they do. . . . For the last several months, I have, on a sporadic basis, reviewed unpublished opinion issued by the Appellate Division and, for some of the reversals of Family Part cases, I have filed record requests for documents revealing the identities of judges who were reversed on appeal. For as long as I can justify the time it takes to accomplish this time-consuming task, I plan to publish on this forum the identities of reversed judges as well as a link to the Appellate Division decision that reversed that judge. . . . Hopefully, the Appellate Division will amend its policy so as to identify the trial judge in all its opinions, regardless of whether the judge was reversed or affirmed. Such a policy change will make these posting unnecessary.

Whistleblower Lawyer's "Smoking Gun" Is Stone Cold in Judge's Eyes

New York Lawyer, By Mary Pat Gallagher, New Jersey Law Journal

A whistleblower who claimed at long last that he had the smoking gun to prove his case fell short on Oct. 6 when a judge refused to reconsider his motion for summary judgment, first denied in 2004. . . . The ruling came in a Camden County case in which Paul Leodori claims CIGNA axed him as an in-house lawyer in retaliation for questioning an allegedly illegal insurance deal with Texaco, whose CEO was on CIGNA's board. . . . He contended that based on evidence recently turned over by the defendants, Superior Court Judge Mary Colalillo should take a fresh look at his motion. He also wanted her to revisit another 2004 ruling, in which she refused his request to amend the complaint to assert fraudulent concealment claims against defense counsel: Michael Furey, of Morristown's Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, who represents CIGNA, and Edward Ellis, of Philadelphia's Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, the lawyer for the Insurance Co. of North America, a former CIGNA unit that is a co-defendant. . . . That effort likewise failed, as Colalillo on Oct. 6 denied the motion to amend for a second time. . . . The evidence on which Leodori pinned his hopes for a better outcome were the notes of the investigator hired by CIGNA after he wrote to higher ups with his complaints in late 1998.

Judge Sanctions Firm for Filing 'Cookie-Cutter' Patent Infringement Complaints

Xenia P. Kobylarz, The Recorder

10-18-06 --Memo to patent troll attorneys: Do your homework. . . . A federal judge in the Western District of Washington has sanctioned an attorney and his law firm for sending dozens of "fill-in-the-blank" demand letters and filing cookie-cutter patent infringement complaints on behalf of client Eon-Net, a patent holding company based in the British Virgin Islands. . . . U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman ordered New Jersey attorney Jean-Marc Zimmerman and his firm, Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky in Westfield, N.J., to pay the legal fees Flagstar Bancorp incurred defending against a patent suit filed by Eon-Net. . . . Pechman found that Eon-Net's scattershot patent enforcement strategy violates Federal Circuit Rule 11, which requires patent plaintiffs to conduct a "reasonable pre-filing inquiry" to identify the accused device and conduct a preliminary determination that at least one if not all of the patent claims appear in the product. . . . In granting Flagstar's motion for attorney sanctions, Pechman said Eon-Net "brought suit without even deciding what products or functionality infringed."

Open the Door and Let Me In (Please)!

A New Jersey Supreme Court Ruling Approves Suspicionless "Consent" Searches of Homes
By Sherry F. Colb

Last month, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that police may lawfully knock at the door of any home and request the answering resident's consent to search inside -- as long as police inform the resident of her right to refuse. . . . In so deciding, the state's high court declined to extend an earlier decision limiting lawful "consent searches" of automobiles to those where police had reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was occurring inside the car. The failure to extend the earlier ruling demonstrates an unfortunate insensitivity to the realities of "consent searches," whether they take place in a private home or in an automobile. . . . The Earlier Ruling: Limiting "Consent" Searches of Cars . . . In State v. Carty, decided in 2002, the New Jersey Supreme Court confronted a problem that has plagued drivers in New Jersey and elsewhere for some time: that police frequently (but not always) request a driver's consent to search a car they have pulled over for minor traffic infractions. . . . These requests pose a problem because of the confluence of two realities: First, people do not seem to feel entirely free to say "no" to such requests, even when they are told that they may. Second, virtually everyone who drives for an extended period of time will unavoidably find herself in regular violation of one or more traffic laws. The result is that police can pressure almost anyone who drives into allowing them to search her car. One might conceive of this authority as "universal car-search authority."

