Tom DeLay Exonerated by Final Court in Texas; Liberal Media Virtually Silent

If you tried to find out what recently happened in court ending the criminal case against former GOP Congressman Tom DeLay, almost all the results that come up are from conservative sites. The left-wing news media deliberately ignored the story of his total legal exoneration earlier this month. Contrast this with the multiple, lengthy front-page articles than ran for years gleefully covering the progression of the politically motivated attacks on him.

I saved an article taking up the top half of the front page of The New York Times from 2006 - with a huge photo of DeLay high-fiving my cousin, a Congressional staffer - announcing that DeLay was being forced to leave Congress due to the indictment. In contrast, the Times printed a tiny, three-sentence paragraph about the exoneration that was buried in the print edition on page A20.

When DeLay was indicted in 2005, most people around the country did not understand how politically motivated the left-wing Travis County District Attorney was. Now that sitting Texas Governor Rick Perry is being prosecuted by current DA Rosemary Lehmberg, a convicted drunk driver, the targeting by that Democrat-controlled office is finally coming to light. The Austin-based office badly overstretched going after the popular governor, and now its history of corrupt prosecutions are all coming to light.

Former GOP Senator Kay Bay Hutchinson was also indicted by the same office, and fortunately for her, then Travis County DA Ronnie Earle’s bogus witchhunt was thrown out. DeLay describes what happened to Earle’s prosecution, “The case [against Sen. Hutchison] did go to court, and his case absolutely imploded the day they went to trial. The judge kicked them all out of his courtroom.” 

Read the rest of the article at Townhall 

PHOTOS: Strong showing at I-594 protest rally in Seattle against gun control

Last Saturday, on October 18, 250 to 300 gun rights activists met in downtown Seattle's Westlake Park to protest I-594, making it the safest place that day to be in the state. Only one park ranger showed up to monitor the rally, and he didn't bother carrying a firearm.


King 5 TV filmed the event, with refreshingly objective coverage, shown below. They didn't just film and interview white males, but showcased the diversity of the attendees, which included minorities and women packing.

A pro-594 protest the next day didn't appear to attract any more participants, despite the millions poured into the initiative. Opinions were mixed, but the majority of attendees felt worried I-594 is going to pass on Nov. 4th. Billionaires in favor of gun control have spent almost 10 times as much money promoting I-594 as the opposition. Gun control proponents say if successful, they're taking the initiative to three other states, including Arizona.

Organizers reported afterwards that the Seattle Police commended them on how well the rally went. One police officer shook organizer Rick Halle's hand and thanked him for exercising his rights.

Below is a list of the speakers, whose speeches are featured beneath on YouTube. Former Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders went over the legal aspects of the initiative should it pass, and said the real purpose of it is to take guns away from people. He asked, "why can I give my mother a firearm, but can't sell her or loan her one?" Rep. Jason Overstreet (R-Lynden) said the law has been vaguely written, with few words defined, so that unelected bureaucrats in the state department of licensing can interpret them later, writing rules as restrictive as they want.

SPEAKERS
Marty McClendon, candidate for Congress
Doug Basler, candidate for Congress
Shahram Hadian, Christian pastor
Former Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders
State Representative Jason Overstreet
Adina Hicks (NRA Grassroots Organizer)
Danielle Decker (Amopac)
Rick Halle (Gun Rights Coalition)

The event was hosted by several gun groups, including Gun Rights Coalition, http://www.opencarrywashington.com/, http://www.washingtongunrights.com/, Gun Rights Across America Washington State http://www.waguns.org/, and others.

Join the No on I-594 Facebook group here.

The King 5 video coverage is beneath the photos, which are courtesy of Michael Gallion, followed by videos of the speakers. Alice Gheorghiu stood up for gun rights with her S&W M&P9. Organizer Rick Halle Some of us met up carrying to have coffee at the nearby friendly Fred Meyer's in Bellevue. This Occupy protester was cool because he reads Western Shooting Journal. Jason Colberg participated in a debate on I-594 with a state legislator the next day, and did quite well - http://westernshootingjournal.com/editors-blog/everyday-citizen-jason-colberg-debates-wa-state-senator-maralyn-chase-on-the-pros-cons-of-initiative-594/ Cathy Lee Ryan showed up to express her opposition to I-594 - but support for Western Shooting Journal. The gun bloggers! They meet up every year in Reno, Nev. From l-r: Mike Gallion, D.W. Drang, Barron B. and Janelle Barnett Patrick Mullen and Mike Carpenter of the Friday Night Rifle League in Bellevue seemed to know everyone there. Whatom County gun rights supporters drove two and a half hours south to attend the rally. Loved this family of homemade signs Sandy Wagnon of Redmond was just another woman who showed up packing to support the Second Amendment.

