by guest author, a forensic psychiatrist
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
Post Office Box 037
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0037
RE: ACJC 2023-134, Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca
Bergen County Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part
Dear Committee Member:
I recently received a letter, dated October 23, 2023, which states that the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct has concluded its investigation on Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca and found no wrongdoing. The timing of this letter is disconcerting, as it comes after eleven months of silence and less than two weeks after I reported information related to a murder case that appears to be directly connected to Judge Gallina-Mecca. Furthermore, I have inquired into several litigants’ cases, after their reaching out to me about the Judge’s seeming deliberate endangerment of them and their children. Almost all of them were not only credible but consistent, and a distinct pattern of dangerousness has emerged. That the Committee has not come across this dangerous practice is mind-boggling and makes me wonder what kind of investigation it has done.
I am a forensic psychiatrist who specializes in dangerous personality disorders and unfitness to serve. I have expressed to the Committee my extreme concerns that Judge Gallina-Mecca is likely dangerously unfit. I am only one of many who believe so: not only have several other forensic psychiatrists expressed the same concerns, but her colleagues, meaning fellow judges, have astonishingly admitted in public settings that she is “crazy” (their word).
The definition of unfitness is someone who is influenced by her mental state—for example, by a fixed delusion—to the point of being unable to take in facts or new information, cannot manipulate existing information, and cannot consider consequences—such as the death of litigants under her authority—before making her decisions. This has been abundantly clear in the dozen or so situations under her that I have been briefed on, but a case I have studied in great detail over two years goes beyond Daubert standards for trial evidence to be potentially definitive proof.
I have witnessed a practice of coercion of parents to give up their legal rights through threats, intimidation, seizure of property, and illegal incarceration. I have witnessed children being knowingly placed under physical and emotional harm and their well-being compromised, to the point where they will be damaged for life, if they survive. I have witnessed psychological bullying and abuse in the courtroom, by appointing several court officials and non-officials, whose roles seem singularly to gang up on the non-monied parent and to psychologically “break” her, so that they can declare her “mentally ill” and justify their unlawful actions. Finally, I have witnessed criminal accusations being made without a shred of evidence, but rather with evidence to the contrary, apparently for the simple purpose of tormenting others for her warped pleasure of having power over them.
I would like to have an opportunity to present the stated proof before the Committee, as there is nothing more unequivocal than death, or the depraved and deliberate imposition of risk of death for the satisfaction of cruel impulses. There should be no more sacrosanct human right than the right to live, and no greater ethical violation than the deliberate harm of innocent children, especially those who are just beginning their lives—as well as the loving parents who try to protect them. Even the sacrifice of one child should be unacceptable, let alone dozens, and no ethics committee should accept this standard, under any excuse. I therefore demand that this case be reopened.
I would also like this Committee, especially if it is unwilling or unable to consider censure of its colleague at this level (I am aware that all but three of the Committee are members of the Bar, in addition to its subordination to the New Jersey Supreme Court), to grant authorization to the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Attorney General’s Office, and the District Attorney’s Office to investigate her independently. All these entities have so far referred me only to this Committee, stating that they will not investigate a judge—and in my view they cannot, when the judge herself is fixing her “evidence” under near-absolute immunity.
As a physician who has been trained to protect life, and for what I have seen and the lives that have been endangered, I will not be able to remain silent, even if this Committee does.
I shall await your response. Thank you for your time and attention.
Respectfully yours,
[Name Redacted]