Warning: Gravity at Work!

A sleepy college student cashed in, until justice woke up
By William W. Bedsworth, Legal Times

(William W. Bedsworth is an associate justice at the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana, Calif. This article previously appeared in The Recorder, an ALM publication in San Francisco.)

10-3-06 -- ***** Burlington County has at least 14 people — a plaintiff, 12 jurors, and a judge — who do not understand the concept of a bunk bed. . . . A bunk bed! How tough can this be? . . . Understand, I am the last person to mock the technologically challenged. I am, myself, perhaps the foremost example of Arthur C. Clarke’s observation that we have reached that point in man’s development where any reasonably advanced technology is “indistinguishable from magic.”

**** say what you will about me, I understand bunk beds. . . . Here’s what I understand: You have two beds. You put one over the other instead of putting them side by side. That means — according to my medieval understanding of physics and anatomy — that one person sleeps higher off the ground than the other. And if that person falls out of bed, he is more likely to hurt himself than the other guy is. . . . This is not only NOT rocket science, it is not any kind of science at all. It is experience. Every child finds out — the hard way — that the pain caused by falling is generally proportional to the distance fallen. And they find out about falling out of bed. We do not learn these things by studying Faraday and Newton; we learn them by studying Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. . . . You don’t even have to understand gravity. All you have to understand is “down” as the second half of the common expression “fall down.” And as beds are up in comparison to floors, you can fall out of them and down onto floors. Unless you were sick the week prepositions were explained, you should know all this long before you take your SATs. . . . $179,001 . . . Yet a New Jersey jury awarded a local college student $179,001 because the manufacturer of a “loft bed” failed to warn users of the bed that if they fell out of it, they could hurt themselves. . . . Honest. I won’t lie and say I couldn’t make that up. I could. But it would require more tequila than I can keep down at my age. . . . I am presently staring — incredulously — at the opinion of the poor three-judge panel that had to confront this verdict. I tell you, people don’t have any idea how hard appellate work is. Imagine having to explain all the things wrong with giving someone $179,001 because no one warned him against falling out of bed.

Mathews v. University Loft Co., Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division, Docket No. A-1536-04T3.

HALT’s Lawyer Accountability Report Card For New Jersey

What’s New Since 2002:

New Jersey’s standing has risen sharply from 27th to 7^th in the nation because the New Jersey Supreme Court struck down the state’s disciplinary gag rule as unconstitutional in 2005.  . . . Only 6.5 percent of all complaints result in discipline in New Jersey—less than half of the national average.* . . . Received an Incomplete for Promptness because New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics did not provide American Bar Association with statistics related to its timeliness in processing complaints.*

Promptness — Shamefully, 18 states—Alaska, Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin— stonewalled, refusing to release information about their timeliness to the ABA. Of the states that did report on the pace of their case processing, the average jurisdiction took nine months just to bring charges against an attorney and an additional five months to impose sanctions. *** “American legal consumers deserve a system that investigates promptly, deliberates openly, and weeds out unethical or incompetent attorneys,” stated Turner. “Until there is meaningful reform, the legal profession has only itself to blame for the widespread public mistrust that mars every attorney’s reputation.”

A copy of the 2006 Lawyer Discipline Report Card is available from HALT upon request and available for free download from www.halt.org.

September  2006

Judge defends speaking out

Supreme Court hears arguments in Mathesius hearing

By Linda Stein

9-27-06 -- Do you lose your right to free speech when you take an oath and don the black robes of a judge? Or is a judge who speaks his mind "on a soapbox with your robes on?" . . . Those questions were at the heart of arguments heard by the state Supreme Court yesterday during a disciplinary hearing for Superior Court Judge Bill Mathesius. . . . Mathesius, 66, faces allegations that he violated the canons of judicial conduct for remarks to jurors, a letter and comments to other judges, and a controversial opinion he wrote in 2002 upholding the conviction of death row inmate Ambrose Harris. Harris was sentenced to death for the 1992 killing of Kristin Huggins, 22, a Bucks County, Pa., artist who was kidnapped from a parking lot in Trenton. . . . The Advisory Committee for Judicial Conduct has recommended that Mathesius, who has been on the bench since 2002, be suspended for six months, three without pay, from his $141,000-a-year job. . . . Before an audience of lawyers, other judges and supporters, Mathesius portrayed himself as the target of a judicial establishment stung by his harsh words about criminal justice issues. He said a "skein, a piece of thread" ran through all the incidents: "My overreaction to injustice."