Originally posted on Western Shooting Journal

North Dakota Bar Association Illegally Spends $70,000 To Oppose Shared Parenting

By Robert Franklin, Esq.

In one of my blog posts on Measure 6, the North Dakota initiative that would establish a presumption of equal parenting in the state, I pointed out that any monetary support given to the opposition (or proponents) by the State Bar Association of North Dakota (SBAND) would violate the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Keller vs. State Bar of California. Keller holds that a mandatory state bar association’s activities are limited to those directly related to the regulation of the legal profession in the state. To do otherwise would be to violate the free speech rights of members who are required to pay dues, but disagree with the position taken by the state bar. Justice Rehnquist outlined to what expenditures mandatory bar associations (like that of North Dakota) were limited:

Thus, the guiding standard must be whether the challenged expenditures are necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or "improving the quality of the legal service available to the people of the State."

Needless to say, equally shared parenting by divorced parents in North Dakota has nothing whatever to do with regulating the behavior and education of attorneys in the state. About that there can be no serious dispute.

But I’ve had some email correspondence with Tony Weiler, Executive Director of the North Dakota Bar, and he claimed that the bar complies with Supreme Court rulings. It doesn’t. In the case of Teachers vs. Hudson, the U.S. Supreme Court held that mandatory dues paid to a labor union were improperly used for a non-union purpose but that the union could establish procedural safeguards to protect members’ First Amendment rights of free speech. A unanimous Court stated:

"[T]he objective must be to devise a way of preventing compulsory subsidization of ideological activity by employees who object thereto without restricting the Union's ability to require every employee to contribute to the cost of collective-bargaining activities."

The same is true when the dues collecting entity is a state bar association. So, what is the North Dakota Bar required to do in order to not violate the free speech rights of dissenting members? First, its procedural safeguards must be narrowly tailored so as to avoid impinging members’ First Amendment rights.

Second, the [bar member] — the individual whose First Amendment rights are being affected — must have a fair opportunity to identify the impact of the [bar’s] action on his interests and to assert a meritorious First Amendment claim.

The North Dakota Bar fails both tests and does so obviously. What procedural safeguards does it afford its members? Executive Director Tony Weiler outlined them in one of his emails to me.

If any member is interested in a Keller Refund, they should contact me and I’ll address it with them individually, after consulting with my Board.

Yes, that’s it. Nowhere does the SBAND inform its members of their right to a refund; nor does it afford them the type of impartial decision-making process so clearly required by the Teachers case. Where is the impartial decision maker? Where’s the due process of law? Weiler’s notion of the first is him and his Board and the second is individuals contacting him on an ad hoc basis. To say that those don’t comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings is about as controversial as saying the earth isn’t flat.

Don’t believe me? Read what the unanimous court in Teachers said on the subject:

[A] “pure rebate approach 475 U.S. 292, 304] is inadequate.” We explained that, under such an approach, in which the union refunds to the non-union employee any money to which the union was not entitled, “the union obtains an involuntary loan for purposes to which the employee objects.”

A “pure rebate” approach of course is precisely what Weiler is offering his members.

First, as in Ellis, a remedy which merely offers dissenters the possibility of a rebate does not avoid the risk that dissenters’ funds may be used temporarily for an improper purpose. “[T]he Union should not be permitted to exact a service fee from nonmembers without first establishing a procedure which will avoid the risk that their funds will be used, even temporarily, to finance ideological activities unrelated to collective bargaining.”... A forced exaction followed by a rebate equal to the amount improperly [475 U.S. 292, 306] expended is thus not a permissible response to the nonunion employees’ objections.

The Court could have been speaking directly to Weiler and the SBAND.

Then there’s that little matter of an impartial decision maker that happens to be required by Supreme Court precedent.

