Math-challenged lawyers and unfunny judicial opinions.

A lawyer who’s good at math is about as common as a judge who writes intentionally funny judicial opinions. Both are as rare as a pretty frog in a pond.

Of the mathematically challenged lawyer ignoramus et ignorabimus, last fall, Chief Justice John Roberts, redounded with obviousness, “I think there are a lot of people who go to law school because they’re not good at math and can’t think of anything else to do.”

For lawyers at least, it was no surprise when lawyer and senior Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner lamely blurted out,“I’m not good at math,” at last Friday’s damage-control news conference following revelations the IRS had targeted tea party groups. “Not good at math”? Among lawyers, such blinding obviousness is self-proving without an affidavit.

As for the matter of the judicial funny bone, Justice Roberts did not, however, impart his views on the subject.

Suffice it to say, though, that when it comes to judicial funnies, those who find mirth in a judicial opinion are either bone-dry law professors or sycophantic lawyers in the grip of what Max Boot calls “gavelitis” when all judicial “witticisms are suddenly hilarious.”

By deign of their vocation, the former need a footnote to source a sense of humor while the latter are necessarily compelled to react with the sincere insincerity of the employee who laughs uproariously at the boss’s bad jokes. Think I’m kidding? Try and find something to smile about — much less laugh at from Judges Say the Darndest Things: FindLaw’s List of the top ten funny, quirky or downright weird judicial decisions.

Kudos, though, to University of Louisville Law Professor Judith D. Fischer who to her immense credit of “humor in courts’ opinions,” says, “Most of its examples strike me as contrived and un-funny.”

Unlike math, humor isn’t something you learn. You can’t teach someone to be funny. Or to quote Robert Heinlein, “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”

The unfunny court.

With a hat tip to Matt Ence, this gets me to one more instance of a frustrated humorist in black robes. It’s U.S. District Chief Judge Fred Biery of San Antonio and his corny, pun-filled, double-entendre-replete opinion denying a preliminary injunction to a strip club challenging a sexually oriented business law.

The judicial order, 35 Bar and Grille v. City of SA – Order Re Prelim Injunction Part I, begins, “An ordinance dealing with semi-nude dancers has once gain fallen on the Court’s lap.” And after a drum roll and crickets sound, it goes on from there — with references to “alleged naked grab of unconstitutional power” and an adversely impacted “bottom line” and that “the ordinance would strip them of their profits.”

“To bare, or not to bare, that is the question,” he adds. Which should prompt a better question, ‘Instead of a judge turned comedian, why wasn’t Henny Youngman a judge instead of a comedian?’ Which recalls this Youngman chestnut: A drunk was in front of a judge. The judge says “You’ve been brought here for drinking.” The drunk says, “Okay, let’s get started.”

                                                                                                                                                         But back to Judge Biery whose Order concludes, “Should the parties choose to string this case out to trial on the merits, the Court encourages reasonable discovery intercourse as they navigate the peaks and valleys of litigation, perhaps to reach a happy ending. It is so ordered.”

To be fair, Judge Biery’s opinion managed a groan from St. Mary’s University Law Professor Michael Ariens who told the press, “I think Judge Biery’s decision is correct as a legal matter. But his opinion fails if he was attempting to be witty or attempting to write ‘tongue in cheek,’ and his use of double-entendres largely fails as humor and appears almost intended to offend.”

Conversely, the legal website, Above the Law, glowed effusive, “The Chief Judge produced over seven pages of genius double entendre . . . which he entitled “THE CASE OF THE ITSY BITSY TEENY WEENY BIKINI TOP V. THE (MORE) ITSY BITSY TEENY WEENY PASTIE.”
Also see “The Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Bikini Opinion: Texas judge issues world’s cheekiest ruling.” 

And concurrently, another U.S. District Judge in search of a funny bone cracked wise by using Star Trek references to sanction four lawyers in an Order quoting Mr. Spock.

Also see “Should Judges Make Jokes?” :: Minnesota Law & Politics and “Judges Include Puns, Humor in Opinions” – WSJ.com

                                                                                                                                                      Truth be told, what’s funnier are the instances of unintended humor.

                                                                                                                                                       Fear not.

Like Cher, who said she only answers to two people, “myself and God,” judges — especially those with lifetime appointments probably fear only the Almighty.

                                                                                                                                                             As for the context of their purported humor, it makes little difference. Whether off-color judicial opinion or improper email, “The perfect judge fears nothing.”

Take, for instance, the investigation of now retired U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull, forthwith declared “moot” as far as the 9th Circuit is concerned, fulfilling thereby the prognostication: “After the din, not much will happen to racist email repentant Judge Cebull.”

                                                                                                                                                           But contrast the occasionally more accountable elected state court judges like Dakota County, Minnesota judge Richard Spicer — just reprimanded for making “insensitive” jokes in court.

Among Judge Spicer’s supposed witticisms was his wisecrack on being told of the consecutive ages of a juror’s four children, “Well … you weren’t shooting blanks. We know that much.”