Click for Order to Show Cause In the Matter of Wilbur H. Mathesius

Corzine naming panel to advise on judge nominees

By Madelaine Vitale

9-27-06 --Gov. Jon S. Corzine wants to make sure the state has the most highly qualified judges. . . . He has created a judicial advisory panel and plans to appoint all seven members shortly, Brendan Gilfillan, a spokesman for the governor said Monday. . . . Candidates for state court judgeships already go through extensive State Police background checks. The Adminis-trative Office of the Courts conducts the ethics checks. . . . Those steps will continue. But before Corzine will nominate a lawyer to the bench, he will first review what panel members have to say about candidates' backgrounds and abilities. . . . “I will rely heavily on this panel's evaluations to help me weigh whether to nominate a candidate to the court,” Corzine said in a press release.

Casino attorney nominated for judgeship

By Donald Wittkowski Staff Writer

9-27-06 --One of Atlantic City's leading casino attorneys was nominated Tuesday by Gov. Jon S. Corzine to a Superior Court judgeship in Atlantic County. . . . Mark H. Sandson, a partner in the law firm of Sandson & DeLucry, declined to comment last week before his nomination was made public Tuesday. . . . He specializes in representing casinos and other high-profile clients in the gaming industry. His clients include the Tropicana Casino and Resort and the Casino Association of New Jersey, the lobbying group for the gaming industry.

Whistleblower Says Lawyers Withheld Papers

Mary Pat Gallagher, New Jersey Law Journal

9-26-06 --When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, CIGNA stepped in to cover losses by evacuated Texaco employees who had to leave personal possessions behind. . . . That insurance policy is at the core of a suit by a former CIGNA lawyer who was fired after he complained the policy was illegal and a retired federal judge's investigation cleared the company. . . . Paul Leodori insists he was punished for doing the right thing and says he has smoking-gun evidence to back up his claims in the 6-year-old Camden County, N.J., case, Leodori v. Cigna Corp., L-3776-00. . . . The evidence consists of notes by retired 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Arlin Adams, whom CIGNA hired to investigate Leodori's claims of corporate wrongdoing. . . . He also charges that defense counsel deliberately withheld that evidence, which CIGNA at last turned over in discovery on Aug. 21. . . . The notes, he says, prove that defense lawyers misled the court and that Adams covered up misconduct by CIGNA when he cleared it, contrary to what his investigation showed. Adams, now with Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis in Philadelphia, is a defendant in the case. . . . Armed with Adams' notes, Leodori is also trying to bring into the case the defense lawyers and their firms: Michael Furey, of Morristown's Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, who represents CIGNA, and Edward Ellis, of Philadelphia's Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, who represents Insurance Company of North America, a former CIGNA unit.

Click for NJ Supreme Court Decision decided February 13, 2003:
Paul Leodori v. CIGNA Corporation, et als. (A-120-01)

Supreme Court rebukes Williams for drunken driving

Staff report

9-25-06 -- The New Jersey Supreme Court censured Superior Court Judge Rosemarie Williams on Friday for her Jan. 30 guilty plea to drunken driving. . . . Williams, 54, who had served in Somerset County but was transferred at the end of August to Middlesex County, pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated Dec. 13, 2005, in Hillsborough. . . . Williams had her license suspended for seven months and was ordered to pay $631 in fines and spend 12 hours at an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center -- an alcohol and highway safety education program. . . . The Supreme Court decided unanimously to follow the findings and recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct. . . . In July, the committee found Williams violated two canons of judicial behavior -- "a judge should personally observe high standards of conduct so the integrity and independence of the judiciary be preserved," and "a judge should respect and comply with the law at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

Highlights Of NJ Corruption Humor

From the “Untouchables Group” blog

THE UNTOUCHABLES GROUP

Citizens dedicated to ending the tyranny of corruption in American politics. To join call 609-921-0253 or send an e-mail to cyberesquire@aol.com. To contribute: send a check to "The Untouchables Group, 66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 414, Princeton, NJ 08542." Contributors sending $15 or more receive "Shakedown: The Fleecing of The Garden State" the classic book on NJ corruption.

