Kellie Nevins wrote a letter to the editor claiming my previous statements were "completely false, and a gross misrepresentation of [Traci] DiMezza's qualifications and experience."
One statement, for example, was: "In June 1996, DiMezza entered into a partnership with Steven Friedman, who was not licensed to practice in New York, disbarred in Connecticut and had pending criminal charges." This information comes directly from the report of DiMezza's misconduct.
It is clear to anyone who checks my sources that my statements were truthful. Nevins' claim of falsehood misrepresents DiMezza's past misconduct and experience. The Code of Judicial Ethics states that judicial candidates are prohibited from misrepresenting facts concerning themselves. It also says committees are prohibited from doing for the candidate what the candidate is prohibited from doing. Nevins self-identifies as a member of DiMezza's committee and is prohibited from making misrepresentations on DiMezza's behalf.
DiMezza also misrepresents the facts. In her letter, DiMezza claimed her 68 counts of misconduct stem from 68 checks, but that is not true - 66 counts stem from checks, one stems from failure to supervise a non-attorney and one from allowing a non-attorney to act as signatory on an escrow account.
The facts I stated came directly from cases published in official reports, but I encourage the general public to see for themselves. Lance Gundersen has made a copy of the documents available on his blog at www.xsubsquid.wordpress.com. Gundersen also provides instructions on how to look up the cases at a local law library.
Regarding the Democratic Committee's public forum, DiMezza cries bias, but doing so shows her character is not fit for judicial leadership. Even if hosts or moderators at a forum were biased, a judge must be able to sift through bias to find the truth and make a statement. After all, judges sit in judgment of litigants who are inherently biased and seeking to further their own cause. Clearly, the Gloversville Republican Committee will not host a public forum, as evidenced by their endorsing DiMezza despite the possibility of an ethics complaint complicating or preventing her from taking a judicial position.
Wrongdoers should not profit by their wrongdoing. DiMezza's campaign, and successes thus far, are tarnished by misrepresentations that enhance her credentials and diminish her misconduct. How can DiMezza sit in judgment of others if she gains the judgeship through misrepresentation?
"Justice" requires public "accountability" where "integrity" is lacking.