Missouri Plan - Retention Elections Work
One of the common arguments employed by the people who would scrap our model system for choosing judges is that the retention elections are ineffective. Judges typically garner over 60% of the vote in favor of retention, even though, they argue, that the typical voter could not identify any of the judges on the ballot. The votes are therefore meaningless and uninformed.
Of course, this argument ignores the fact that bad judges have lost their retention elections.
Even if you ignore the true facts and accept the flawed premises, though, the argument is invalid. Here's why:
1. High retention rates reflect high general satisfaction with the judicial branch in Missouri. Even accepting that the voters might not know all the names on the ballot, the Missouri bench is one of the strongest in the nation, with a well-earned reputation of producing logical, well-reasoned handling of difficult cases. When judges are doing their jobs well, there's no reason a typical voter would or should know their names. If judges were making crazy, "activist" rulings, we would hear about them. In the case of judges, no news is good news. If a judge winds up a celebrity, and his or her name is on the mind of typical voters, that reflects trouble.
2. Voters receive good, solid information on judges - the fact that it does not penetrate their minds to the extent that they remember all their names doesn't mean they are not casting informed votes. The Bar Associations aggressively distribute survey information about the judges - information compiled from attorneys who have appeared in front of them (roughly half of whom have lost!), and jurors who have served in their courts. This information is incredibly helpful. It's also almost always very positive, and we all know how dull good news is. But if there were a judge listed with atrocious approval ratings, you can bet people would remember the name!
3. The fact that our judges get overwhelming approval doesn't mean our voters are dumb - it means that our judges are good!
People like Jeff Roe want to take the Missouri Plan away from those of us who are pleased with our judicial branch. They will try to fool us with illegitimate arguments and false "truths". As shown here, though, even when you accept their claims as truthful, their logic does not hold up. The Missouri Plan has resulted in a bench that Missourians overwhelmingly approve of. Would you really rather trade that in for a bench that is as popular as our legislature, or Governor Blunt?
Labels: jeff roe, Missouri Plan
posted by Dan at 11/17/2007 05:30:00 PM
36 Comments:
Finally something we agree on Dan. The last thing we need is judges having to take campaign donations and special interest money.
Lets keep the current system. It is basically the best of both worlds. Judges are appointed. Meaning they don't get corrupted by campaign cash and we don't get judges based on good looks and a flashy smile.
If some nitwit or "activist" judge does get elected, then we the people still have a voice to kick them out.
"Of course, this argument ignores the fact that bad judges have lost their retention elections."
Misleading! - Not One Single Appellate or Supreme Court Judge EVER has Lost Retention in 70 Years. Only 3 Circuit Judges in 70 years not retained (one was under indictment).
Circuit court judges only affect the parties before them, at least constitutionally. Appellate judges set precedent for all the courts below them. Those that have the most control over this state are given their position by the Missouri Bar, and they will do everything they can to convince you that they know what is best for you. We’ve all heard that one before.
People vote to retain judges without information because they tend to maintain the status quo. If the media doesn’t tell you about bad judges, who will? The Missouri Bar has not been shy about warning the media to watch what they say about judges. Take a look at the Missouri Bar’s media Law handbook. The first thing they mention is defamation. Looks like a warning to me.
http://www.mobar.org/18bad3ec-d0a6-4065-bc57-c3d54bb84ef7.aspx
The information presented to the Missouri voters is compiled by the Missouri Bar, the same organization that put the judges appointed by the Missouri Plan on the bench. Funny..seems a bit one-sided.
In 1976, the Missouri Supreme Court changed the Missouri Plan, without voter input. Rule 12.21 mandated that all complaints filed against judges are to be hidden from public view unless the Judiciary’s clearing house, the Commission for Retirement, Removal, and Discipline of Judges (C.R.R.D.), determined that the complaint merited formal investigation. This rule changed the information available to the voters that had existed when the Missouri Plan was adopted by the citizens of Missouri. The Missouri Supreme Court effectively changed the Missouri Plan without the voter’s consent. They scammed the voters, and your elected representatives didn’t say a thing about it.
To understand the full impact of this Rule, you need to know a little about the “Commission” referred to in the Rule. This commission, known as the Commission for the Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges, is a super-secret entity, made up of two judges, two attorneys, and two lay persons (appointed by the Governor). Four, out of the six members, must agree to pursue a formal investigation of a complaint about a judge, before the complaint is made public. This is much like having a commission to discipline a quarterback, which is made up of two quarterbacks, two football players, and two cheerleaders. If the football players want to make the complaint go away, they can; and the cheerleaders cannot say a word about it.