Attorney general choice has some mending to do

By Alex Decroce, Asbury Park Press

9-15-06 -- When New Jersey taxpayers picked up their newspapers last month, the headlines were all too familiar. Yet another top New Jersey government official who had been embroiled in scandal and battered by ethical questions was being forced to step down from office. . . . Making matters worse, this time it was our state's top law enforcement officer. Attorney General Zulima Farber was forced to step down after a special prosecutor appointed to investigate her role in a traffic stop involving her boyfriend concluded that her intervention violated the state code of ethics and raised serious questions. . . . The scandal involving Farber unfortunately was not the first time that ethical questions had been raised about the individual charged with enforcing our state's laws. Her predecessor as attorney general, Peter C. Harvey, was dogged by ethical questions throughout his tenure. . . . Is it any wonder there is a high level of cynicism about the integrity of state government when the last two individuals appointed to head up our state's law enforcement operations have been accused of unethical behavior?

Counsel recommends suspension for judge

Sanction would be harshest for a first DWI

By Robert Schwaneberg, Star-Ledger Staff

9-13-06 -- Superior Court Judge Rosemarie Williams should be suspended from the bench for two months for driving while intoxicated, the state Supreme Court's ethics counsel told the justices yesterday. . . . If accepted, that sanction would be the harshest ever imposed on a judge for a first drunken-driving conviction. Williams' lawyer, Bruce McMoran, urged the justices to issue a public reprimand, the standard penalty in such cases. The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct recommended censure. . . . But Patrick Monahan, who prosecutes ethical lapses by judges, told the court "the salient fact" was that Williams had been disci plined before, in 2001, when she was suspended without pay for three months for fighting in public with her boyfriend. In light of that prior case, "a two-month suspen sion would be appropriate," Mona han said. . . . That would match the penalty imposed in 1992 on Superior Court Judge Donald Collester for his second drunken-driving conviction.

This Land Is Whose Land?
In which Piscataway seizes the Halper family farm.
Essay by Matt Labash, The Weekly Standard
09/11/2006, Volume 011, Issue 48

Piscataway, N.J. -- This past winter, when last we left Logan Darrow Clements in the snows of New Hampshire, he was engaged in a modest, civic-minded enterprise. He was trying to steal the house of Supreme Court justice David Souter. Normally not moved to vigilantism, the L.A.-based former Internet entrepreneur had been inspired by the Supreme Court's June 2005 decision in the case known as Kelo v. New London. . . . By a 5-4 vote, the high court had essentially allowed cities to invoke the power of eminent domain to seize private property not for roads or schools, as is common practice, but for less noble purposes, such as indulging Biff McFranchiser's discovery that your land is the ideal location from which to sell hamburgers. The cities, which would force you to sell at whatever "fair market" price they demanded on threat of condemnation, would get to keep the toy at the bottom of your Unhappy Meal, in the form of higher tax revenue. Biff, to the cities' thinking, would generate more income for their coffers than you would by, say, having Pictionary parties or sitting on your couch watching TV. . . . In place of Souter's lifelong homestead, Clements intended to erect the Lost Liberty Hotel, where defiant B&B'ers could celebrate the sanctity of private property while dining on Revenge Soup, served cold at the Just Deserts Café. Instead of Gideon Bibles, the rooms would offer Atlas Shrugged, since the objectivist Clements is a follower of Ayn Rand.

