She repeatedly violated the conditions of her private reprimand. Impeach her.
The tale keeps growing stranger. @Jimmy_Esq flags the issue that Judge Ross’s handwriting resembles that of a toddler, and the problem runs deeper than it seems.
Here is her signature on the May 29 letter:
That handwriting resembles that of a fourth-grader.
And here is her signature on the June 11 letter:
That’s an adult–level signature.
And here is Ross’s digital signature from the Raffensperger case (an order she certainly didn’t read):
The signatures on May 29 and June 11 are markedly dissimilar. The May 29 signature even lists “Judge” as her given name. Who does that? In the June 11 note, the initial “E.” appears.
The June 11 signatures are noticeably more angular and correspond to the form seen in her standard digital signature. I’ll admit I have some aptitude for authenticating signature provenance—even in the realm of figures like Alexander Hamilton—but this one wasn’t difficult to spot.
I suspect Judge Ross didn’t personally sign her initial, flagrantly unremorseful letter. She couldn’t bring herself to affix her name. It appears she had a subordinate sign on her behalf, and that person actually signed it “Judge Ross.”
Judge Ross should be ashamed of herself. She materially breached the terms of her private reprimand many times over. Impeach her.