Finally, the original Union procedure was also defective because it did not provide for a reasonably prompt decision by an impartial decisionmaker. Although we have not so specified in the past, 19we now conclude that such a requirement is necessary. The nonunion employee, whose First Amendment rights are affected by the agency shop itself and who bears the burden of objecting, is entitled to have his objections addressed in an expeditious, fair, and objective manner.20 [475 U.S. 292, 308] 

The Union's procedure does not meet this requirement. As the Seventh Circuit observed, the "most conspicuous feature of the procedure is that from start to finish it is entirely controlled by the union, which is an interested party, since it is the recipient of the agency fees paid by the dissenting employees."

Somehow, according to the Executive Director of the State Bar Association of North Dakota, a members’ objection to his dues being shanghaied by the Bar to oppose a measure he supports is adequately addressed by,

“If any member is interested in a Keller Refund, they should contact me and I’ll address it with them individually, after consulting with my Board.”

Has anyone at the North Dakota Bar even read the cases governing its behavior? You’d think they would have, but if Tony Weiler is any evidence, they certainly don’t understand the plain English of those precedents. But whatever the case, if my sources on the matter are correct, they’ll soon get to prove it in court. I’ve been informed that a lawsuit will be filed seeking to enjoin SBAND from future expenditures of bar funds for activities so clearly unrelated to regulating the legal profession in the state.

But again, don’t take my word for it. A law review article analyzed state bars’ efforts to comply with Keller; the verdict on North Dakota wasn’t flattering:

The North Dakota procedure is deficient in almost every respect. First, it does not provide an adequate explanation of the basis for the fee by categorizing items as chargeable or nonchargeable, and it expressly places an unconstitutional burden on the dissenting member to identify the challenged legislative policy. The procedure does not provide a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the determination of amount of dues devoted to nongermane activities, nor does it provide payment of interest on any amount refunded from the date the dues are paid. Finally, the policy does not provide for a hearing before an impartial decisionmaker, or for an escrow for the amount reasonably in dispute while the challenges are pending.

A court in North Dakota should immediately issue a restraining order against the State Bar Association of North Dakota prohibiting it from further expenditure of members’ dues for a purpose utterly unrelated to the regulation of the legal profession and under procedures that are entirely insufficient according to Supreme Court precedent. The SBAND is acting outside the law when it uses members’ dues to oppose Measure 6 that would establish a presumption of equal parenting in North Dakota.

Of course, as I suggested in yesterday’s post, if the SBAND didn’t oppose the measure, who would?

Reposted from National Parents Organization

Brad Pitt, Second Amendment Supporter, Has New WWII Movie Opening Tomorrow

Article by Frank Jardim . Photos by Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.

With the upcoming cinematic release of FURY tomorrow, October 17, the war movie genre finally has a realistic, historically accurate, film focusing on tank crews and armored combat in World War II. It comes right after the 75th anniversary of the start of WWII, which began on Sept. 1, 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. The film was written and directed by David Ayer and stars Brad Pitt in the lead role as Staff Sergeant “Wardaddy,” a Sherman tank commander in the 2nd Armored Division.
Filmed on location in England, the movie takes us to the last days of World War II, when American (and Russian) forces had put 9,995 of the 10,000 German tanks produced out of commission, and the Nazis had to defend der heimland with their elderly and youth. The wear of war is reflected in Pitt's battle-hardened character, who’s been riding in a tank since North Africa, and contrasts sharply with his fresh-from-the-cornfields driver as they lead a charge for a crucial crossroads, which they have to unexpectedly defend when their armored vehicle is blasted out of its tracks. Yeah, we all know how the war ends, but this film takes us along for a more realistic ride than most other recreations of the European theater.

Pitt’s character is a bit reminiscent of the role he played as a soldier in Inglourious Basterds, which also took place during WWII. He takes his five-man crew behind enemy lines, where they are outnumbered and outgunned. Yet he is determined to succeed in the deadly mission, “I started this war killing Germans in Africa. Now I’m killing Germans in Germany. I promised my crew a long time ago that I’d keep them alive,” he pledges.

