Judicial Conduct Complaint against Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca
Will It Ever be Heard?
The following Complaint was submitted to the New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct. Yet, for months, there has not even been acknowledgment of receipt, let alone an investigation. Meanwhile, a third criminally-indicted co-conspirator of the judge has had her charges inexplicably removed. Prosecutors have remarked on the case: “I have never heard of such a thing before.” Yet, Gallina-Mecca has a track record of removing charges against murderers she supported, such that brutal killings end up without an investigation or even a suspect! Doing this for a decade, she literally has a trail of dead bodies behind her, but will the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct ever investigate? The most unspeakable crimes occur through the Family Courts, but they bring in more revenue than all the other courts combined — and it appears that no judicial board is willing even to open an investigation on a human trafficking enterprise that sends up to 100,000 children to their torture and death every year….
AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICIA J. LEE
This Affidavit Complaint is declared as a duly sworn statement against Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca for her violations of the relevant sections of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the New Jersey Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. It is supported by substantial evidence of bias, procedural irregularities, and statutory violations that question her impartiality and the integrity of the judicial process. Complainant Patricia J. Lee (hereinafter “Complainant”) states as follows:
I. Ex-Parte Communication and Judicial Misconduct
On November 12, 2021, Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca held an ex-parte conference with Plaintiff Alan T. Chan … (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and Guardian ad Litem (hereinafter “GAL”) Evelyn Nissirios to strip Complainant of her custody of her children without time limit. First, the Judge acted with “cold indifference” when she denied Complainant her first-time request for an adjournment, despite her suffering from a life-threatening medical emergency and despite her submitting a doctor’s note — which was later corroborated with medical records from the emergency room, where her symptomology was so severe, she was tested for a heart attack. Second, the Judge convened an ex-parte conference on “emergent application” by GAL Nissirios, without notice to Complainant or Complainant’s attorney, in which she issued an order transferring custody from Complainant to Plaintiff without warning, cause, statement of reason, or due process (Complainant’s custody was never in question, whereas Plaintiff was only recently regaining custody following a temporary restraining order for slamming his son’s head against a window). Third, a transfer of custody was ordered without any finding or even suggestion of a problem with Complainant’s parenting, which hitherto had an impeccable track record, where the children thrived physically, emotionally, and academically under her full-time care. Even after at least two (2) psychiatric experts reported that Complainant has “exceptional talent in parenting,” following extensive collateral interviews of other adults and parents who observed her and knew the children — interviews that GAL Nissirios notably did not perform — Complainant’s children were not returned to her….
A. Legal Standard and Analysis
[Violation of Judicial Canons, U.S. and State Constitutions, Case Law, and Rules of Evidence, as well as Documented Bias, demonstrated in over two thousand (2000) pages of evidence.]
II. Allegations of Judicial Partiality, Ethical Breaches, and Due Process Violations
The involvement of Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca in proceedings concerning Alan T. Chan and Patricia Lee raises significant concerns of judicial partiality, ethical violations, and due process breaches. Top-quality evidence, including six (6) highly-qualified medical experts warning of Plaintiff Chan’s dangerousness to his children and his spouse, and two (2) additional highly-qualified child psychiatrists alarmed about the “invariably highly detrimental” separation of young children from their primary caregiving mother, suggests potential judicial impropriety, undermining public confidence in the judiciary. These issues are further compounded by Judge Gallina-Mecca’s approval of an unlicensed, unsupervised, and unqualified “associate counselor,” who contradicted ten (10) highly-qualified doctorate psychologists and psychiatrists, because the “associate counselor” concluded in her unqualified “assessment” that some of Complainant’s answers were “tangential” — which GAL Nissirios then erroneously interpreted to mean that Complainant was “mentally incompetent.” No amount of clarification by highly-qualified psychiatrists that “tangential” speech is a normal sign of trauma, and that Plaintiff’s violent abuse must be looked into, could change her mind.
Furthermore, the Judge insisted that Complainant needed another psychiatric evaluation, against ten (10) highly-qualified psychiatric experts who reported that she has “excellent mental health” and explicitly stated that she did not need another psychiatric evaluation — and against the recommendations of her own appointed guardian ad litem for Complainant, Linda Schofel, who completed a thorough investigation and concluded that Complainant was mentally competent and in need of no further evaluation. Further demonstrating her bias, the Judge promptly fired GAL Schofel for faithfully performing her job. [GAL Nissirios was kept on, but when] confronted with her six hundred (600) documented lies and acts of perjury, she resigned, since her testimony is the sole reason two (2) children were transferred to the father who almost killed each of them. The Court’s blatant bias for Alan T. Chan’s interests and hidden financial agendas, while systematically disadvantaging Patricia Lee, needs to be scrutinized for its breaches of ethics and violations of due process.
A. Legal Standard and Analysis
[Violation of Judicial Canons, U.S. and State Constitutions, and Case Law, as well as Procedural Misconduct and Disregard for Evidence of Perjury and False Testimony, evidenced in six hundred (600) documented lies and acts of perjury.]
III. Violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides remedies for individuals whose constitutional or federal rights have been violated by persons acting under color of state law, including judges, when their actions exceed judicial immunity. Judicial immunity does not apply when a judge’s conduct is outside the bounds of established law or is motivated by bias. Judge Gallina-Mecca’s documented conduct demonstrates a pattern of bias, actions outside the bounds of established law, and disregard for Complainant’s constitutional rights to fair process and impartial judgment, creating liability under § 1983. There is also a federal lawsuit in effect under this Code since August 2023. Under 28 U.S. Code § 455, judges are required to recuse themselves from any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including being sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but so far Judge Gallina- Mecca has refused to recuse herself.
A. Legal Standard and Analysis
[Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Established Law, Criminal Codes, and Judicial Canons, revealed in over two thousand (2000) pages of medical records, expert reports, police discovery evidence, and photographic documentation.]
IV. Weaponization of Judicial Process to Endanger Lives
Judges in New Jersey are beholden to human rights laws and ethical standards that require them to uphold the rights and dignity of individuals involved in legal proceedings. This includes the U.S. Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution, and international human rights treaties. Additionally, the New Jersey Code of Judicial Conduct holds judges to ethical standards that support the fair treatment of all parties and the promotion of justice. Yet, alarmingly, Complainant’s and her children’s human rights have been flagrantly violated in Judge Gallina-Mecca’s courtroom to the point of endangering their lives. Complainant brushed with death eight (8) medically-documented times during the course of this litigation. She suffered four (4) life-threatening hypertensive crises in just the past six (6) months from the stress from this litigation, with her second (2nd) hospital admission during the holidays requiring five (5) days in the intensive care unit. Prior to the Court’s interventions, which specifically enabled and augmented Plaintiff’s violent attacks against his family — including the violent abduction of his children and the total withholding of them for the last four (4) years from their mother, who was their primary caregiver since birth — Complainant was in a perfect state of health. All physicians and medical expert witnesses of her condition — now with permanent brain and heart changes from her stress-induced high blood pressures — offer no cure for her other than “justice”….
A. Legal Standard and Analysis
[Violations of International Laws, U.S. and State Constitutions, 7 Canons and 22 Rules of Judicial Conduct, and 4 Protected Characteristics of Anti-Discrimination Laws, shown in over two thousand (2000) pages of doctors’ reports, hospital records, and police discovery evidence, in addition to audio recordings.]
V. Summary of Judicial Bias and Misconduct
Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca’s conduct in this case demonstrates repeated violations of the canons of judicial ethics, undermining the principles of impartiality, fairness, and public confidence in the judiciary. Canon 1 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca colluded with a duly-diagnosed psychopath and violent perpetrator to “legalize” his kidnapping of his children through deceit, lies, and perjury. Canon 2 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca personally attacked and character- assassinated Complainant in order to traumatize her and discredit her as a witness. Canon 3 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca displayed blatant bias for Plaintiff, engaging in ex-parte communication and ruling exclusively in his favor over four-and-a-half (4.5) years, and never in Complainant’s favor. Canon 4 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca abused her judicial position to engage in tampering of evidence, fabrication of false “evidence”, and witness intimidation and retaliation outside her courtroom, which undermines the viability of a justice system. Canon 5 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca interfered with every other agency, court, or the press, in an attempt to shape the outcome of this case, which left no institution independent of her. Canon 6 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca allied 100 percent with the monied party, so that he could gain everything from the divorce and be so grateful for his illegitimate gains, that he would be likely to contribute handsomely to the Judge’s campaign. Canon 7 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca ordered that public criticisms of her be “immediately removed, deleted, and unpublished immediately,” which is also a violation of the First Amendment protections of a free press.
CONCLUSION
Based on Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca’s conduct in this case — including procedural improprieties, repeated denial of due process, reliance on unverified testimony, violation of statutory protections, arbitrary legal standards, assistance of criminal acts, and bias against Complainant and expert witnesses who would give truthful testimony — sanctions against her are mandatory. Further, Judge Gallina-Mecca’s removal from the bench needs to be considered for her repeated and demonstrable stretching of the facts and torturing of law and procedure to achieve her predetermined, personally-committed ends. As Chief Judge of the Bergen County’s Family Court system, she needed to set an example that is critical to any impartial and just judicial system that preserves its integrity and independence — but egregiously failed.
WHEREFORE, Complainant Patricia J. Lee requests that a formal and immediate investigation be pursued without interference from the Judge and without fear or favor, for her failure to enforce procedural evidentiary standards; her serving as her own witness in a case she was presiding over; her scheduling of unwarranted ex-parte hearings; the appearance and demonstration of incontrovertible bias; due process violations; and lack of fairness … to cause immense suffering, medically-documented torture of children, and multiple near-death episodes for Complainant, the mother of these children.
Additionally, systemic reforms in New Jersey’s Family Court may be recommended: the judiciary should implement training, oversight, and accountability measures to address systemic bias for abusive (often sadistic, violent, and cruel) parents over protective (often loving, nurturing, and devoted) parents in family court proceedings, which can lead to catastrophic harms to children and families. Family court practices that blatantly violate local, federal, and international law to privilege “pseudo-science” over sound medical expertise have been denounced by multiple medical associations as well as the United Nations Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court…. No system should reward or allow to prevail conduct of the kind that Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca has repeatedly and overwhelmingly demonstrated over multiple years in this case, and across dozens of other, near-identical cases in Bergen County Family Court.
[An Appendix of thirty-three (33) pages contains direct quotes and statements, in Gallina-Mecca’s own words, that decisively incriminate her and unequivocally prove the above without any room for doubt.]
