Endorsement: Iacocca for District Justice

We have rarely, if ever, offered endorsements in local District Justice races. We remain uncomfortable with the idea of electing the judiciary — a needless introduction of partisan politics into our justice system.

However, the race that has unfolded in District 15-3-04 — which encompasses the Unionville and Kennett areas — has been deeply disturbing in its level of nastiness since the primary season started.

The race has Republican Jane Donze facing Democrat Al Iacocca — two Willowdale attorneys with offices in close proximity.

Donze has stressed her lengthy legal experience — some 30 years in practice — and her involvement in the community as her talking points.

Iacocca has more strongly played up his involvement in the local community and with kids — and his recent experience in local district courts and the Chester County Court of Common Pleas.

Were those the lone talking points or points of conversation, we would not be making any endorsement in this race. We will stipulate the following: both have the requisite experience and community involvement to make excellent District Justices.

We do not totally buy the argument that 30 years of legal experience, which Donze has, versus nine for Iacocca, who has additional broadening experience as a teacher (no small issue when so many District Justice cases involve juveniles) is such a big issue. We would make the argument that there are a number of District Justices serving around the county right now with distinction who are not even attorneys.

The experience argument is also let down by the performance of State Rep. Eric Roe (R-158), who despite not reaching his 30th birthday, has shown surprising leadership in his first term in office and the courage to lead anti-Gerrymandering efforts in the state legislature — this despite having never held elective office before.

So if experience is not to be the deciding factor, then one must look at character and judgment.

It is here where we see a clear difference.

While Iacocca mostly stayed in his lane and largely spoke about what he’d like to do if elected — although yes, some of his more vocal supporters have been openly critical of Donze — Donze’s campaign has been more focused on attacking opponents.

We saw it directly when, through a GOP political operative, damaging, personal opposition research was distributed to this and other media outlets this spring on Donze’s Republican primary opponents. The campaign’s fingerprints were almost literally all over the documents — Donze’s husband, George, appears within them as the party doing the initial legal searches.

Ironically, the information, was nearly exactly the type of information that Republican elected officials and party officials have, in the past, asked us to remove from our comments section to “protect their families.” We honored those requests then and did not report on the allegations, as we felt they would do too much damage to candidates’ families and had not been formally issued by the campaign. Additionally, they appeared to be cherry picked and not an entirely true reflection of the facts at hand.

In other words, it appeared to us, that the Donze campaign was hoping we in the media would do their dirty work for them. We are thankful to say we — and none of our colleagues locally — indulged this out of bounds conduct.

To us, this suggests both poor judgment and a lack of character. While we would be deeply troubled by this sort of conduct by a state legislative candidate, it is much worse in a contest for an office that is entirely defined by a person’s judgment and character.

In a time when we are increasingly seeing how important character is for an elected official — not just their ideology — we see all of this as disturbing and ultimately disqualifying for Donze.

Conversely, we see no such issues or questions with Iacocca, who has been a visible, involved member of the local community for more than a decade. We are confident he will exercise fair, impartial judgment on the bench.

The Times endorses Al Iacocca for District Justice in 15-3-04.

   Send article as PDF   

Share this post:

Related Posts

16 Comments

  1. Here's the thing says:

    What I see is a blatant attempt by Mr. McGann to silence those who disagree with him. Also, he seems to be an editor condescending attorneys and behaving as if he knows it all.
    For the most part, libel is not actionable for truthful statements. Actual malice is unlikely to be shown in cases of attempts to warn the public about certain facts before votes are cast.
    In one breath, this editor claims that the poster will be sued and in another refers to his legal defense expenses – which is it? Your typical editor would be expected to loathe defamation as it hinders the essence of the business. This editor seems to be using it as a bully tactic.
    Also, the suggestion that Mike is Mr. Iacocca would nullify Mr. McGann’s endorsement that his campaign is clean.
    One thing I know for sure is that libel cases are a great way to get unflattering truths out there for all to see.