                                        

All this self-evidently giving testament that unlike Jerry Seinfeld, judges can indeed — be not funny.

______________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: Laughing Fool, source http://www.wellesley.edu/DavisMuseum/collections/provenance_research.htmat Wikipedia Commons,  United States public domain tag;

Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner as Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk from the television program Star Trek at Wikipedia Commons, public domain;Stańczyk by Jan Matejko at Wikipedia Commons, public domain;Lightning Strike, by Lars Kasper at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution; The Scream, by Edvard Munch at Wikipedia Commons, public domain.

Read Full Post »

There’s no passing up a good body slam to make a point.

Long time readers know there’s no better way to illustrate judicial body slams, choke-holds and slap-downs than with images from professional wrestling.

Maybe it’s a throw-back to my childhood when I found the over-the-top histrionics of yesteryear’s grapplers and brawlers so hilariously fascinating. Who cared if it was all fake? Who would tell a 12-year old?

However, there’s nothing fake about what some members of the berobbed do to the clueless, rude, ill-prepared or the plain unlucky appearing in their courtrooms. Or that it’s not deserved when they can’t get out of their own way.

And I’m not just talking about the lawyers. Litigants may also find themselves facing the judicial wrath.

And it must also be acknowledged that sometimes the head-drops go the other way, as with the recently announced suspension of Putnam County Judge William “Chip” Watkins III.

What hastened Judge Watkins’ travails is ascertainable from the video clip below — viewer discretion advised.

Also see, for instance, Judge Martin McDonald’s “I’ll strangle you.” 

A ‘Hall of Fame.’

All this said, then, it’s no surprise that I took particular delight in acquainting myself earlier this month with the artistic license of a Georgia personal injury lawyer by the name of Jamie Casino. I’ll be darned if Casino doesn’t like those spandex-wearing body-tossing rasslers as much as anyone!

An obviously enterprising fellow, he must surely warm the gasconading cockles of the hearts of other passionate lawyer advertisers — such as the many “Battling Hammers” – not the least being rapping Lowell “The Hammer” Stanley or of other notable quotable personal injury client hawking luminaries.

By comparison, the stereotypical ”I will fight for you” advertisers seem almost staid. So much for cliché over creativity or the good, bad, and ugly of attorney advertising.

Still it has to be said here that for lawyers who see themselves as part of a noble profession — nay, who may be besotted with a self-image redolent of a rarefied priesthood, well those sacerdotal practitioners will always get their cassocks in a bunch over the audacious advertising antics of their earthier colleagues.

That’s too bad. After all, if there’s any justice in such matters, the commercially capering counselors ought to at least have their own ‘Hall of Fame’ if for nothing else, the entertainment value they bring to the public.

____________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: Wrestling Match, May 1938, by Russell Lee (for the Farm Security Administration) at Wikipedia Commons, public domain; “Austin Aries performs a brainbuster on Mark Haskins during the Impact! taping on January 28, 2012 in Wembley, England.” by Ed Webster at Wikipedia Commons, via Flickr Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic; “El Hijo De Santo vs Blue Demon Jr,” by danksy at Wikipedia Commons, via Flickr  Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic.

Read Full Post »

Are Appointed Judges Really More Virtuous?

(Dan Pero’s timely, well-written Op-ed dismantles the specious argument for the supposed magic cure of judicial merit selection. When it comes to judicial selection methods, there’s no such thing as perfection. Reblogged with express permission)

Are Appointed Judges Really More Virtuous?

By Dan Pero

Blogger at American Courthouse and President of the American Justice Partnership, which promotes legal reform at the state level.

The conviction of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin on public corruption charges has unleashed a torrent of hand-wringing about the need to end democratic judicial elections.  Four former PA governors have now come out in support of a bill to adopt “merit” selection, where the governor would appoint a judge from a slate of nominees hand picked by a commission stacked with elite lawyers.

It would be nice to think that ending elections would magically make our public servants more virtuous, but there doesn’t appear to be any real evidence to support this case.

In Florida a few years back, Judge Thomas E. Stringer, Sr. resigned from office after it was discovered he was helping a stripper hide over $315,000 in assets from her creditors. Stringer later pled guilty to bank fraud.

Also in Florida, in 2011 District Court Judge Paul Hawkes – known as the “Taj Mahal judge” – resigned from office amid questions about the construction of a $50 million marble and mahogany-laden new courthouse he helped oversee. According to news reports, Hawkes was accused of destroying public records related to the court’s budget and pushing furniture vendors to pay for a trip for Hawkes and two relatives.

Even federal judges, who undergo intense scrutiny in appointment, including a rigorous review process by the American Bar Association, are not immune to scandal.

Judge Thomas Porteous of the Eastern District of Louisiana was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and convicted by the U.S. Senate following evidence he had taken bribes from local attorneys and businessmen with cases before his court and later lied about his actions to the FBI.

Then there’s Judge Edward Nottingham of the U.S. District Court of Colorado, who reportedly ran up a $3,000 bar tab at a strip club, used his government-issue phone to make “dates” with call girls, and spent hours cruising porn sites on courthouse computers. One self-described prostitute claimed Nottingham coached her to “lie to federal investigators” about their relationship.

