|
July 25, 2005
Espinosa took her oath of
office Friday, July 22, 2005 at the Union County Courthouse in
Elizabeth. She has been assigned to the criminal division in Union
County and will hear drug related cases. One has to wonder how many
court rules and laws can she possibly violate in her latest career
move?
July 3, 2005
7/3/05 Victims-of-Law received an email alerting
us to the fact that Espinosa is already on the judicial assignment
list. The NJ Judiciary issued it's assignment list on June 30, 2005
while the Senate was still in session on Espinosa's nomination. Click
for "Espinosa's
Judgeship was a foregone conclusion."
July 2, 2005
CLICK TO READ:
Culture of Corruption Continues Unabated in New Jersey
RECENT NEWS ARTICLES
Senate panel recommends returning ex-judge to bench
By Michael
Symons, Gannett State Bureau
Senate, 12 years later, votes to confirm Espinosa to bench
Marianne Espinosa,
who was forced off the bench in Morris County 12 years ago, will
return as a Superior Court judge in Union County following her
confirmation by the Senate yesterday, 34-2. . . .
Booted in 1993, ex-judge is back Senate
panel OKs Espinosa's return
By Tom Hester, Star-Ledger Staff
June 30, 2005
'Criminal Judge' Marianne
Espinosa (make sure to drop the previous hyphenated 'Espinosa-Murphy'
because she wants to trade on her 'Hispanic Heritage.'
Today, she was approved
by the NJ Senate who believes the Senate's Judiciary rules regarding
public notice may be disregarded at their pleasure. -- Now isn't that
'par for the course'? It's . . .
. . . NEW JERSEY
CORRUPTION IN ACTION
The
lone voice in today's Senate hearing was Senator Cardinale who
actually seems to believe the people have rights.
Sen. Walter
Kavanaugh (R-Somerset) also voted against confirming Espinosa's
nomination.
Espinosa was formally approved as
a 'criminal judge' by a vote of 34-2.
June 29, 2005
LETTERS EXPRESSING SHOCK & DISMAY
AT THE UNDERHANDED MANNER IN WHICH THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PROCEEDED
ON THE
ESPINOSA INTERVIEW
Open Letter to
Marianne Espinosa
Perspective on How Cases are Fixed in the New Jersey Judiciary
Letters from the Law
Office of David Perry Davis
Jeff Golden's Letter
Also see: The
Politics of Judicial Horse Trading in NJ
The Law Office of David
Perry Davis
COUNSELLOR AT LAW
31 Jefferson
Plaza
Princeton,
NJ
08540-9541
(609) 279-0141
Fax: (732)
274-2050
E-mail: DPD@dpdlaw.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 28, 2005
Acting Governor
Richard J. Codey
Office of the
Governor
PO Box 001
Trenton
NJ
08650
Via Fax
609-292-3454 and regular mail
Re: Appointment
of Marianne Espinosa Murphy
Dear Governor:
I wrote on May 25
and June 3 regarding this matter. You indicated that my comments, as
well as the many other protests you received, would "receive due
consideration."
In violation of
the statute, Ms. Murphy's Senate appointment hearing was scheduled on
Saturday, June 25, for Monday, June 27 - ZERO working days before the
hearing. This was obviously done with the specific and sole purpose
of stifling discussion and dissent.
Is this a
democracy? All we asked was the opportunity to be heard; reasonable
notice as to when the appointment hearing was scheduled. This back
door, star chamber sell out of the people of New Jersey is too
outrageous for words.
Putting aside the
many, many instances where Murphy showed overt contempt and disrespect
for the people she was supposed to be serving, Judge Murphy ranked in
the bottom 10% of every judicial survey. Her demeanor, her knowledge
of the law, her adherence to court rules - every criteria that
existed, she failed.
Why would you do
this to the people of New Jersey when there are so many decent,
appropriately tempered, intelligent attorneys out there who would make
excellent judges? Why again give someone power to abuse litigants and
attorneys when they already proved they can't handle it?
I wish there were
words to express my hurt, shock, and disappointment that this secret
confirmation hearing was conducted.
It is within your
power to prevent this abortion of justice from coming to pass. Please
do not present Ms. Murphy's nomination on Thursday and schedule a real
hearing where the voice of the people can be heard.
Respectfully,
David Perry
Davis, Esq.
Cc: New Jersey Law
Journal
New Jersey Council for Children's Rights
Mothers
Without Custody, Inc.
