Cynthia Lobo appeared last night at the New Rochelle NAACP Candidate Forum to answer questions from the NAACP Political Action Committee and members of the community during an open Q&A session. Susan Kettner cancelled her appearance due to a scheduling conflict. She arrived towards the end of the evening and spoke briefly after the Parente v. Rice session.
Lobo introduced herself, describing her Wisconsin upbringing in a “multi-cultural household” as the daughter of parents who immigrated to the United States from Mexico. She cited her 30 years of legal experience as a criminal and civil attorney in Wisconsin, Washington DC and New York, her work as an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law School and her work in the community with the Lions Club and as President of the Chamber of Commerce. In Part 1 of 2, Lobo was asked questions about recusal, her qualifications to be a judge, the Citizen Complaint Review Board, the repeal of the Rockefeller drug laws. In Part 1 of 2, Lobo was asked questions about Drug Court, running on the Republican Party line in a predominantly Democratic Party City, racial unfairness in sentencing and fines, and ways to speed up hearing process for minor offenses.
NAACP New Rochelle Candidates Forum – City Judge – Cynthia Lobo (1 of 2)
NAACP New Rochelle Candidates Forum – City Judge – Cynthia Lobo (1 of 2)
NAACP New Rochelle Candidates Forum – City Judge – Susan Kettner
Vote for Cynthia Lobo!
Having just taken the time to watch all 3 videos, what exactly is Susan Kettner experience and credentials for this position, other than she took over her father’s law firm? She was also quick to point out that she’s running on the Democratic and the Working Family lines and she took absolutely NO questions from the audience. She didn’t even bother to attend the entire debate as she had a more pressing “fundraiser” to attend. What could be more pressing than debating your opponent?
Cynthia Lobo has extensive courtroom experience and doesn’t seem to want to politicize the postiion. I liked her response to the parking ticket quesiton. I also thought she seemed genuinely interested in the job.
As for Ms. Lobo’s jump onto the Republican ballot line, maybe the Democrats shouldn’t have been so exclusive and ruled out a primary that would’ve let the people decide. No instead the machine made the decision in some back room and hand picked Susan Kettner. I sure Noam was supportive, otherwise it wouldn’t have happened.
Now we have Susan Kettner yo-yo’s on this board trying to discredit Cynthia Lobo by slinging the mud when in reality their own candidates ship is sinking and sinking fast. We need good government (including Judges) and not candidates hand picked by the New Rochelle Democratic machine so unless Ms. Kettner has something else to say or add about her credentials I could only support and vote for Cynthia Lobo. A hard working woman who’s built her career through hard work.
too bad
I am long time friend of Judge Sandy Scher and he would be the first one to say neither candidate should carry on his “legacy” as each sitting jurist must bring their own independent legal mind to the bench.
This is not some random political office, this is the judiciary, and with it comes special rules. It seems Mr. Cox is setting up Cynthia Lobo for possible judicial campaign ethics violations by posting this. Judicial candidates are only allowed to give a short introductory speech. You are making this too easy for the Dem’s by airing this…Too bad
Ethics Violations
5.4.2 “Pledge and Promise” Restrictions Remain in Effect
The United States Supreme Court, however, specifically refrained from addressing or
striking down other language in the Minnesota Rules that prohibited a candidate for judicial office
from making pledges or promises of conduct in office (Republican Party of Minnesota v. White,
536 US 765 [2002]).
In Matter of Watson, the Court of Appeals reviewed a Commission on Judicial Conduct
determination that an elected judge should be disciplined for improper statements made while he
was a non-judge candidate for elective judicial office (100 NY2d 290 [2003]). The Commission
had held that these statements gave the appearance that the newly elected judge would not be
impartial, would not decide cases on an individual basis, and would be biased against defendants in
criminal cases. The statements at issue included: “put a real prosecutor on the bench”;
representations that the candidate (then employed as an assistant district attorney) had “proven
experience in the war on crime” and could, if elected, use bail and sentencing to make the
municipality “very unattractive” for certain criminal defendants; promises to “work with” and
“assist” law enforcement personnel if elected to judicial office; and statements that his opponents
were to blame for an increase in crime (Matter of Watson, 100 NY2d at 296-97, 299).
The Court of Appeals agreed that the campaign statements made by Judge Watson were
improper (id. at 299) and upheld New York’s limitation on campaign “pledges and promises”
against a constitutional challenge. The Court held that New York’s Rules do not include a
provision analogous to Minnesota’s “announce clause” (id. at 300) and expressly determined that
-22-
New York’s limitation on campaign “pledges and promises” does not suffer from the same
constitutional infirmity that invalidated the “announce clause” (id. at 303).