Each of these judges was appointed, rather than elected, some under the so-called merit selection system Marks and other anti-election proponents support for Pennsylvania.  Marks says this new system is needed because judges seeking election often receive campaign contributions from lawyers and special interest groups who may appear in the courtroom.

Yet if the problem is too much influence by lawyers, it’s hard to see how merit selection will solve it.

Merit selection proposals in Pennsylvania call for the creation of a 15-member Appellate Nominating Commission, with seven “public” members and four each appointed by the Governor and the General Assembly.  The experience in other states suggests these nominating commissions quickly become dominated by legal special interest groups.

A few years back in Missouri, the birthplace of merit” selection, the former President of the Missouri Association of Trial Lawyers was nominated to fill a vacancy on the state Supreme Court – a nomination made possible by a merit selection commission that included both a former and current board member of the Missouri Association of Trial Lawyers, plus the wife of one of the state’s most prominent trial lawyers. As a Wall Street Journal editorial put it, rather than producing judges based on merit, Missouri’s selection process has “handed disproportionate power to trial lawyers and state bar associations,” resulting in a system that “elevates nominating commission cronies.”

It’s hard to see how a merit selection commission dominated by lawyers meeting in the proverbial smoke-filled room addresses the problem of too much potential special interest influence.

The point here is that every system for selecting judges – democratic elections, appointment systems, merit selection – will produce both good and bad judges.  Public corruption will be around as long as there are public servants.  The key is to keep the judicial selection process open, transparent and accountable.  Merit selection accomplishes none of these goals.

______________________________________________________________

Posted at American Courthouse, the personal blog of Dan Pero, March 18, 2013. Reblogged and reposted with express written permission of Dan Pero, April 15, 2013.

Content was also posted April 8, 2013 at The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly.com, ‘Merit‘ picks have flaws too.’

______________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: Signage on the exterior of a strip club in Los Angeles, California, USA., at Wikipedia Commons via Flickr, author Rick Hall,
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Read Full Post »

Steel traps and states rethinking judicial mandatory retirement ages.

As anti-mandatory judicial retirement trends across 14 states, an Indiana state senator proposes a bill to eliminate his state’s current mandatory retirement age of 75 for state appellate judges. “We’ve got lawyers in their 80′s whose minds are steel traps,” he says in this morning’s Wall Street Journal, “A New Lease for Old Judges.”

But steel traps? In today’s polarized political climate, partisans put more weight on what side of the political aisle a jurist sits — well before they consider whether to keep them around into their dotage. For the fervent liberal or conservative, a judicial “mind like a steel trap” is attractive only when it’s closed to the opposing side.

For a number of reasons, however, not the least being my belief in the axiom that power corrupts, I advocate consistently for term limits to rein in the powerful. Indeed, this is why I wholeheartedly agree with Indiana University law professor Charles Geyh’s assessment that for judges, “Age restrictions really are a proxy for term limits.”

So age restrictions are a good thing. Besides, even with politicians and judges acting more like aging rock stars who never say die, whatever happened to for every time there is a season?

Running on empty.

Beyond arguing that there’s plenty of ‘gas left in the old tank,’ proponents of an ageless judiciary, also offer up the somewhat specious reasoning that because states have judicial disciplinary mechanisms in place to punish or remove judges, there’s no longer any reason to impose mandatory retirement ages on judges.

As WSJ reporter Ashby Jones explains, the mandatory retirement ages for judges were established “long before states had developed formal processes to get rid of judges who had become ill or suffered mental decline.”  

But according to data gleaned by Citizens for Judicial Accountability, a self-described “nonpartisan citizens’ grassroots organization,” out of an estimated 10,000 judicial complaints it claims were analyzed by the American Judicature Society, “Statistically, only one out of a hundred complaints or 1% and probably less results in a determination.”

Rather than relying exclusively on the purported watchdog vigilance of judicial accountability commissions, if state lawmakers want to keep aging judges on the bench past 70 or until they drop –  to safeguard the public’s faith in the courts against the potential of a mentally and physically enfeebled judiciary — lawmakers should follow 7th Circuit Federal Appellate Court Judge Richard Posner’s advice for “the nation’s premier geriatric occupation.”

So that things don’t just wander in and get mangled by a mind that’s become a rusty steel trap — after 70, Judge Posner recommends judges be required to take “a test of mental acuity every five years.”

____________________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “Bear trap,” by Minnesota Historical Society at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution and share alike distribution; “Detail from Corrupt Legislation. Mural by Elihu Vedder. Lobby to Main Reading Room, Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C. Main figure is seated atop a pedestal saying “CORRUPT LEGISLATION” at Wikipedia Commons, Photographed 2007 by Carol Highsmith who explicitly placed the photograph in the public domain; “Out of gas,” by 2nd2Nunn Photography at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution and share alike distribution.

Read Full Post »

Lies, lies and pretending to be something you’re not.

