Are Dems using the Public Defender’s office to field anti-police candidates?

By Rubashov

We have been keeping track of the local politics in a handful of “bellweather” towns across New Jersey. These towns are representative in some way of a segment or idea about New Jersey and are a good indicator of trends. One such town is Ringwood, in Passaic County.

On Thursday, we reported that a certain candidate for borough council, Jessica Kitzman, was running for office even though she works in the criminal justice system as a public defender. Her LinkedIn page and the state’s attorneys website all indicate this, as do numerous other public documents.

A press release, issued by the New Jersey Attorney General’s office on July 23, 2021, notes that Kitzman – an “Assistant Deputy Public Defender” – was the defense attorney on a case involving a man who attempted “to lure a 14-year-old girl he met on social media for a sexual encounter. The ‘girl’ in reality was an undercover detective participating in ‘Operation Home Alone,’ a multi-agency undercover operation… that targeted individuals who allegedly were using social media to lure underage girls and boys for sex.”

We wondered how any self-respecting system of justice could allow the politicization of prosecutors and public defenders. So, we Googled can public defenders run for office in new jersey, and came up with this:

(a) All State officers and employees within the Office of the Public Defender are prohibited from becoming candidates for election to any elective public office and from accepting appointment to same (e.g. to fulfill the unexpired term of an elected public official).

According to the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, Jessica Kitzman has been a candidate for borough council since March 18, 2021. So, we asked: “Is there anybody out there who can clear this up? Can a public defender run for public office? Please let us know.”

The local Democrat chairman answered our question and posted that Kitzman had received a “waiver” from the state and is allowed to run as an openly partisan Democrat for borough council. While this might be the case, Kitzman and the Democrats are certainly not advertising this on their campaign material. A recent mailer described her as a “public interest attorney with government experience.”

Why not just tell the truth? You are an Assistant Deputy Public Defender.

Heck, "public interest attorney" sounds like a lobbyist or someone pushing a policy agenda. And indeed, Kitzman does have an agenda as her statements and actions make clear, but there is a much larger question the New Jersey legal establishment and the taxpayers who pay the bills should be asking themselves: Is it really a good idea to turn the public defender’s office into a patronage holding area for Democrat candidates? Is that what it’s for?

A partisan candidacy for local office is only the first notch in climbing the greasy poll of elected office. A successful candidate for local office will naturally consider or be considered by party insiders for higher office. Do we want those partisan political considerations to get in the way of finding the truth through the justice system?

Would a prosecutor be inclined to go harder on someone whose politics he or she disagrees with? Conversely, would he let someone else walk? Careerism has already produced prosecutors who think primarily in terms of win/loss records and not of justice. Finding out what really happened comes second to “making a case.” And the consequences of that can be terrible for both the reputation of the process, as well as for the poor souls involved.

So too, with a public defender, looking to embellish a political career. Will he or she hold back on zealously defending someone the voting public loathes? Will he or she favor the cases that elevate standing with targeted political constituencies at the expense of justice? Ever aware of changing fashions, public defenders now routinely paint the police with a broad brush – can a political public defender be expected to pay less attention to partisan opinion?

And what is the ethos of the Public Defender’s office? What are the policies that its leadership has pursued? Just what do you get when you elect someone from that institution? Well, let’s start at the top, with Jessica Kitzman’s boss. This is from his public biography on his office’s website…

“He has become an influential stakeholder in the NJ’s justice system on many issues, having spearheaded NJ’s pretrial release reform that eliminated monetary bail, advocated for sentencing reform on NJ.s Sentencing Commission, and directed the filing of three successful Orders to Show Cause in the Supreme Court for release of jail and prison inmates during the pandemic.

…handled numerous death penalty cases until the abolition of the death penalty in December 2007. He served on the Death Penalty Study Commission as a strong advocate for its abolition.”

Okay, that is a clear policy direction.

In September of last year, Kitzman’s boss wrote an opinion piece in the Star-Ledger (NJ.com) which was unambiguous as to the ideology it embraced and in the policy direction it advocated:

“Social awareness and protests are important but not enough. People in positions of power must adopt policies and enact laws that take concrete steps designed to eradicate systemic racism. It is time to act.”

“The main culprit is the so-called drug-free school zone law that requires mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug offenses committed within 1,000 feet of school property. We have long known that it is a discriminatory law.”