Since Saving Private Ryan premiered in 1998, we’ve had several movie and cable television productions realistically portraying the violence, blood and gore of infantry and air combat that give the viewer a real sense of the mortal terror of battle. By doing a better showing of how it really was, they have honored the sacrifices of the real participants. That is not to say that some earlier films were not excellent and realistic. One that leaps to mind is the superb 1949 film Twelve O’Clock High staring Gregory Peck, which is frequently studied in our military training academies to this day. However, most of the older films simply couldn’t recreate how it really was because of the technical limitations of filmmaking and special effects, and viewer tastes.

Click here to read the rest of the review as well as Brad Pitt's views on the Second Amendmen at Western Shooting Journal

Felecia Rotellini for AZ AG: Dangerous Views

Obama's New, International Military

By Andrew Thomas

Obama’s efforts to accommodate illegal immigrants have invited a torrent of illegal-immigrant youth to stream north to the U.S. border.  A much quieter revolution has taken place inside the Pentagon.  The president and his administration now will begin placing teenage illegal immigrants in America’s military and under arms.

On September 25, 2014, the Pentagon announced a bold expansion of current policies to create new opportunities for young illegal immigrants to enlist in the U.S. military.  This policy change also will allow the young soldiers to receive preferential treatment in obtaining citizenship.  A new Department of Defense initiative will broaden an existing program that allows military recruiters to seek foreign nationals with narrow skills, mostly those with foreign-language expertise or certain health-care training.  Until now, these enlistees were legal noncitizen residents. The Obama administration now has altered the program, known as Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI), to absorb so-called Dreamers.  These are illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. with their parents before age 16, and who were afforded de facto amnesty by the Obama administration under its policy known as Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA).

MAVNI soldiers receive educational aid in addition to pay and benefits and expedited citizenship.  For now, at least, the program has a cap of 1,500 recruits per year.

The Department of Homeland Security grants DACA status, which protects illegal immigrants from deportation.  Since Obama announced DACA in 2012, more than 580,000 illegal immigrants have availed themselves of the program.  Hundreds of thousands more have swarmed north from Latin America to the U.S. border, and many have made it across.  DACA immigrants, already given deportation deferrals, now will be given an opportunity, assuming they offer the skills being sought, to enlist in the military and receive what the New York Times called a “fast-track pathway to citizenship.”

Read the rest of the article at the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research

Man caught on video stealing campaign signs from Shawnna Bolick, David Schweikert and Michele Reagan!

Unbelievable. We've been told the thief will be prosecuted and has been given a court date. The signs were posted on private property with the consent of the owner. Was the thief a Democrat operative? Or someone connected to one of the opposing candidates?

Opposition Group Turns to Stealth & Sexism to Oppose Shared Parenting in North Dakota

All too often, instead of being the keepers of the law, state bar associations flagrantly violate the law instead. They get away with this because they are controlled by powerful judges and affluent left-wing attorneys. Most often, people are too terrified to take on the rich and well connected, fearing they could be easily decimated by (ab)using the legal system.

The debate about Measure 6, on the ballot this fall in North Dakota, is a recent example. Measure 6 would establish approximately 50/50 shared parenting as the default when parents with children split up, unless a court finds that one parent is unfit. Although 110 world experts have endorsed shared parenting, the deceptively named “Keeping Kids First” - which should be more accurately named “Keeping Kids With One Parent” - appears to be the only group opposing Measure 6. However, this group is nothing more than a cleverly named front for the primary opposition - feminists, divorce attorneys, the state bar association and the ACLU. Notably, not a single divorce attorney is identified as such on the website of the organization where the members are listed. However, all but three of the 12 members are divorce attorneys. Divorce attorneys stand to lose a lot of money if child custody becomes less acrimonious, and shared parenting would accomplish just that.

The original email address for the organization was keepingkidsfirst@sband.org. That is from the domain name of the North Dakota State Bar Association. Tellingly, after the shell organization was called out on misuse of bar association assets, the email address was changed – evidence of guilt. The executive director of the bar association is also listed as one of its members, more evidence of the cozy relationship.

The last time a state bar association misused its resources - using bar dues from attorneys forced to contribute in order to practice law - it was taken over by the state supreme court, which reduced its fees drastically. The Nebraska State Bar was penalized for lobbying against shared parenting, since the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory associations cannot use the dues of their members to lobby for or against legislation. North Dakota is a mandatory bar association. Attorney Robert Franklin wrote on the National Parents Organization website about its opposition, “how it was possible for an organization of lawyers to not know the laws directly applicable to the doings of that organization?” Good question, and one the N.D. Secretary of State should be asking Keeping Kids First.