Two cases making their way through New York’s criminal justice system grabbed my attention this month. Though unrelated, both shared one thing in common. They involved persons pretending to be something they’re not.

The first was a lawyer pretending to be someone else and the other someone pretending to be a lawyer.

Soma Sengupta was the lawyer who wanted to be someone else. Though she was late 40-something, Sengupta said she was 29. Fibbing about her age wasn’t half her problem — but lying about her age was what led to her downfall.

The ‘Tower of Deception.’

Bogus claims about work history and purported accomplishments also caught up with Soma Sengupta. It led to her conviction on eight felony forgery and false instrument charges and one misdemeanor conspiracy charge. The Manhattan D.A. called her actions a “tower of deception.”

Ironically, as a NY lawyer and Georgetown Law Grad, it wasn’t like Sengupta didn’t already have decent credentials. All the same, she felt compelled to embellish her curriculum vitae with forged transcripts, reference letters and nonexistent trial experience all so she could win a competitive post with a British firm.

Sadder still was the odd case of the ‘Fake lawyer’ arraigned after allegedly representing clients with no degree.” The reportedly mentally troubled 42-year old Terrence Kindlon is alleged to have falsely represented a client in court three times last year. He’s not a lawyer but pretended to be one in the same courthouse where he himself is a defendant in two open burglary felonies.

So besides facing the two felony charges, he’s now also charged with offering a false instrument for filing as well as the unauthorized practice of law. He also managed to annoy the Manhattan DA’s public integrity unit chief who said, “The defendant has shown the utmost contempt of the courts — pretending to be a lawyer in the same courthouse where he has two open cases.”  

An era of B.S.

As it turns out, lying about credentials is common. Some people can’t resist the temptation to burnish the B.S. to get ahead. For instance, there’s Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson who padded his resume and lost his job. And Laura Callahan who lost her post as a senior director with Homeland Security’s Chief Information Office because of a diploma mill-laden resume. Or who can forget George O’Leary who quickly lost his job as Notre Dame’s football coach because he misrepresented his academic and athletic background?

And then there was Juan Miguel Ramirez Sanchez, the Mexican university president found to have a fake degree and Pedro Delgado, the Ecuador Central Bank President who resigned after admitting his own fake degree and Bausch & Lomb CEO Ron Zarella who after admitting to falsely claiming an NYU MBA, lost a $1.1 million bonus.

Last year, a Maricopa County judge dropped out of her election campaign amid scrutiny over credentials she once claimed to have but later didn’t.

The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct issued an Order December 4, 2012 reprimanding Justice of the Peace Melanie DeForest for violating the Judicial Conduct Code when among other lapses, she “provided incorrect information about her educational qualifications for purposes of her online judicial biography, included incorrect information on her resume that inflated her qualifications.”

Judge DeForest had been appointed to the job when prior JP Phillip Woolbright was relieved of his duties after the Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended a 60 day suspension for ethical misconduct.

Lord only knows why with the JP qualifications bar already set so low, she bothered at all. The only requirements to earn a handsome six-figure annual salary as a Justice of the Peace in Arizona “are that you be a registered voter in Arizona, reside in the justice court precinct and understand the English language.”

But really, what’s the point of lying? Sooner or later, B.S.’ers and impersonators get outed. Some get caught routinely mislabeling seafood. And others get exposed selling horse meat masquerading as beef.

Whether fraudulent food or counterfeit credential, it seems few can resist the pressure to get ahead — to unfairly compete.

Is it because increasingly, “the college degree is becoming the new high school diploma: the new minimum requirement” and it “takes a BA to find a job as a file clerk”?

But with privacy eviscerated by social media and 24/7 media, there’s little place to hide — not to mention the proliferation of background checkers and employment screeners. Indeed, according to one background checking company, as many as 40 percent of resumes contain phony information. And in 2011, a European background screening firm revealed an astounding 48 percent increase worldwide in the number of known fake diploma mills.

The lies we tell ourselves.

It’s been said “There are two kinds of secrets; the ones we keep from others and the ones we hide from ourselves.” Maybe, that’s why some may insist, “I wasn’t lying — I was over credentialed,” — an explanation not far from what the late comedian George Gobel famously quipped, “I’ve never been drunk, but often I’ve been over served.”

______________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “Benvenuti_ISO800,” by nestor galina at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; “Wishful Thinking,” by uppityrib at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; “Bud taking a closer look,” by ♥ HunterJumper ♥, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; “From the Bartender’s Point of View,” by Charles Dana Gibson (American illustrator, 1867-1944) 1904 pen and ink on paper illustration for Collier’s Weekly; published in the artist’s collection Everyday People (1904)and sourced by MCAD Library at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution;

Read Full Post »

Bias, Chris Christie’s weight, Judge Lynn Hughes’ racial sensibilities — and our own.

Governor Christie

To the list of worn-out topics I’m already tired about — add New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s weight.

The governor’s girth is topical only because Christie may run for president. So worrying hands are wrung and fleshy jowls are flapped over the notion he’s too fat for presidential office.