August 21, 2006

How Corzine can recover from the Farber fiasco

By Mike Kelly, Record Columnist

IN THOSE HEADY days after he won the gubernatorial election last November, Democrat Jon Corzine had an inspired idea. . . . He needed advice on appointing a new state attorney general, but he decided to reach beyond the hackneyed network of partisan Democrats. Corzine contacted a Republican – in this case, the tough, anti-corruption U.S. Attorney in Newark, Christopher Christie. . . . As Christie tells the story, he gave Corzine several names. At the top of the list was Stuart Rabner, an experienced federal prosecutor known for sticking to the rules and not playing favorites. . . . Rabner, the son of Holocaust survivors, grew up in Passaic, went to Princeton, then Harvard Law School. He could have chosen a million-dollar career in corporate law. Instead, he went to Newark and dug in as a federal prosecutor for 20 years. . . . As Corzine was running for governor last year, Rabner was at the top of his game in the U.S. Attorney's office in Newark, supervising 100 crime-fighting lawyers. He was a key member of the prosecution team in the federal case against Hudson County Democratic boss Robert Janiszewski, a Corzine supporter. He also helped send an arms dealer to jail on anti-terror charges.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Measure would strip AG job of protection

By Gregory J. Volpe, Gannett State Bureau

In the wake of Attorney General Zulima V. Farber's resignation, a state senator wants to get rid of the constitutional job protection afforded to New Jersey's attorney general and secretary of state. . . . Sen. Paul Sarlo, D-Bergen, plans to introduce a measure that could let voters decide in 2007 whether to change the constitution and make it easier for a governor to remove future scandalous attorneys general or secretaries of state. . . . "If Gov. Corzine had this power in hand, she would have been removed from office two months ago," said Sarlo, referring to Farber who resigned Tuesday, hours after an independent prosecutor released a report that found she violated three provisions of the state ethics code when responding to a traffic stop of her live-in boyfriend Hamlet Goore in Fairview in May.

---

August 18, 2006

Nothing petty about the actions that led attorney general to resign

One thing is clear: Zulima Farber had to resign.

Charles Paolino, Home News Tribune Online

Those who are arguing that she was treated inequitably are acting on either emotions, weak logic, or the priorities of special interests. . . . For example, Martin Perez, the president of the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey, said Wednesday in a written statement that the incident that led to Farber's resignation as attorney general was "petty in comparison to well known and documented past and ongoing behavior by elected and appointed officials who justify such behavior as acceptable because here in New Jersey such conduct is not "illegal.' " . . . I don't know what's petty about the chief law-enforcement official in the state — whose own record bespeaks a disregard for the law — condoning both a breach of the law by her companion and a skirting of the law by police officers who ultimately are responsible to her. . . . Besides the fact that she should have realized it was a conflict of interest for her to even appear at the scene of the traffic stop, she should have insisted that the officers issue the summonses they would have issued to you, dear reader, if you had been driving an unregistered vehicle while your license was suspended; and she should have insisted that an unlicensed driver not be permitted to drive the unregistered vehicle from the scene. . . . No serious person can believe that had those officers stopped any other driver they would not have issued summonses and prohibited the motorist from moving his car. . . . The difference was Farber's presence. There's nothing petty about that. Her behavior renders absurd her claim that she neither sought nor received favored treatment for her companion. . . . Perez said in his statement that Farber's resignation "marks a new dawn in New Jersey that all appointed and elected officials shall be required to heed."

---

---

August 17, 2006

New attorney general must focus on ethics

Cherry Hill Courier OPINION

Our state is the butt of jokes about bad government and unsavory politicians for good reason -- the stuff that goes on here might be laughable if weren't true and didn't cost New Jersey taxpayers so much money.

Zulima Farber was right to resign as state attorney general after a judge found she violated three ethics provisions. . . . So now the onus is back on Corzine. His first pick for this immensely important job was a bust. He cannot botch this nomination again. . . . If any state needs a tough, take-no-prisoners attorney general who can uphold a high ethical standard, it's New Jersey. . . . Sad but true. . . . Our state is the butt of jokes about bad government and unsavory politicians for good reason -- the stuff that goes on here might be laughable if weren't true and didn't cost New Jersey taxpayers so much money. . . . Just last week, the state government's taxation director and seven others, including his wife, were indicted on charges that they were wined and dined by a company accused of overbilling taxpayers by about $1 million. . . . There's also the situation with the state Board of Public Utilities and its recently discovered bank accounts hidden from the state Treasury Department. One of the accounts had $80 million in it. . . . And these are just the most recent of countless government shenanigans in this state. . . . As New Jersey's top law enforcement official, the state attorney general, more than any other single person, can clean up New Jersey politics.