This kind of honesty is to be applauded. The voters know exactly what to expect from the novitiates of such an institution as they pursue political office.

There is a network of non-profits, funded by Democrat party interest groups, that actively recruit and train candidates for public office. Kitzman is a graduate of one such group. They openly talk about building a “bench” from which to groom future county and state leaders. That so many on this bench hold patronage positions on taxpayer-supported payrolls is a good indicator of where the Democrat Party is heading.

When you recruit public defenders, special interest lobbyists, government regulators, and corporate “government affairs” careerists – instead of average property taxpayers, blue collar workers, retirees, and small businesspeople – your party takes a different direction and you get a different kind of government.

The politicization of the Public Defender’s office should be addressed. Trying to balance the scales of justice with the demands of electioneering is a fool’s errand. It is an injustice to everyone involved and a taint on our legal system.

“Freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. I don't believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.”

Coretta Scott King

Cruz joins with Sussex Dems to oppose broadband in Sussex-Warren.

By Sussex Watchdog

If you lived through the pandemic in Sussex or Warren County you know how important Internet connectivity is. If your Internet service wasn’t reliable, you couldn’t work from home, or learn from home, or even order food from home. And it’s not just for the pandemic – expanding broadband in Northwest New Jersey so that there’s reliable access to the Internet is crucial for the region’s economic development – now, and in the future.

Elected officials from BOTH political parties understand the need for greater broadband access in the region and reliable Internet connectivity. That’s why they place their ideological differences aside to broadly work together on what should be an issue of mutual agreement.

So, on Friday, when Governor Phil Murphy and Congressman Josh Gottheimer visited Lafayette to announce $190 million in American Rescue Plan funding that includes broadband expansion in Northwest New Jersey, they were joined by Republicans who have worked side-by-side with them to achieve this. Only an asshole would oppose reliable Internet access for Sussex and Warren Counties.

Enter Dan Cruz, a former Democrat, who is the teachers union’s answer to the problems facing Northwest New Jersey. It’s not enough that many teachers opposed returning to the classroom – apparently Cruz opposes students having the Internet access they need to learn from home as well.

Cruz took to social media to go on a rampage against Republicans who have put their partisan feelings aside to help get Sussex and Warren Counties the 21st Century Internet service we need. Cruz attacked Senator Steve Oroho and, by extension, Assemblyman Hal Wirths, County Commissioner Director Dawn Fantasia, and the Republican mayors of Blairstown, Hardwick, Belvidere, Sussex Borough, Frelinghuysen, and others. All of whom showed up in support of expanding broadband access for rural New Jersey and to support state legislation to create a Broadband Access Study Commission.

Apparently, Cruz saw red when Governor Murphy said, “Along with our congressional delegation and our Legislature, we are working to ensure that those living and working in New Jersey have access to reliable high-speed broadband services.” Cruz profoundly disagreed with that statement and with the one made by Congressman Gottheimer:

“For the sake of our families, economy, schools, and health care, we must continue fighting for communities across Warren and Sussex Counties to help boost their broadband connectivity… Now, every county and town in Sussex and Warren County will be clawing back federal dollars that they can use to improve connectivity. We also need to get the dollars sent to the State of New Jersey for rural broadband to right here in Sussex and Warren. With partners on both sides of the aisle and at every level of government, I believe we can get this done.”

NJBPU President Joseph L. Fiordaliso, who was also at the announcement, said: “Ensuring the most hard-to-reach areas of New Jersey have access to high speed Internet is an absolute necessity, especially in light of the last year. It is crucial that we close the digital divide, so our schoolchildren and businesses have the same educational and economic advantages regardless of where they are located.”

What responsible leader would oppose working together to achieve a bi-partisan outcome that materially helps the people of Sussex and Warren Counties?

Is Cruz nuts, stupid, or just a liar? Are we really supposed to believe that Cruz would rather have an Internet desert in Northwest New Jersey if it means working with the Democrats who run Trenton (the Murphy administration) and Washington (the Biden administration)? He’s too educated to be that stupid – so it’s down to being a nut or a liar.

But it gets worse.

It is bad enough when a political wannabe is on the make and will do anything, say anything, to try to score – but when the Executive Director of the Sussex Democrats cheers him on and shops around such a stupid attack, that is truly remarkable. Especially as the Executive Director in question has just trousered a fat patronage job – courtesy of the very same Governor Murphy.