  2. Mike McGann says:

    OK, folks, time to cool it.

    Let me remind you that much of the personal attacks is a violation of our Terms of Service.

    Second, let me note what those of you who are attorneys should know, but don’t seem to: libel remains actionable, not to us, but to the poster. Here’s how it works: alleged victim of libel files suit. We are subpoenaed for the relevant IP address. Your ISP — which tracks every interaction — then is subpoenaed for your identity and usage logs, and then you end up facing a libel suit.

    On a personal note, the comments on here are both deeply disappointing and seem to (awkwardly, unintentionally and angrily) support the points made in the endorsement.

    • Stephanie Sanders says:

      Mr. McGann,

      I have made none of the such comments you allude to, and I still go back to my original comment which is a challenge to you to release the information you claim to have, and claim to have based this endorsement upon. Let the public decide, or do you not truly believe in a fully informed public; do you wish only one “informed” in your view? You have yet to answer this most basic challenge.

      Until that time, your accusations in your editorial bear no more weight than the numerous he said-she said back and forth with absolutely no proof that has hi-jacked this comment section.

      • Mike McGann says:

        A: The material as presented is potentially libelous. Do you plan to pay for my legal defense?

        B: The material potentially could do great personal harm to family members of some of the candidates involved. Do you wish to inflict that damage just to satisfy your ego?

        C: Commenters on this site have confirmed the existence of the materials — noting from obvious inside the campaign information that they were part of a legal search. I’ll note the utter lack of denials by the Donze campaign of either the nature of the materials or their source.

  3. Mary Iacocca, MD says:

    Dear “Concerned” Citizen,
    Your insinuation that I shared a patient comment with my husband and committed a HIPAA violation is laughable. Clearly you don’t know anything about my medical practice. I am a pathologist. I have two types of patient contact: 1) tissue biopsies and 2) autopsies. Tissue samples don’t talk. So clearly you believe in ghosts. Good for you. Happy Halloween. It’s easy enough to make uninformed accusatory comments when you hide behind anonymity, but get your facts straight before accusing someone of a HIPAA violation. To be clear, “Mike” is not my husband. To set the record straight, I have no patient comments to share. Keep it truthful.
    Mary Iacocca, MD
    Pathologist

  4. Concerned CItizens says:

    Nice try “Mike” but obviously desperate to label us as community villains. Hoping you were right and could shut it down, I’m guessing? There is a wealth of information about you out there, which you would know if your arrogance wasn’t getting in the way of your judgment.
    But, you’re just spouting off aren’t you Iacocca?
    Now, who is the candidate attempting to denigrate his opponent?
    You owe Jane Donze a huge apology for your deception.
    Not all of us are as naïve as the PTO suit woman. We’ve listened to your shtick for long enough. If you’d like to provoke more comments, we’re game.

  5. Mike says:

    Concerned Citizens,

    Your comment that Mr. Iacocca is a bully is not true. I’ve watched the video, and it appears that you have an ax to grind. Wait, I am willing to bet you are Kathy Tobida, the woman who sued the Hillendale PTO. Mr. Iacocca defended them for no charge if I recall correctly. You even sued the PTO president, when she is protected by the VPA against such suits. Amazing!!!

  6. Mike says:

    Dear Steph,
    As someone who has been involved in local politics and the legal community for over 27 years, I am very familiar with the political process in Chesco. In my full-time position, I spend much of my time in the court system. Everyone knows that Ms. Donze has always been a part-time attorney, which is why the idea of her practicing for 25 years as of May, and then 30 years as of November is simply disingenuous. It’s amazing in an odd way that some would applaud Ms. Donze for trying to buy the seat from the republican party in February 2016. The Donze’s have made a great deal of money from those who reside in the Unionville Area, and you must wonder how they intend to handle the conflict of interest issue that will exist if she were elected. Since Mr. Donze has always been the main bread winner, he surely will not close his practice just because his wife now earns a whopping $85K a year. Every case that comes out of the Donze practice will need to be reassigned because of the obvious conflict of interest.