Colorado Law School Professor Paul Campos for one, takes issue with “our fact-hating culture,” and decries those who animated by “political preferences” exploit “our culture’s fear and hatred of fat for political gain.” 

Waxing simpatico with Professor Campos are the weight-sensitive souls among us, nodding in agreement that corpulent Christie critics merely evidence modern society’s bias against the plus-sized.

What’s the big deal anyway? Besides ‘Bubba’ Clinton, who hardly counts since he fluctuated only a tad between barbecue, cinnamon rolls, and McDonald’s, — there’s been at least four obese U.S. Presidents. So why not ‘Husky Boy’ Christie?

White House Big Guys.

President Taft

The White House has seen its share of portly presidents. The biggest Big Guy was our 27th president and later the nation’s 10th U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, William Howard Taft.

At just under 6 feet tall, Taft tipped the scales at 350 lbs. Indeed, tales were told of broken bed springs and of Taft getting stuck in the Presidential bathtub and of having to order a plus-sized replacement.

As compiled at “Fat Presidents: A Survey” | New Republic, others on the list were Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Zachary Taylor and Teddy Roosevelt as “America’s Least Healthy Presidents.”

Judge Lynn Hughes.

But when it comes to bias, why stop at bigotry against the obese? Considering the myth of Postracial America, the more insurmountable problem revolves around race.

Which gets me to the more provocative topic of the day — judicial bias and racial sensibility.

Thinking out loud, one wonders if U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes — a Texas Article III jurist again in the news hasn’t finally stepped on himself one time too many over race. Not that much anything comes of complaining about federal judges.

Manifesting the extent of his sensibilities concerning race, Judge Hughes once opined, “No black individually and no blacks collectively owns [sic] the sensitivity rights to fried chicken or anything else.” He uttered this thought after the plaintiff’s lawyer in that case had said that an alleged reference to fried chicken was “a long-standing racial slur.” Judge Hughes responded, “That’s really surprising to Colonel Sanders.” 

Of the alleged fried chicken reference, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later admonished — albeit without naming him in the appellate opinion, “The district judge’s comment misses the mark, as it overlooks the racial component.” But gentle reproof notwithstanding, the higher court otherwise found sufficient merit to uphold Judge Hughes.

And the bias in all of us.

But perhaps the plainspoken jurist may find a modicum of comfort from news about social cognition research at Harvard University and the study, “Project Implicit.” The research suggest there’s bias in all of us. It’s just a question of how strong and pronounced.

Take their Four-Category Race IAT test if you doubt the research. You might be as surprised as I was. Also see, “Out, damned spot: The ‘mindbugs’ of bias that sneak into our brains.”

But despite the apparent ubiquity of bias, the rest of us don’t sit berobed in judgment on racial matters. Nor do most of us generate as much controversial ink. The legal blog, “Above the Law,” has also reported on Judge Hughes “a few times,” including concerning his latest race, diversity and bias foray at “Judge of the Day: Lynn Hughes Strikes Again.”

It’s no surprise, then, the Texas Civil Rights Project filed a formal judicial complaint against the judge — who a longtime friend nevertheless defends as ‘”crusty” and a “feisty old fellow.“ Crustiness and feistiness aside, the judicial complaint wants his resignation.

And in this latest race controversy, plaintiff’s lawyer Jo Miller — perhaps the bravest lawyer so far this year, shared in her recusal motion the following quotes illuminating Judge Hughes’ views on diversity managers, “Why don’t they just hire people on ability and let diversity take care of itself?

“And what does the diversity director do? Go around and painting students different colors so that they would think they were mixed?” [emphasis included in the motion]

Ah, but that’s where — to quote the 5th Circuit — he again “misses the mark.” The U.S. Supreme Court long ago settled the issue of race as “an immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth.”

Indeed, this is why when folks ask about my tan, I always answer the same way, “That’s no tan — that’s the paint job my mother gave me.”

______________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “Chris Christie,” by DonkeyHotey at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution; “William Howard Taft,” at Wikipedia Commons, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c19192;“Hastings Lomo #97,” by SqueakyMarmot, at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution; “Silent Diversity,” by DryHundredFear, at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution.

Read Full Post »

Hoaxers, deer antler spray, and an inconvenient brain infarction.

By now, like Roberto Durán, I’m throwing in the towel. I’m yelling “No Más.“ I’ve had my fill of Manti Te’o, his make-believe not-dead girlfriend and who hoaxed whom. The media needs to give it a rest, even with the latest stuff about Ronaiah Tuiasosopo being ‘Romantically in love’ with Manti Te’o. O.K., so the whole thing was ‘Blarney’ – and I don’t care.

And I’m equally exhausted with cycling’s Lance Armstrong and his belated coming ‘clean.’ So surprise, no surprise, professional cycling’s got cheaters. And I don’t care even if his “Livestrong” became “Liestrong.”

Coming out ahead.

Instead, I’m welcoming new stories and new alleged hoaxers to get exercised about. Like news this week of ex-Michigan justice Diane Hathaway pleading guilty to bank fraud and facing prison time.