Speaking for the Republicans, who are a minority in the Legislature, Senator Steve Oroho said: “High-speed internet is an absolute necessity in our world today, yet there are too many homes and communities in New Jersey that lack the broadband service many of us take for granted. The last year with so many employees and students working from home through the pandemic, it underscored the need of being wired for reliable internet connectivity. The creation of the Broadband Access Study Commission will examine the logistics of developing community broadband networks in order to deliver high-speed internet access, especially to underserved communities like many in rural areas. From a competitive standpoint, closing the digital divide is a must.”

Unfortunately, Dan Cruz and the Sussex County Democrats would rather play politics than get anything done. Being spiteful losers might make them feel good, but it doesn’t address the problem, which is a very real one – all across America.

Here is an educational video, provided by the Wall Street Journal, for the edification of Dan Cruz and the Sussex Democrats.  These idiots should watch it.  Maybe they’ll learn something?  But don’t hold your breath.

 

“The more inept you are, the smarter you think you are.”

Tom Stafford

Democrats target another college trustee over Free Speech

Rob Jennings of the Newark Star-Ledger is reporting how some far-Left Democrats are, once again, attempting to muzzle free speech and shut down the expression of any differing opinion. This time their victim is a trustee at Raritan Valley Community College. Her name is Dr. Felecia Nace.

Her crime? Speaking at an event in Boston, where she criticized the Legislature’s recent implementation of an unfunded mandate – the newly imposed “LGBTQ” curriculum requirement. Dr. Nace posed the question: “Where is the overwhelming need to teach lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual history that supersedes basic academic success.”

The Legislature imposed the new requirement without any additional funding – while it slashed education funding in most of New Jersey’s school districts.

Dr. Felecia Nace

Dr. Nace argues that the emphasis on LGBTQ education distracts from academic achievement and could even distort history. Citing examples from a similar curriculum used in California, she noted that it questioned the sexuality of President James Buchanan, the only unmarried U.S. president, and 19th Century poet Emily Dickinson.

“This reckless questioning sets children on a slippery slope. We have honored these individuals for their contributions to society, and what a slap in the face to their memories to now question their sexuality," Dr. Nace said.

"For most children, their gender is a fundamental part of who they are. The vast majority of children are not confused about their sex, and it’s something that they were never, ever preoccupied with until today.”

Dr. Nace taught language arts in the Montclair public school district, was an adjunct professor of English at Mercer County Community College, and worked as an education specialist with the state education department.

The community college issued a statement on Dr. Nace, who has been a trustee since 2017, pointing out that Dr. Nace was “present as a private citizen” and made her views accordingly. Of course, that wasn’t enough for the anti-speech, far-Left Democrats, who called for Dr. Nace’s resignation.

One such authoritarian politician – a certain Melonie Marano – put out a statement in opposition to intellectual diversity: “At a time when our county is becoming more diverse, and our young college students are becoming more understanding about LGBTQ+ issues, we cannot have board members who actively try to exclude gay studies from education.”

Marano’s statement reeks of religious conversion rather than democratic debate. Of course, true Democrats (those worthy of the name) understand that ALL unfunded mandates thrust upon the property taxpayers by the Legislature are open to question and debate. That is the very idea of democracy – a concept Marano apparently hates.

Marano is a long-time politician and candidate for Freeholder in Somerset County. She is affiliated with the far-Left group Indivisible and is endorsed by the Somerset County Democrats. In August, the Somerset Democrats went on social media to encourage those who “hate our country” to run for office. The media reported:

Somerset County Democrats disavowed a since-deleted Facebook post encouraging those who “hate our country” to run for public office, donate to political campaigns or otherwise engage in politics that drew fire from the county’s Republicans.

The leadership of the Somerset County Democrats did not take responsibility for what was posted on its social media and instead blamed a “volunteer” who they claimed was angry with… you guessed it… Donald Trump. The Democrats refused to name the volunteer.

Apparently, HATING AMERICA is now a qualification for office with some Democrats, so it should come as no surprise when we read statements from Melonie Marano in opposition to the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

Lafayette resident calls out Herald on Gottheimer

Lafayette taxpayer Josh Aikens called out the New Jersey Herald for reporting that Democrat Congressman Josh Gottheimer was in attendance at the annual Sussex County St. Patrick’s Day Parade on Saturday.  The parade was held in Newton, Gottheimer was the only elected official mentioned by name…but he was, in fact, a no show.  Records from Gottheimer’s own social media indicates that he was in Teaneck at the time of the parade in Newton. 