---

---

August 16, 2006

Stung by ethics report, Farber is out

By Carolyn Salazar, Mitchel Maddux & Shawn Boburg, Staff Writers

New Jersey Attorney General Zulima Farber violated the state's code of ethics.

Corzine's quick action lessens political damage
Document: Read the report (requires Adobe Reader)

New Jersey Attorney General Zulima Farber resigned Tuesday, hours after a special prosecutor issued a scathing report saying she violated state ethics codes by showing up at a Fairview traffic stop involving her boyfriend.

At times defiant, Farber stood beside Governor Corzine at a news conference in Trenton and said she would leave office Aug. 31. . . . "I admit being human and making that error," she said. "And I apologize to all of New Jersey for my mistake." . . . However, Farber insisted she asked no one to "fix tickets" and never intended to exert any influence. . . . New Jersey's first Hispanic attorney general, Farber took office in January vowing to clean up state government. She will be temporarily replaced by First Assistant Anne Milgram until Corzine chooses a permanent successor, the governor said.

---

Justice delayed? Judge redefines the concept

By: Bob Braun

The case has been stuck in New Jersey's legal system so long the lawyers talk about it as if it were a child growing up, reaching milestones. . . . "We'll say, 'Hey, this year it's old enough to bar mitzvah,' or, 'Yeah, it's applying to colleges this fall.'" . . . That's what Russell Woods of Cranford says about the lawsuit that somehow, for 23 years, avoided a final decision. It involves a dispute over sewage, of all things, and some of New Jersey's biggest corporations and some of its most prestigious law firms. . . . And a judge who has been taking his time. Years and years of it. . . . "I am absolutely baffled by this," John R. Cali said early last week. Cali is Woods' client and a principal in what was -- when the suit was filed -- Cali Associates of Cranford. "Why can't we get a decision?"

---

August 4, 2006

'Super Lawyers' and 'Best Lawyers' Hire Big Guns to Battle Ad Ban

Publishers of legal surveys fight back against unique ethics ruling

Henry Gottlieb, New Jersey Law Journal

Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers in America have retained attorneys with gravitas to attempt to reverse an ethics opinion that put them out of business in New Jersey.  . . Super Lawyers' parent company, Key Professionals Inc. of Minneapolis, hired John Gibbons and Kevin McNulty of Newark's Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione. Gibbons is a former chief judge of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. . . . Best Lawyers in America turned to Stuart Hoberman, immediate past president of the State Bar Association, and Frederick Dennehy, both of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge. . . . The firms were hired last week to reverse or win modification of Opinion 39 of the state Supreme Court's Committee on Attorney Advertising, published July 24 [185 N.J.L.J. 360]. It bars lawyers from advertising they are in the "Best Lawyers" or "Super Lawyers" rankings and participating in the voting for such honors. . . . "Best" and "super" are manufactured titles that could lead unwary consumers to believe lawyers so described are superior to other lawyers, a violation of rules against misleading ads, the opinion says.

---

July 31, 2006

Zulima Farber NJ Attorney General

Time for change

EDITORIAL BY THE RECORD

ATTORNEY GENERAL Zulima Farber's traffic-stop controversy puts a spotlight not only on her but on the office as well. . . . It's not a pretty picture. Any state needs a vigorous, clean and highly respected advocate as attorney general. It needs a top-flight legal mind able to rise above political interests, aggressively enforce the state's laws and energetically pursue the rights of the citizens. . . . Yet too often, in recent years, the state Attorney General's Office has missed the mark, acting more like a legal poodle than a public watchdog. Whatever happens with Ms. Farber, Governor Corzine needs to take a hard look at the office and make revamping it a priority. . . . The extent of the work to be done is particularly noticeable given the activity in nearby states.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The driving record of Zulima Farber, for you to judge

By Porus P. Cooper, South Jersey Commentary Editor

I'm having a hard time focusing on state Attorney General Zulima Farber's present fix because, frankly, I'm still fixated on why she got the job in the first place, given her long history of driving violations. . . . Society is entitled to some minimum expectations: A lawyer is expected to obey the law, just as a journalist is expected not to plagiarize and a teacher is expected to love kids. . . . I got Farber's driving history from the Motor Vehicle Commission and present it below. Please make your own call and let me know what you think.

