Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:19:37 PM
The problem with the blog format is that people can jump into the middle of an argument that the author is making without realizing that it is the middle and that they are missing the context entirely.
More than a month ago, for example, I wrote that it was not my intention to attack a single judge, that while I had no intention of voting for his retention, this blog was in no way a campaign instrument against that judge. I believe that a VERY careful examination of this blog would reveal that I have neither identified him, nor suggested in the slightest way that the citizens of the 4th Judicial District should vote against retaining him.
It isn't that I think he shoudn't be thrown out of office, because I do. I have made a purely tactical decision that this blog will have much more credibility if I am seen as going after my real target, the legal ethics system and its creators, the State Supreme Court, rather than a single judge.
In fact, if I were to so much as suggest a campaign against my judge, my friends in the legal community could immediately dismiss me as an angry litigant with a complaint against a single judge. I am instead an angry litigant who believes the ethics system is designed not to function in a way that protects citizens. It is much harder to dismiss that kind of criticism.
Yes, I am being critical of my judge. A really good judge is capable of ensuring that court rules are followed even when they are designed not to work. I might well have never discovered how flawed the SYSTEM was if I'd had a different judge, a no nonsense judge. That didn't happen, so now his performance is the vehicle of my criticism.
One of the things that forces someone like me to concentrate on a single judge is the decision by the State Supreme Court to allow District Chief Judges to charge for what should be public documents. Ours charges $20 an hour plus 75 cents a page, so I don't have much data and am unlikely to get much data on how other judges conduct their pre-trial business. The Supreme Court claims to have made this decision to prevent identity theft, but there has never been an instance of such an abuse. I have two choices, examine my judge's conduct or be silent. Silence won't cause change.