    If someone were motivated, they could pull from the county the number of cases Ms. Donze has handled over the last 10 years. She advertises herself to be a county arbitrator, but the truth is she only recently signed on to become one.

    HIPAA information is not public record. If the nefarious actions of an attorney led to the release of confidential medical information, then the attorney would be placing their law license in jeopardy. I would hope that an attorney would not do something as dumb as that.

    Once again, I applaud Mike McGann for alerting our community to the dangers of a Judge Donze. Someone who changes their story depending on if they are visiting a republican or democratic household. In a democratic home she speaks of impeaching Trump, and in republican homes she supports the president. We really don’t need that kind of political rubbish in our local courts.

    Mike

  7. Democrat in Pocopson says:

    The comments are all so interesting-I applaud those who have provided facts to demonstrate their point. I’d like to offer a few clarifications.

    Mike McGann has always been vocally political-he posts very pointed political commentary on a weekly basis in his own newspaper. So the commenter who said he/she has never heard of Mike being political must not have ever read his paper. Mike strives to enflame people’s emotions-which he has done again here-by presenting biased innuendo. That is certainly why the Dem-Rep rift is kept alive in our own back yard-by people who don’t present the facts. But as we know, all are allowed to have an opinion. I thought I would present the facts here.

    It is unclear to me if this new HIPAA discussion is related to Al Iacocca or the lost race of a previous candidate in the Primary. I can clearly present the facts of the baggage carried by the losing candidate, but will not. Everyone already knows that truth-even Mike McGann, as it was in the legal paperwork properly obtained through our public county records. Thankfully that candidate lost, for very good reason. So other than retribution for losing due to his own behavior that he is blaming on others, I don’t even know why you/he are still talking about this. I really don’t think you want to go there and make his personal life public although you are trying hard to do so.

    Regarding the money comments about who gives donations and who receives donations or spends money for a campaign. I applaud someone using their own funds to campaign for something they truly believe in. Jane Donze uses funds she has earned while working tirelessly her entire life, not depending on a spouse or others to pay her way. Some people would use their hard earned money to get a new kitchen or new car. Jane Donze is using hers so that she can give back to her Community. A donation to one’s political party, or to the numerous fundraisers and organizations in our community is everyone’s privilege- you have all done it, including her current opponent. “Buying” an election-are you kidding? The whole idea just reeks of basic ignorance. This is not Washington, although many behave like this is big time politics. It is a fact that she has not received any financial assistance from either party and has followed the rules of non-partisanship as required. You will note the Republican party has not included her on any mailers or website information, she is paying for that with money she earned. This whole money talk is yet another misguided allegation, and grasping at straws.

    Finally, the video attached to a previous comment was extremely uncomfortable to watch. I am sorry for Al Iacocca that it is out there on You Tube. My reaction was he was completely unprepared and had no real knowledge of the UCFSD Board position he was seeking to fill. I can only hope that those planning to vote for him are confident he has the qualities, knowledge and experience to rule our bench. I personally don’t think so.

  8. Concerned CItizens says:

    Mike, since you have so much to say, please answer the following about your candidate of choice. Wouldn’t the violation of HIPAA be the responsibility of the doctor? Let’s say he takes medication for a condition that potentially could render him unfit for a judicial position, don’t we have the right to know that? Doesn’t he give up his right to privacy by running for this office? Maybe Donze has a responsibility to let the public know.

    You know it’s so ironic that HIPAA is the argument since once we heard Iacocca announce to a large room full of people something that a “patient said during an appointment with her doctor at Christiana” (his spouse is a doctor there) and now he wants to enjoy HIPAA protection?

    There are a whole bunch of question marks that you either are trying to cover or tragically are unknown to you as you vehemently support someone who is unfit for this position for many more reasons than have been presented here.