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

More GOP recommendations on voting for judges

 H/T Christina Pasterz

The following recommendations were published in the September 29th "Republican Briefs".  

Former West Valley Office Manager/ LD22 Activist Karen Thomas’ Judge Recommendations: Most info received from arizonajudgesreview.blogspot.com andJudicialPerformanceReview.com.  I will be voting YES for the names in Bold and highlighted in yellow.  I’ve noted the judges who received less than 60% of the vote for retention in the 2010 General election.  All others, except Karen O’Connor who received 71.66%, received in the 60s%.

·       ARIZONA SUPREME COURT

o   Bales, Scott – Napolitano 2005 Appointee

o   Brutinel, Robert – Brewer 2010 Appointee

·       MARICOPA COUNTY COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I

o   Howe, Randall M. – Brewer 2012 Appointee -

o   Johnsen, Diane M. – Napolitano 2006 Appointee -

o   Thumma, Samuel A. – Brewer 2012 Appointee -

·       MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

o   Aceto, Mark F. – Symington 1995 Appointee - Conservatives have a very favorable opinion about this judge.  Received favorable reviews.  Serves in Juvenile Court

o   Anderson, Aimee L. – Napolitano 2007 Appointee – Serves in Juvenile Court

o   Anderson, Arthur T. – Hull 1999 Appointee -  considered soft on crime.  Serves in Criminal Court.

o   Astrowsky, Bradley – Brewer 2012 Appointee – Serves in Juvenile Court

o   Bailey, Cynthia J. – Brewer 2011 Appointee -

o   Barton, Janet R. – Hull 2000 Appointee – 2010 Election Results she received 56.68% of the vote for retention.  Special assignment Criminal court

o   Bassett, Edward W. – Napolitano 2008 Appointee – Democrat – Received negative reviews.  Serves in Family Court.

o   Bergin, Dawn M. – Napolitano 2007 Appointee – Former attorney for Napolitano’s old law firm.  Received negative reviews.  Serves in Juvenile Court

o   Blomo, James T. – Brewer 2011 Appointee – Serves in Civil Court.

o   Brain, Mark H. – Brewer 2011 Appointee – Serves in Criminal Court.

o   Brodman, Roger R. – Symington 2002 Appointee – moderate Republican. Serves in Juvenile Court

o   Brotherton, William L. – Napolitano 2007 Appointee – Democrat – Formerly a far-left legislator – Inductee into the Sierra Club Hall of Fame – Has received negative reviews.  2010 Election Results he received 56.87% of the vote for retention. Serves in Family Court.

o   Cooper, Katherine M. – Brewer 2011 Appointee – Serves in Civil Court.

o   Crawford, Janice K. – Brewer 2011 Appointee – Serves in Family Court

o   Cunanan, David O. – Brewer 2012 Appointee – Serves in Criminal Court.

o   Davis, Norman J. – Symington 1995 Appointee – Republican – Presiding Judge in Family Court and Juvenile Court.

o   Duncan, Sally S. – Napolitano 2004 Appointee – Reputed to be a very lenient criminal judge except when it  comes to domestic violence.  Has received negative reviews.  Serves in Criminal Court.

o   Dunn, Boyd W. – Brewer 2011 Appointee – Serves in Civil Court.

o   Fenzel, Alfred M. – Hull 1999 Appointee – Republican – Reputable attorneys have a good opinion of him but say he’s a little soft on crime.

o   Fink, Dean M. – Napolitano 2006 Appointee – Democrat – Former attorney at Napolitano’s old law firm.  Has received negative reviews.

o   Foster, Jr., George H. – Hull or Napolitano 2003 Appointee – Democrat – somewhat liberal but considered one of the most pleasant judges.  Serves in Criminal Court.

o   Gama, J. Richard – Hull 2000 Appointee – Democrat but considered tough on crime. Somewhat liberal.  Has received negative reviews and his rating was recently lowered.  Presiding Judge in Civil Court. 

o   Granville, Warren J. – Hull 2000 Appointee – Republican but very liberal.  Has received negative reviews.  Criminal court, Capital case.  He gave a criminal only 1 year in jail and 4 years probation for breaking into a woman’s home and brutally beating her.  Fortunately, she had a gun and shot the SOB in his junk and now he is “permanently damaged”.   Good!  Maybe now he won’t be bringing any other criminals into this world.