---

July 20, 2006

Panel recommends judge’s suspension

Staff Report

An Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct for the New Jersey Supreme Court has recommended that a Mercer County Superior Court judge be suspended for six months. . . . Although finding that Superior Court Judge Wilbur (Bill) H. Mathesius, "is intelligent and, by all accounts, a competent, fair and hard-working jurist. . . . The committee’s recommendations in a form of a Presentment that are based upon a review of Mathesius conduct both in and out of the courtroom. . . . "Respondent (Mathesius) recognizes that he is prone to such conduct, and he has arranged for professional assistance in that regard. He attributes such conduct to his prior experiences as a political figure, which he claims, accounts for his penchant for spontaneity and bluntness and which he acknowledges must be restrained if he is to continue in his current role as a judge," the panel stated in its Presentment.

---

Second Quarter 2006 -- The New Jersey Lawyers Fund for Client Protection

For further information contact: Winnie Comfort 609-292-9580 or Kenneth J. Bossong (609)-984-7179

For a claim to be compensable, the attorney against whom it is filed must have been a member of the Bar, acting as either attorney or fiduciary, at the time of the incident; and unless deceased, must have been disbarred or suspended from the Bar, or convicted of embezzlement or other misappropriation of property. An individual client can receive up to $250,000 ( for claims arising after January 1, 1996, lesser amounts for claims arising prior to that date) and the Fund can provide up to $1,000,000 in claims against a given lawyer. . . . To receive a claim form, an individual should write to the New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, P.O. Box 961, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0961, or may call (609) 292-8008. The form must be completed, notarized and returned with copies of any proofs of the transaction. There is no filing fee. Claimants assisted in their claims by practicing attorneys receive their representation free of charge. Fund Director Kenneth J. Bossong welcomes inquiries regarding the Fund’s purpose and operation. . . . Attached is a list of second quarter claim awards, and the status of each attorney under the Supreme Court discipline system.

---

July 17, 2006

There's no room for thin skin in state court system

By Martin L. Haines in the Asbury Park Press

The Hunterdon County divorce case of Costanza v. Clemente lingered in the New Jersey courts for nearly four years because of disputes over the disposition of marital property. The Appellate Division believed the delay was caused by the trial court's entry of a judgment divorcing the parties before property issues were resolved. It attributed that court action to the constant speedy trial pressures of court administrators seeking to expedite case dispositions at the trial level. . . . The language of the Appellate Division addressing the speedy trial rules was critical: . . . "Case clearance is a noble goal, but we are (citing the judiciary's mission statement) "constitutionally entrusted with the fair and just resolution of disputes in order to preserve the rule of law and to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States and this state.' " . . . Supreme Court Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz, stung by the criticism of the speedy trial program for which she was responsible, prohibited publication of the Costanza opinion, which was released March 27. In doing so she broke the law.

**********************

The chief justice used an administrative order to restrict publication of the Costanza opinion. Such orders cannot affect judicial opinions. . . . Supreme Court rules, enforcement of which is a responsibility of the chief justice, provide that Appellate Division opinions shall be published "only upon the direction of the panel issuing the opinion." It gave a chief justice no authority over that direction. . . . The chief justice acted in secret. She wrote no opinion, providing only inadequate, poorly circulated, hand-to-mouth reasons for her action. She had an obligation to act openly, to let the public know what she was doing and why. . . . Every judge and justice in the New Jersey judiciary is on public display every time he or she occupies the bench or issues a decision. Public criticism of all kinds is to be expected and invited. Thin-skinned responses are neither anticipated nor desired.