    If buying a position is what it takes to protect the entire community from him then where do we contribute?

  9. Mike says:

    Concerned Citizen, Donze tried to buy the seat from the Republican Party with a $1500 donation at the end of February 2016. Exactly one week after she and four others were interviewed for the appointment that she lost. I’ve confirmed this fact from multiple sources. Donze also spent close to $50k in the primary, when the entire MDJ cycle state wide averages $18k. Donze was never a “true prosecutor”. Her resume reflects that she handled support cases for 2 years in Delco. Support is based on the income shares model and has nothing to do with her skills as an attorney. Those of us who have worked in a district attorneys office know that our worst attorneys are assigned to handle support matters, since they are virtually impossible to screw up. Her actions and demeanor reflect an attorney who is simply unhinged. Jane Donze is the wife of an attorney who is bored now that her children have left the nest, and she wants something “fun” to do. Her husband is obviously trying to buy this position for her at any cost, and even bragged about being willing to spend $100k to win (buy) it. Twenty five years handling cases part time does not make her qualified to be a judge. If you were to “judge” her by her demeanor, I doubt you would ever consider voting her into any office. Mr. McGann did this community a great service, and he should be applauded for his actions. Don’t allow Donze to buy a position that is vital to our community, especially when she clearly lacks the integrity and good judgement that is definitely needed in our next judge.

  10. Heather Mattes says:

    Jane Donze has been an attorney for 30 years. She understands the judicial process. In addition to character and judgment, the office of Magisterial District Judge requires the ability to reason and address legal issues, The editorial concludes the author thinks maybe it is possible Ms. Donze’s campaign offered negative information about opponents in the primaries, and that is “disqualifying.”

    I have no particular interest in the outcome here; however, I question the benefit to readers of taking such a stand on so little evidence and without fully understanding what the office requires.

  11. Mike says:

    Mr. McGann,
    I’ve never seen you involve yourself in the poltical process or take sides, and you’ve always been a fair reporter with everyone’s best interest at heart. However, you are spot on the money in this MDJ race. Donze’s $1500 donation that appears to have ended the appointment process, and the allegation of her using ill gotten HIPAA protected medical information against another candidate is dispicable at a minimum. Most of my colleagues have rarely if ever dealt with her in court. My understanding is that her husband runs the firm, and he promised to spend $100k to purchase this seat for her. It’s sad when someone will spend that kind of money for a job that pays $85k. It raises questions that none of us can answer in this forum. Thank you for bringing out the truth so that folks may finally see what’s really happening here.

    • Steph Sanders says:

      Interesting info here. Like: nowhere have I seen anything about HIPAA information reported ANYWHERE. Mr McGann didnt say it. Are you close to one of the losing campaigns? Or are you on Iacocca’s campaign trying to spread rumors? If the former, what could be in this phantom information? If the latter how odd that Mr Iacocca’s campaign would stoop to this level under this article. Either way, Thank you for letting the public know there might be something out there though.

  12. Steph Sanders says:

    Mr. McGann – it seems that you have a clear agenda here. Your article on Mrs. Donze last week was not remotely balanced, and this is plain character assassination. The fact that this appears the day Mr. Iacocca begins advertising on your website is even more humorous.

    The funny thing is: in this entire campaign Mrs. Donze has “attacked” her opponents by comparing – side by side – the relevant FACTUAL experience of her and her opponents. Not sure how that is what you make it out to be.

    So here is a challenge: release the information you claim to have – all of it. Let the public decide if it was pertinent to the Primary Election — especially now that you have used it as a basis for this endorsement.

    If, as the rumors that abound in our small community are true, the information is about the vanquished opponent who is now endorsing Donze’s opponent, one would think the public would wish to question Mr. Iacocca’s judgement in attaching himself so closely to that person today.

    You have decided that you know better than the public. That’s arrogance at an amazing level. Release the documents and let the truth set you – and the voting public – free.

Leave a Comment