Judge Hathaway was charged with felony fraud in connection with a real-estate scheme, which forced her to resign from the bench and take an early retirement. But only after a judicial investigation was breathing down her neck and just mere days before federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against her.

The complaint against the former Michigan Supreme Court Justice involved concealing assets — like ownership in a debt-free home in Florida while she nonetheless urged her lender, ING Direct, to approve a short sale of her $1.5 million Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan manor because of supposed financial hardship.

So now that she’s admitted guilt, sentencing awaits. But only time will tell if she’ll be on the receiving end of a judicial body slam. For now at least, under a plea deal, Judge Hathaway gets to keep her Florida home and the Feds won’t ask for a sentence longer than 18 months or a fine of more than $30,000.

And since Judge Hathaway had sought to avoid paying the lender on her Michigan home as much as $90,000, the sentencing judge may order restitution. Her lawyer, however, says the bank would have approved the short sale regardless and he intends to ask the judge for no jail time.

Nevertheless, at least Judge Hathaway can anticipate the day when she eventually leaves any bad Michigan memories behind and instead enjoys a relaxing state pension-paid retirement in her Florida home.

Golf or football: deer antler spray’s supposed to be good for what ails your game.

If I’d only known . . . . “Here’s Why Athletes Use Deer Antler Spray.”

Grind up some deer antler, atomize the extract into a spray and disperse a little dab-to-do-you under the tongue. Voila! While powdered antler does nothing good for the deer, it supposedly makes you bigger, stronger, faster.

The people selling the stuff say it contains IGF-1 (the insulin-like growth factor), which is supposed to be along the lines of HGH (human growth hormone).

My golf game being what it is, I can see where a near 50-year old guy who actually makes a living off the game might want an edge — like PGA Professional Golfer Vijay Singh who just admited to using deer-antler spray.

Point is, though, the stuff is banned by the NFL and the PGA Tour. So here’s what Singh had to say about it today before clamming up. “While I have used deer antler spray, at no time was I aware that it may contain a substance that is banned under the PGA Tour Anti-Doping Policy. In fact, when I first received the product, I reviewed the list of ingredients and did not see any prohibited substances. I am absolutely shocked that deer antler spray may contain a banned substance and am angry that I have put myself in this position. I have been in contact with the PGA Tour and am cooperating fully with their review of this matter. I will not be commenting further at this time.”

From the “What was she thinking file?”

And then there was the Ohio woman who went to court to get a protection order against her ex-boyfriend and the judge inexplicably left her alone in the room — with the ex-boyfriend she was seeking protection from! The foreseeable took place. The ex-boyfriend opened up a can of whoop-ass on the hapless woman while the judge was inconveniently out of the courtroom. According to news accounts, the court being underfunded, there’s allegedly not enough security to go around.

But what was Her Honor thinking? Was it a test to confirm whether or not the woman was “. . . [in] or under threat of immediate and present danger [of the] abuser”?

Or was it simply a brain infarction? In any event, it was a “Terrifying moment man attacks ex-girlfriend inside courtroom as she seeks an order of protection against him” as reported by the UK Daily Mail. Albeit a few contusions late, the judge fortunately returned accompanied by a deputy who stunned the ex-beau into submission.

______________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: Manti Te’o adapted from http://i.imgur.com/O58Qe.jpg; Judge Diane Hathaway from http://votesmart.org/candidate/110576/diane-hathaway#.UQnHKPJUo0c; “Jake, aka Santa’s favourite beagle,” by John, ikeaboi81, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; Vijay Singh, by Siyi Chen, nostalgic_fordisaster licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license and at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; can of whoopass, via photobucket, http://i735.photobucket.com/albums/ww355/btothemo86/CanofWhoopAss375.gif.

Read Full Post »

Judge Derek Johnson too simpatico with Congressman Todd Akin.

Congressman Todd Akin

What a guy. I would’ve thought the Jesuits at Santa Clara U. would’ve schooled him better or at least the legal beagles at his alma mater, USD Law School, where the university has that mission and vision thing going about the “dignity” of the whole person.

Judge Derek Guy Johnson who presides in Harbor Court in tony Newport Beach, California has the same regrettable foot-in-mouth predilections as outgoing Missouri Congressman Todd Akin.

Who knew? And I’m not the only one noticing the simpatico similarities, as the Los Angeles Times also picked up that the “Orange County judge’s rape remarks mirror Todd Akin’s.”

As most of us know, Akin torpedoed his electoral chances by provoking ire with his ‘Legitimate Rape’ comment, to wit, that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Aping Akin.

But what did Judge Johnson do that was so Akin-like? Well, he opined on the supposed shut down of the female body during rape — just like Congressman Akin.

And he did so in open court saying, “I’m not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something. If someone doesn’t want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case.

“That tells me that the victim in this case, although she wasn’t necessarily willing, she didn’t put up a fight.”

Judge Johnson’s remarks were part of the statement of facts in the Public Admonishment Order issued by California’s  Commission on Judicial Performance.

