The (dis)Honorable Judge John C. Stritehoff, Jr., ladies and gentleman.

Law clerk's complaint dismissed

Retired judge was accused of sexual harassment. He kissed the woman.

Express-Times, The (Easton, PA)-May 22, 1999 / Author: WILLIAM GUHL

       TRENTON - The state Supreme Court on Friday reprimanded a retired Warren County Superior Court judge for kissing his law clerk, but dismissed the clerk's sexual harassment complaint against the judge. 

      Retired Judge John Stritehoff Jr., who retired in May 1998, was reprimanded for "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute." 

       A law clerk who worked for Stritehoff from 1997 to 1998 claimed that the judge on numerous occasions kissed her against her will, discussed intimate matters with her and often asked if she was thinking of him. 

       She filed a complaint with an assistant trial court administrator in January 1998. 

       Stritehoff denied the allegations, but admitted kissing the clerk on the lips to congratulate her on passing the bar exam and to wish her happy holidays at Christmastime in 1997.

Hold Your Ears, Folks

LTTE: Public officials see ‘threats’ everywhere

Public officials see ‘threats’ everywhere

View full sizeAP Photo | MATT ROURKE

Warren County Sheriff David Gallant essentially says he “can’t tell” what a threat is anymore because of the rise of social media websites (“Threats to judges taken seriously in age of Facebook and Twitter, authorities say,” Feb. 24).

Oh, how easy it is for public officials to blame their own ignorance on some indescribable patina of mystification descending on us all by a strange new mysterious phenomena.

Blah, blah, blah. Bollocks, I say.

There’s no confusion about what a threat is. Look it up. This is a serious issue that needs to be clarified, quick.

Last week a man in Cincinnati was ordered by a judge to post a groveling apology to his wife on Facebook because of a previous post that said “all you need to do is say that you’re scared of your husband or domestic partner and they’ll take (your child) away.”

That’s political speech. A judge ordered a man around for it. Not an isolated incident.

Concerned citizens need to vent, but the Violence Against Women Act ensures an accused man will be punished even if the accusation turns out to be false.

In most cases, judges are immune from prosecution, even if their erroneous decisions profoundly harm families.

And if it’s in family court? The watchdog eye of the media is forbidden to ever know what happened.

This is pure insanity. If we are made to be afraid to vent by easily offended ignorant public officials, it’s time to have them removed from office.

ERIK ANDERSON

Independence Township

Published: Monday, February 27, 2012, 4:21 AM

Terror Directed at Everyone

"Evil is the process of a simulacrum of truth. And in its essence, under a name of its invention, it is terror directed at everyone." -Alain Badiou

Judgment at Nuremberg Verdict

Spoiler Warning - don't watch if you don't want to know the end of the movie

"The New Brunswick Massacre of 9/10/47"

Ed Smith, Chief of Staff
Assemblyman Michael Doherty (Future Senator) 
Displaying the B. Bruce Anderson Memorial Flag
On His Desk - February, 2008

"The New Brunswick Massacre of 9/10/47"
By Ed Smith
The following article appeared in the Community News - PO BOX 557, Woodbine, NJ 08720 - in the week of October 30, 1997.

 50 years ago a quiet seizure of power took place at Rutgers University, in the State of New Jersey. While families looked to the future, trying to forget the fresh and horrible memories of the war, politics were not the big subject of the moment. The armies for the different competing branches of government were still vying for power, waging their century old legal war. The official winner, on September 15, 1948, was to be the judicial Branch.

The victims were to be the people of the State of New ]ersey, doomed to live in a state totally under the control of the Supreme Court. In fact, in 1950, the Supreme Court decided that its rulemaking power was exclusive, displacing any legislation on practice and procedure in the courts (Winberry v. Salisbury).

Read the Rest of the Article Here