The Court also noted that in order for a statement to be deemed an improper pledge or
promise, a candidate need not preface a statement with the phrase “I promise” (id. at 298).
Rather, statements are deemed improper if they favorably or unfavorably single out a particular
party or class of litigants or convey the impression that the candidate will behave in a manner
inconsistent with the faithful and impartial performance of judicial duties (id. at 298-99).
In light of the above-described cases, candidates for judicial office in New York must take
great care not to run afoul of existing restrictions on campaign language. Until there has been a
dispositive word from a court of final jurisdiction, the only prudent course for a judicial candidate
to follow is to adhere to the standards called for within New York’s existing Rules as interpreted
and applied by the ACJE and to seek guidance wherever needed by contacting the JCEC.
Ethics
See below for Lobo’s violations;
http://www.nycourts.gov/reports/judicialcampaignethicshndbk.pdf
JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN ETHICS HANDBOOK
All judicial candidates must refrain from making improper pledges or promises (Matter of
Watson, 100 NY2d 290 [2003]; 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]; 100.5[A][4][d][i]), and any promises of
-20-
conduct in office must be consistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of
the office (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][9][a]; 100.5[A][4][d][i]-[ii]). A candidate must consider the
import of his/her statements in the context of the campaign as a whole to determine whether
he/she has articulated a pledge or promise that compromises the faithful and impartial
performance of judicial duties (Matter of Watson, 100 NY2d 290 [candidate sanctioned for
explicit and repeated statements that he intended to “work with” and “assist” police and other law
enforcement personnel if elected to judicial office]; Opinion 04-95 [candidate may not make
campaign statements indicating a refusal to participate in the lawful and accepted practice of plea
bargaining in criminal cases]). A judge may not promise to set up and fund a “legal scholarship” if
elected (Opinion 03-28). Further, if a judicial candidate has made an improper promise during
his/her campaign, he/she must disqualify himself/herself in any case that might later come before
him/her as judge regarding that subject matter (22 NYCRR 100.3[E][1][f]; see also infra Section
8.3).
I do not see a legal argument here
You have quoted the Ethics Guide for Judicial Candidates but I do not see where you are making a particular case that simply appearing before a non-partisan forum like the NAACP Candidate’s Forum and answering questions is, de facto, an ethics violation. In fact, that seems silly. Are you proposing that judicial candidates should not appear before voters during the campaign?
Unless you have some specific statement that she made which you want to argue is an ethics violation, I fail to see the point other than for a Kettner supporter to use the anonymity of the Internet to make attacks against her opponent in a judicial race. If Ms. Kettner is aware of and endorsing your activities here then that would be an ethics violation.
In either case, there is an ethics committee so if you really believe there is a case to be made then why comment here? It would seem that if you really had a case to make you would be making to them not here.
Mumbo-Jumbo
Not only is there no argument here this is typical mumbo-jumbo which is meaningless unless you site the exact phrase, sentence, pledge or promise which violates. This is typical political fodder to insinuate without fact. It’s time to put up or shut up.
Ms. Kettner
On Friday Oct 15th, a huge Hispanic Heritage Month celebration occurred at Columbus Elementary School organized by the Dr. Joseph, Kelly Johnson, Richard St. Paul and Louis Trangucci. Thank you all for the terrific effort that was enjoyed by over 300 adults and children. It was a fun night full of poetry and music. Thank you Cynthia Lobo for being there during the entire performance and for being a mentor to our Columbus parents and children. Of note is that Ms. Kettner stood outside briefly and ventured into the lobby briefly at the end of the event. She should have made an appearance into the auditorium, greeted parents and could have been recognized, but seemed uncomfortable and left. Not a good way to manage a campaign.
Kettner was HORRIBLE!
For someone who aspires to be the next New Rochelle City Court Judge, Susan Kettner made a horrible showing before the NAACP. The video reveals a candidate who is edgy, insecure and unsure of them self. For someone who touts being the chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals since 2005 Kettner didn’t perform well in this forum so how can we expect her to perform to the high standards the court has become accustomed to under Judge Sandy Scher? Hell, she broke the microphone stand!
Cynthia Lobo was confident, personable, experienced and knowledgeable. There is no doubt that Cynthia Lobo is the superior candidate and the best candidate to continue Judge Preston Scher’s legacy.
I agree 100% . This is a MUST view video.
I agree 100%. This is a MUST view video. If we do not vote for the most qualified candidate then we deserve the government we get.
Ketter could not get out of that room fast enough and invited anyone who had questions to have coffee with her at a later date. REALLY!
Kettner showed she did not care about the forum or our votes and we should all shudder at the thought of a judge Kettner.
Cynthia Lobo made a case for her candidacy and has my vote.
Vote for compentence and boot out the rubber stamps backed by a failed administration.