It’s too bad things move so slowly in California. Even though the judge’s injudicious statements were made 4 years ago and were reported then by the O.C. Weekly, it wasn’t until this month when the disciples of discipline finally did anything about it. I guess nobody ever noticed or complained until recently? Not that a judge trivializing rape in his courtroom isn’t something someone might otherwise notice.

Maybe, if Judge Johnson had instead emulated Canadian judge Robert Dewar instead of Todd Akin, more notice might have been taken? Justice Dewar was the Canadian judge who spared a convicted rapist from prison because his victim dressed so provocatively that she sent out signals that “sex was in the air.”

A national outcry ensued but no never mind — no disciplinary action resulted against Justice Dewar since it was “an isolated event in the judge’s career.”

High protein ‘Festivus’ is alright by me.

As for Judge Johnson, it’s not like he hasn’t made news before. Two Christmases ago in a more sympathetic and holiday-giving mood, he beneficently signed off on high-protein double portion kosher meals for county jail inmate Malcolm Alarmo King. Why?

According to King’s lawyer, Fred Thiagarajah, it was because the menu at the Theo Lacy jail in Orange wasn’t health-oriented enough for King.

And although King isn’t Jewish, he nevertheless wanted the more expensive to prepare kosher meals.

As reported by the Orange County Register at “Festivus for the Rest of Us- O.C. Jail style,”

“Judge Derek G. Johnson signed off on the high-protein double portion kosher meals for King.

“That didn’t sit well with the Sheriff’s Department – which pays for the food. Kosher meals are more expensive than the regular jail fare–and reserved for those with a religious need.

“The Sheriff’s Department interviewed King in May about his religious leanings. When asked what his religion was he answered “Healthism.”

“He’s healthy so he said health and added an ‘ism,’” said  Thiagarajah, who acknowledged to the county and a judge and to The Watchdog that it was a farce.

“When sentencing day came, King pleaded guilty to the sale or transport of a controlled substance – a felony. Two other felonies were thrown out.

“But King still wanted his non-salami meals.

“Judge Johnson pulled King’s lawyer and the prosecutor aside and said he needed a religion to put down on the order to make it stick, explained Thiagarajah.

“I said Festivus,” said Thiagarajah. The order was granted – three non-salami meals a day.”

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.

Fortunately for Arizona, there’s comfort knowing it hasn’t cornered the market on belittling sexual assault victims. After all, we had our own judge earlier this year blaming a sexual assault victim for her attack.

Coconino County Judge Jacqueline Hatch lectured the victim, “If you hadn’t been there none of this would have happened. When you blame others, you give up your power to change.” She did, however, later apologize to the groping victim.

As for the rest of us . . .

________________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “Todd Akin,” by DonkeyHotey at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution;”Tarquinius and Lucretia,” by Titian, Source: The Yorck Project: 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei. DVD-ROM, 2002. ISBN 3936122202. Distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbHat Wikipedia Commons, public domain; “Happy Festivus,” by Efrain Lugo, tkop_efrain, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; “Happy Festivus,” by Bjorn Bulthuis , iBjorn, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution and share alike distribution.

Read Full Post »

“Use me up!” — Judge McCree and Bill Withers — but not Clarence Carter.

I’ll concede there’s a time and place for judges who bring up pop culture — if they’re trying too hard to be funny or hip or just relevant — like when 66-year old New York Southern District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin recently footnoted a reference in a court opinion to Beyoncé Knowles’ husband, a.k.a. rapper, record producer, sometime actor, and successful entrepreneur Jay-Z.

But there’s also a time and a place when “judicial humor is neither judicial nor humorous” and can even get a judge in trouble.

A conflict of interest.

Moreover, pop cultural references and particularly, musical segues used out of court can be unexpectedly embarrassing, too.

Which brings me back to Judge Wade “No shame in my game” McCree last mentioned in October and who is back in the news.

Last time, the Detroit, Michigan jurist was being censured for his flippancy after being outed for texting his naked judicial torso photo to his bailiff’s cellphone.

But as it now turns out, the Third Circuit Court jurist faces new allegations of hooking up with a complaining witness in a child support case against that woman’s ‘ex’ in a case the judge happened to be contemporaneously deciding.

“In deep (expletive).”

According to The Detroit News, this latest scandal came to the attention of Wayne County prosecutors, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, God and everyone else — only after Judge McCree complained that his now former paramour, Geniene La’Shay Mott, was supposedly stalking and extorting him.

No charges, though, are going to be brought against Mott. But as for the judge, to quote an aptly worded text message, he’s “in deep (expletive)” – over allegedly carrying on an affair with Mott while at the same time presiding over her child-support case against her ex. She’s also disclosed she’s pregnant with his child.

L’Affaire McCree blew up thanks to Mott who shared revealing text messages from the judicial phone number with local news media. She claims the texts came from Judge McCree.

One text message Mott shared with MyFox Detroit News and reported by Charlie Leduff and purportedly from McCree reads,

“My Judicial Tenure Commission has me nervous, as you might expect.  I have to be real careful until this matter is put to rest…  you are the complaining witness on a case that is before me.  Naturally if it got out that we were seeing each other before your B.D.’s (baby daddy) case closed, everybody could be in deep (expletive). 