Fathers'
And Children's Equality
Network
for Empowering Women (NEW)
Sen.
Nicholas Scutari Via Fax: 908 587-9312
Sen.
Thomas Kean Jr. Via Fax: 908-232-3345
Sen.
Raymond J. Lesniak Via Fax: 908-624-0587
Senator
John H. Adler Via fax: 856-428-1358
The Law Office of
David Perry Davis
COUNSELLOR AT LAW
31 Jefferson Plaza
Princeton, NJ 08540-9541
(609) 279-0141
Fax: (732) 274-2050
E-mail: DPD@dpdlaw.com
June 27, 2005
Sen. Nicholas Scutari
1514 East Saint Georges Ave. 2nd Floor
Linden, NJ 07036
Via Fax: 908 587-9312
Re: Possible
appointment of Marianne Espinosa Murphy
Dear Senator:
I wrote on May 25
regarding Marianne Espinosa Murphy's quest to regain the ability to
abuse the people of New Jersey (copy enclosed). I followed this
letter up with correspondence to Governor Cody on June 3 and June 10
and spoke to a representative from your office.
I was
flabbergasted to learn that a secret hearing was held today regarding
Ms. Murphy's reappointment to the bench. Apparently, notice was given
Friday afternoon for a Monday morning hearing.
I cannot
adequately express my shock over this. Obviously, the powers that be
knew that, if the people were given the opportunity to be heard, the
voices (/ testimony) against her would be a crescendo. As a result,
the hearing was scheduled without sufficient notice.
Are we living in
a democracy?
Please let me
know what, if anything, can be done at this juncture and how this
happened.
At this juncture,
I am assuming that this back-door action was as surprising to you as
it was to me.
Respectfully,
David Perry Davis, Esq.
Cc: Acting Governor
Richard Codey Via Fax 609-292-3454
New Jersey Law Journal
New Jersey Council for Children's Rights
Mothers Without Custody, Inc.
Fathers' And Children's Equality
Network for Empowering Women (NEW)
Sen. Thomas Kean Jr. Via Fax: 908-232-3345
Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak Via Fax: 908-624-0587
Senator John Adler Via Fax: 856-428-1358
UPDATE
6/27/05
Without
allowing sufficient notice to the public & despite objections to lack
of notice, Espinosa was nominated by the NJ Judiciary Committee.
SHE WANTS
TO BE CALLED 'ESPINOSA' 'cause she's proud of her Hispanic heritage.
UPDATE
6/26/05
In New
Jersey, It's Business as Usual!
Murphy to be interviewed tomorrow
© Victims-of-Law,
Inc.
Click for original
article:
The Politics of
Judicial Horse-Trading
in New Jersey
Without sufficient notice to the public, New Jersey's Senate Judiciary
Committee will be interviewing Marianne Espinosa-Murphy on Monday,
June 27th at 10:00 A.M. Jeff Golden has notified the senators about
his displeasure related to the sneaky way this interview was scheduled
as well as his opposition to her appointment.
Jeff Golden's letter
|
Jeffrey
Golden
P.O. Box 2601
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
XXX-XXX-XXXX
jeffface@aol.com
June 26,
2005
Dear
Senators:
I just
learned that on Monday, June 27th The Senate Judiciary Committee
will be interviewing Marianne Espinosa and considering her for
appointment as a Superior Court judge. I will not be able to
personally attend the Judiciary Committee hearing that day, so
please accept this letter as my written testimony against the
appointment of Ms. Espinosa.
Before
discussing Ms. Espinosa's qualifications, I will address the
issue of public notice of her interview. The New Jersey
Legislative Calendar issued
June 22, 2005 (Vol. XXIX No. 42, received June 24th) included
the very lengthy agenda for the Judiciary Committee meeting on
Thursday, June 23rd, including interviews of eight judicial
nominees. That Legislative Calendar also included scheduled
activities for Monday, June 27th and beyond. The next
Legislative Calendar issued
June 24,
2005 (Vol. XXIX No. 43, received June 25th) indicates another
meeting of the Judiciary Committee on Monday, June 27th, but
says only "Agenda to be announced." It wasn't until Saturday
evening, June 25th, that I was informed by email from a person
outside of state government that Ms. Espinosa would be
interviewed on Monday, June 27th.