o   Hegyl, Hugh E. – Napolitano 2007 Appointee – Former assistant to a liberal Senator.  Active in the State Bar’s left wing’s Legal Services Committee.  Has received negative reviews.  2010 Election Results he received only 56.3% of the vote for retention.  Serves in Civil Court.

o   Herrod, Michael J. – Brewer 2011 Appointee – Serves in Civil Court. Husband of Cathi Herrod, head of conservative family organization Center for Arizona Policy.

o   Hicks, Bethany G. – Hull 1999 Appointee – Considered soft on crime and invents laws.  Has received negative reviews.  2010 Election Results she received only 53.48% of the vote for retention.  Serves in Civil Court.

o   Hyatt, Carey S. – Hull 2000 Appointee – Republican – Serves in Family Court

o   Ishikawa, Brian K. – Symington Appointee 1995 – Republican – Received high rating.  Serves in Juvenile Court

o   Kreamer, Joseph C. – Napolitano 2007 Appointee – Democrat – Board of Directors, left-wing AZ Foundation for Legal Services and Education.  Former Chair and active in State Bar’s left wing Legal Services.  Has received negative reviews. Serves in Criminal Court and Civil Court.

o   Martin, Daniel G. – Napolitano 2007 Appointee – Has received negative reviews. Serves in Criminal Court.

o   Mroz, Rosa P. – Napolitano 2004 Appointee – Very Liberal – Has received negative reviews.  Serves in Criminal Court.

o   Myers, Samuel J. – Napolitano 2007 Appointee – Former legislative intern for Democrat Senator Dennis DeConcini,   Has received negative reviews.  Special Assignment, Civil Court.

o   Norris, Benjamin R. – Napolitano 2007 Appointee – Has received negative reviews. 2010 Election results he received only 55.48% of the vote for retention.  Serves in Family Court.  Is the only judge to not meet the standards from the Judicial Performance Review.

o   O’Connor, Karen L. – Hull 2000 Appointee – Considered fair.  High rating. Presiding judge of the Phoenix Probate/Mental Health court.

o   Pineda, Suzanna C. – Napolitano 2007 Appointee – Considered to be a RINO.  Has received negative reviews.  Serves in Criminal Court.

o   Polk, Jay – Brewer 2011 Appointee – Serves in Family Court.

o   Porter, Gerald J. – Brewer 2011 Appointee – Serves in Family Court and Civil Court.  Did not do well on the Judicial Performance Review.

o   Rea, John C. – Napolitano 2004 Appointee – Democrat -  Has received negative reviews.  Serves on Civil Court.

o   Reinstein, Peter C. – Hull 1999 Appointee – High Rating – Serves in Family Court

o   Ronan, Emmet J. – Hull 2000 Appointee – Defended some of the most heinous criminals in the state.  Received negative reviews.

o   Sinclair, Joan M. – Brewer 2012 Appointee – Serves in Juvenile Court

o   Svoboda, Pamela Hearn – Brewer 2012 Appointee – Serves in Juvenile Court

o   Talamante, David M. – Hull 1999 Appointee – Independent -  formerly worked for AG’s office and left wing community legal services.  Considered somewhat fair, middle of the road, not biased towards criminal defense but not considered a tough sentencer.  Presiding judge in Family Court.

o   Viola, Danielle J. -  Brewer 2011 Appointee – Serves in Family Court.

o   Warner, Randall H. – Napolitano 2007 Appointee – Democrat - former law clerk for liberal AZ Supreme Court Chief Justice  Thomas Ziaket.  State Bar of AZ, Editorial Committee, left wing AZ Attorney Magazine, AZ Association of Denfense Counsel.  Circulated anti-marriage petitions for Napolitano and was rewarded with a judgeship for it.  Has received negative reviews.  Serves in Family Court.

o   Welty, Joseph C. – Napolitano 2007 Appointee – Democrat - has received negative reviews.  Serves in Criminal Court.

o   Willett, Eileen S. – Hull 1999 Appointee – High rating.  Serves on Civil Court.

--

Karen Mahon

Secretary, LD20

LD20News@gmail.com