“Why you want to spend time with a man like me remains a mystery, but if you’ll have me… then as Bill Withers said, “use me up!”  SMOOCHES.”

All I can add is that given Judge McCree’s “ain’t no shame” weakness for popular culture, especially old R & B — at least he didn’t text Mott any saucy references to Clarence Carter’s Strokin.‘

______________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “Red lips isolated in white,” by TaniaSaiz at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution; Geniene La’Shay Mott and Wade McCree (Facebook.com) posted by Detroit News at http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20121207&Category=METRO01&ArtNo=212070411&Ref=AR&Profile=1409&MaxW=640&Border=0&Prosecutors-refer-censured-judge-tenure-commission-latest-sex-flap ;”Minx yawn,” by annieb at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution; “Bob,” by patti haskins at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution;

Read Full Post »

Like aging rock stars, politicians and judges never say die.

42 years ago, Mick Jagger famously said “I’d rather be dead than signing ‘Satisfaction’ when I’m forty-five.” But as the septuagenarian Mick and his geriatric Rolling Stones celebrate 50 years and counting, Mick still “can’t go no satisfaction” and there’s no assuagement in sight. Paul McCartney turned 70 last June and there’s no quit in that silver fox either.

So why should it be any surprise that six Pennsylvania judges have filed suit to invalidate a state constitutional requirement that would force them to put away their gavels at age 70? The six are alleging violations of their 14th Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process rights.

No matter that this is settled law since the U.S. Supreme Court already spoke on the subject more than 20 years ago. Under Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991), the Equal Protection Clause doesn’t apply. Age isn’t a “suspect classification.” And last time I looked, there still no such thing as a fundamental right to serve as a judge.

But things change — or so they argue. Besides, there’s always that adage about“The older the berry, the sweeter the juice.”

According to their lawsuit, the jurists contend that “the probability of cognitive impairment among older Americans has consistently decreased, even since the early 1990s.” So why not give old age a chance?

Never mind the disturbing results of recent testing published in BMJ, the British Medical Journal, that cognitive decline sets in around age 45. The plaintiffs have their own studies in rebuttal.

And then there’s Professor Joe Flynn’s “Are We Getting Smarter?: Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century” of which in his book review, The Guardian’s John Naughton notes that ‘On cognitive decline in the aging process, Flynn has good news and bad news. The good news is that bright people retain verbal facility as they age. The bad news is that their capacity for analytical thinking declines, and the brighter they were when young, the greater is the subsequent decline.” Talk about payback for not being young and dumb.

So expect a battle of experts from each side — assuming, though, that the case even gets that far. Unlike Article III judges with lifetime tenure, there’s no subjective protection by ‘self-policing.’

Never leaving the building.

So as Thanksgiving approaches, judges, rock stars and, of course, politicians are the ones most like those annoying house guests who overstay their welcome and never leave. Since politicians see themselves as God’s gift to the electorate, Elvis never leaves the building.

Here in Arizona, crusty and cranky 80-year old Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio just won his sixth term — so is it any wonder that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer wants her own share of additional voter love? The finger-wagging, grammar-challenged Brewer, a few clowns short of a circus, continues to mull a run for a third term. Term limits be damned.

And over the weekend, ex-state bar president and former Brewer general counsel Joe Kanefield offered up a political puff piece short on law, lengthy on longing and heavy on parsing in support, “Kanefield: Constitution clears Brewer to pursue another term.”

So what if most election and constitutional experts disagree with Kanefield or more importantly, that the Arizona Constitution unambiguously limits executive officers, including the governor, to two consecutive four-year terms.

A plain reading of Arizona Constitution, Article 5 Section 1 Version 2 reveals:

“Section 1. A. The executive department shall consist of the governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction, each of whom shall hold office for a term of four years beginning on the first Monday of January, 1971 next after the regular general election in 1970.

“No member of the executive department shall hold that office for more than two consecutive terms. This limitation on the number of terms of consecutive service shall apply to terms of office beginning on or after Jan. 1, 1993.

No member of the executive department after serving the maximum number of terms, which shall include any part of a term served, may serve in the same office until out of office for no less than one full term.”

Notwithstanding that “elected term” doesn’t appear in the foregoing provision, Kanefield nevertheless seems to think it all comes down to the meaning of “term.” This is why he makes a distinction about “elected terms” when he argues that “The voters created the term-limits law and they should resolve any ambiguity by expressing their collective opinion at the polls should Gov. Brewer seek two elected terms.” [emphasis added] Only problem, though, is where’s the ambiguity?

Not, of course, that term limits are much protection from politicians. As the late comedian George Carlin used to say, “Just cause you got the monkey off your back doesn’t mean the circus has left town.”

______________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “Mick Jagger,” by Mark Rain, AZRainman, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; “Look what washed up in Quesnel,” by miguelb at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution;”Jan Brewer,” byDonkeyHotey at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; “Equivocal,” by Brett Jordan, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution.

,

Read Full Post »