It is no
secret that Ms. Espinosa's nomination to be a judge is highly
controversial. It is also highly unusual for the Judiciary
Committee to meet more than one or two times in a month. Why
was it necessary to schedule this special meeting of the
Judiciary Committee to consider Ms. Espinosa's appointment, and
why was the public given only 36 hours notice over a weekend of
the committee's agenda?
Normally,
when you consider a judicial nominee, you have no way of knowing
for sure how that person will perform as a judge. That is not
the case with Ms. Espinosa. As I'm sure you are aware, Ms.
Espinosa was a Family Court judge in
Morris
County
from 1986 to 1993. In the New Jersey Law Journal's 1989
judicial survey, on a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is the highest
attainable score, then-Judge Espinosa-Murphy scored 5.9 in
knowledge of the law, 6.2 in demeanor, and 5.7 in ability to
handle complex matters. She scored 12th out of 15 Morris County
judges with a score of 6.0 in overall competency.
In the Law
Journal's 1993 survey she did even worse. Her score was 5.2 in
demeanor. She ranked 19th out of 20 judges in the vicinage with
an overall score of 6.8. Survey respondents commented that she
had a strong pro-wife bias in matrimonial cases.With this track
record, why would you even consider making Ms. Espinosa a judge
again?
The
Judiciary Committee didn't get the opportunity to reappoint
Judge Espinosa-Murphy in 1993 at the end of her initial term.
Morris County's then-Senator John Dorsey exercised "senatorial
courtesy" to prevent her reappointment. At that time the news
media (I'm sure at the urging of Ms. Espinosa's publicists and
"spin-meisters") characterized this as discrimination against
Espinosa-Murphy because she is a woman or because she is
Hispanic.
Untrue! There
are many fine female judges in New Jersey. If anything, I
personally believe that generally female Family Court judges are
more unbiased than their male counterparts. They can more
intuitively detect when women are not being truthful, are less
sympathetic to women who claim they can't earn a living, and
they tend not to be as chivalrous to female litigants as male
judges are. And last time I checked, "Murphy" was not a
Hispanic surname, and sharing a home with the county prosecutor
and stepson of a former governor bares very little similarity to
life in the barrio.
Senator
Dorsey was merely responding to complaints from his constituents
regarding a bad judge in his district. He put his personal
integrity above politics, even if it cost him his re-election,
and I have the utmost respect for him for that.
After her
failure to be reappointed, a compromise was reached in which
Espinosa-Murphy could serve another seven year term without
tenure. She rejected it. Instead, she sued Senator Dorsey and
the state to end the practice of "senatorial courtesy" and to
get her tenured job back. I don't know what is your business in
your personal lives, and I don't know what you consider
"acceptable," but in my business, once someone sues us we don't
do business with them again. Why should the business of the
state operate any differently?
In 1994
Espinosa-Murphy was appointed to the Governor's Commission to
Study the Laws of Divorce. She should never have been on this
commission. The legislation establishing the commission
specified that one of the members was to be a "retired Superior
Court judge." Espinosa-Murphy may have been a "former" judge,
but she was not "retired." I still wonder how much more
effective that commission might have been if an unbiased "real"
retired judge was in that position.
At the first
hearing of the Divorce Commission, Marty Rodetsky played an
audio tape. It was a tape of a court hearing he had in front of
judge Espinosa-Murphy. The whole room sat in stunned silence
and disbelief as they listened to this tape of Espinosa-Murphy
screaming out-of-control at Mr. Rodetsky. Since this was not a
videotape, what the listeners couldn't see was that during this
exchange Judge Espinosa-Murphy had crawled up on her desk and
was screaming directly at Mr. Rodetsky, and was so
out-of-control that her spittle was landing directly on Mr.
Rodetsky's face. Is this the demeanor that we are looking for
in New Jersey Superior Court Judges?
Unfortunately Marty Rodetsky will not be testifying regarding
Espinosa-Murphy's appointment. He died last year. I have been
unable to get a copy of the tape he played for the Divorce
Commission. I know he would have wanted you to hear it. I can
think of no better way to honor his memory than for me to
recount his experience with Espinosa-Murphy to the Judiciary
Committee.
I urge you,
please, learn from past experience with Ms. Espinosa, and do not
again appoint her a Superior Court judge.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey
Golden |
See
notice of hearing at:
New Jersey Legislature
(go down and click on the calendar for June 27, 2005, then click on
Senate Judiciary Committee.) | 