May 25, 2006

NEW JERSEY  

West Milford Township’s “Attorney Accountability Ordinance” ruled ‘legal’ by Appellate Division

Reported by John Paff

In a May 25, 2006 published decision, Appellate Division Judge Rudy B. Coleman ruled that a) West Milford’s “Attorney Accountability Ordinance” does not violate the New Jersey Supreme Court’s rules regarding confidentiality of attorney disciplinary matters; and b) the “ethics history report” that contains details of the disciplinary charges against an attorney is “an integral part of the Certificate of Ethical Conduct” and is therefore subject to disclosure to same extent as the Certificate itself.   Coleman’s decision reversed Passaic County Superior Court Judge Robert Passero’s October 14, 2004 order dismissing Plaintiff John Paff’s complaint and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings in Paff v. Byrnes.

Click to read the background information and peruse other legal documents.

May 24, 2006

Dixie case bodes ominously for Elizabeth girl

By: Bob Braun

A year after Arianna Adan of Elizabeth, then 4 and an American citizen, was ordered deported to Argentina, her future is still uncertain. . . . At a hearing the other day in Newark, U.S. District Judge William Walls -- whose earlier order to deport her was blocked by an appeals panel -- came close to making yet another decision, based on a Georgia case that bears superficial similarities to the unhappy circumstances that have kept the little girl a prisoner of civil procedure. . . . "I am quite desirous of getting rid of this case, one way or the other," said the judge, and cited the other case as how he would rule. . . . Neither lawyer in Arianna's case knew the decision, Giampaolo vs. Erneta, or a legal term -- patria potestas [from Wikipedia]  -- on which Walls was about to base his decision. . . . Walls criticized them both for their lack of preparation -- "I know your case better than you do," he snapped -- but the judge delayed making another bad ruling. . . . Meanwhile, the little girl -- despite her mother's earlier harrowing testimony about abuse Arianna suffered -- still has not been evaluated by any competent state, county or judicial authority. She is treated as if she were as relevant as the rug in Walls' courtroom. She's there, somewhere, but hardly noticed in the procedural bickering.

**************

There is hope. The Georgia case, a trial decision, is not binding and can be distinguished -- the mother and child there, for example, were illegally living in the United States, not Americans like Mazza and Arianna. Mazza wants to bring an Argentinian lawyer here to contradict the patria potestas view of things. . . . He would have been here for the last hearing but couldn't get a visa. . . . Arianna, meanwhile, turns 6 June 15. She wants to go to Disney World to celebrate her birthday. . . . Let's hope the next plane she boards is headed there.

Enhancing court access

Asbury Park Press

Regardless of the outcome of the complaints filed against real estate investor Solomon Dwek, the parties involved and the public will have unfettered access to the many court filings in the case. Superior Court Judge Alexander D. Lehrer and Donald M. Lomurro, the fiscal agent assigned to sort out Dwek's holdings and the claims against him, made sure of that Wednesday by posting online more than 120 court documents in the complex case. . . . As a result, Lehrer and Lomurro are bringing rare and welcome transparency to the state court system. . . . It's part of their effort to make the documents available to the parties in the case and to the public quickly and efficiently. The new Web site, www.judiciary.state.nj.us/dwek/index.htm, is the official document-access point. Lomurro says he hopes to post all documents on the court-run site within a day after they are received by his office.

Justices used tortured logic

Asbury Park Press

"Without any fault on their part."

That's the key phrase in a baffling 17-page opinion issued unanimously by the state Supreme Court that ruled an illegal alien has the right to collect damages from the state's uninsured motorists fund. . . . The fund is administered and financed by insurance companies that write automobile policies in New Jersey. Some of the cost of the fund is passed on to motorists who have liability insurance through surcharges. . . . Citing a previous case, the court found the fund was established out of a recognition that "there is an economic hardship resulting to those persons referred to in the statute who, without any fault of their own, suffer losses through motor vehicle accidents . . . ." The persons referred to in the statute must be residents of the state. . . . The case was brought by Victor Caballero, who followed his family from his native Mexico and illegally entered the country in March 2001 when he was 17. The court went out of its way to recount the plight of illegal immigrants seeking a better life here compared to their homeland and how Caballero, in particular, suffered physically and financially as a result of the accident. The opinion even went so far as to explain that Caballero now cannot eat some of the foods he previously enjoyed.

Read the decision: Caballero v. Martinez (A-8-2005)

April 25, 2006