Aikens, who serves as the President of the Lafayette School Board, took to social media himself to complain about the Herald’s dishonest focus on Democrat Gottheimer, while other elected Republicans were ignored.  In recent years, the Herald has openly promoted Democrat Gottheimer.  This appears to be its editorial policy.

Five lies the Tea Party should refrain from

It's the Tea Party, so you can be sure there will be histrionics aplenty at their rally on Saturday.  Former Freeholder and town council candidate Harvey Roseff, late of the NJTA, will be on hand in his usual role as Carnac the all-knowing.  So the slogans, born from lack of study, will be flying as well.

Nevertheless, the Skylands Tea Party and Roseff with his NJTA should try to avoid re-telling a few of the bigger lies they've been pedaling.

First.  The Skylands Tea Party is not the same as "We the People of the Garden State."  You are a very small handful of the 9 million people who live in New Jersey.  You have every right to speak for yourselves, but nobody elected you to speak for "the people of New Jersey" -- and you are generally very disrespectful towards those who have actually gone before the people and who were elected.  This is probably because you see them as occupying your rightful place but... this is America, and in America we vote for our leaders.  Nobody voted for you.

Second.  Please do not refer to members of construction unions as "thugs."  The only thuggish behavior exhibited has been by members and associates of the Tea Party on social media with their pornographic insults and threats of violence.  Many thousands of building trades workers reside in Sussex County with their families.  They vote, pay taxes, read newspapers, and patronize businesses.  And while we are on this subject, if Tea Party candidate Mark Quick attends, Skylands (or Roseff) should remember that at a similar protest in July he was ordered out of the Lafayette House because of his loud and violent behavior.  He needs a minder.

Third.  "This tax increase never even got a public hearing."  Harvey Roseff and the NJTA have been pushing this lie for weeks.  And again yesterday, Roseff posted this lie on the Sussex Watchdog website.  The facts are that there were extensive public hearings on this legislation by both the Senate and Assembly.  The Reason Foundation actually gave extensive testimony at one hearing.  On top of this, Senator Oroho has publically spoken before a number of groups in Sussex County on this topic.  Just because Roseff couldn't find the time to attend, doesn't mean it never happened.

Fourth.  Carnac the all-knowing (AKA Harvey Roseff) has been shopping around the lie that he can fund the TTF through savings.  He told the NJ Herald: "The audit and the repeal go together.  You do the audit to find out how the money is being spent and to find savings. With the savings there is no reason for the gas tax." 

Two questions come to mind:  (1) How does Roseff know what savings he will find if the audit hasn't been conducted yet?  And how can he speak so assuredly that those savings will be sufficient if he has no clue as to their amount?

(2) The fact is that not since 1990 has the state's user tax on gasoline and diesel produced enough revenue to cover the cost to maintain the state's transportation system.  Today the debt service alone exceeds $1.1 billion.  In contrast, the gas tax collected just a bit more than $750 in 2015.  That means if Harvey found 100% savings -- if he found a way to build the roads for free -- he would still need to increase the gas tax just to pay for the yearly debt payment the TTF has accrued over the last decades.

As you can plainly see, Harvey Roseff is full of bullshit.

Five.  The gas tax applies to "all petroleum products."  This lie was put out there by the Skylands Tea Party in an email blast dated October 18th that invited people to the rally.  This is part of a nasty whisper campaign to frighten people into believing that the tax applies to home heating oil.  In response, the Office of Legislative Services released this definitive statement:

"Assembly Bill No. 12 (2R) of 2016, recently enacted as P.L.2016, c.57.  Home heating oil, which includes number 2 heating oil, number 4 heating oil, and number 6 heating oil,  used for residential heating is exempt from the Petroleum Products Gross Receipts Tax.  The exemption is included as part of the definition of 'petroleum products' under the 'Petroleum Products Gross Receipts Tax Act,' 54:15B-1 et seq.  The definition of petroleum products was not amended as part of Assembly Bill No. 12 (2R), and therefore the exemption still applies." 

Memo to the Skylands Tea Party and Harvey "Carnac" Roseff:  Stop telling lies.  Deal in the real world.