You can read more about this Commission in an article written by Lynn Ann Vogel, former President of the Bar Association of Metropolitan Saint Louis, on page 2 of the Saint Louis Bar Journal.
http://www.bamsl.org/members/barjournal/SPRING%2007.pdf
After reading the article, you’ll know why even some judges refer to the Commission as CRUD.
Dan is going to tell you that Lynn Ann Vogel supports the Missouri Plan, like all good members of the Missouri Bar should. I’m not saying that she doesn’t support the Missouri Plan. She did have the courage to present information about the C.R.R.D., an integral part of the retention of Missouri judges.
The Missouri Bar wants everyone to think that a change in the Missouri Plan would result in partisan elections and therefore partisan decisions from the bench. This is misleading.
Many of the judges in Missouri are elected by partisan election. However, none of the members of the Missouri Bar have presented one decision by those elected in this manner as considered to be a partisan decision.
The option presented by Bill Placke, President of the Saint Louis Chapter of the Federalist Society, does not present the option of partisan election.
The Missouri Bar wants the voters of Missouri to continue to act as docile chumps while they continue to take control of the Missouri Government. An uninformed vote is a useless vote.
Open your eyes at the next election. Look at the candidates. You will see more and more of them are attorneys. They are licensed by the Judiciary, yet want to serve in the Legislature. This continues to be detrimental to the Separation of Powers Doctrine of the Missouri Constitution, if not in word, in spirit. Attorneys must be really good people; that’s why they have earned such a good reputation.
Ask yourself why the Missouri Bar doesn’t say anything about Rule 12.21. Ask why they use deception to defend their position for support of the Missouri Plan. Ask them why they present fear of partisan decisions when they can’t present a single partisan decision handed down by a judge that is currently elected by partisan election.
Tell the Missouri Bar that this is your state, and you want it back.
Pay attention to the comments. Not one will defeat anything that I have presented as being false or misleading. If you think judges are all good people, perhaps you should read Judge Dierker’s book; The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault, about the corruption in the courts. You know as well as I do, if Judge Dierker was telling lies in his book, they would have him off the bench faster than you can say “gone mild”. FYI- Judge Dierker was appointed under the Missouri Plan and continues to sit on the bench is the Saint Louis City Court.
FYI - Whistleblower is a crank who has been proven wrong on multiple counts on multiple blogs, but keeps making more absurd arguments. (What topic would you address first in a pamphlet on the law pertaining to the Media? Drunk driving?) I, along with several other bloggers, have decided not to argue with him, but to simply ignore him. Debunking him only makes him wilder.
As I told you in my comment. Dan lacks the ability to comment objectively, so he runs away.
Ask him for a link to a blog where any of my comments on the judiciary have been proven wrong on multiple accounts.
My comments on the Judiciary are based on fact, not mere alegation. Dan can't defeat them, so he has decided take his ball and go home.
Don't dare agree with me or Dan will call you a crank or a wacko. That's what less than ethical people do when they want to hide the truth from you.
Dan,
Why would you call Whistleblower a crank?
This makes me question your objectivity on this matter.
What is your association with the Missouri Bar?
I must be a crank too. I think he / she made some very good points.
I used to live in a state that elected judges. I remember a political ad for a candidate running for Justice of the Peace (sort of a mini judge).
He bragged about having a 76% conviction rate on DUI offenders. Do we really want judges put in office based on their "conviction" rates?
A judge is supposed to be impartial. It is hard to get elected by promising to give everyone a fair shake.
Each plan has its flaws, but from what I have seen, elected judges is the most flawed plan.
Judge Judy III...
As I stated in my comment, the Missouri Bar is making it look as if the only alternative to the current plan is to hold partisan elections for the positions. This is not the case.
The last legislative session saw suggestions of plans that did not involve partisan election of judges.
One proposal, by Rep. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis County, would have replaced the nonpartisan court plan effective Jan. 1, 2009, with a system in which judges would be appointed by the governor with the consent of the Senate.
A second proposal, by Rep. Ed Emery, R-Lamar, also would have repealed the nonpartisan plan. Under Emery's plan, the governor would appoint the judicial candidates, and a newly created Judicial Confirmation Commission, comprising a mix of lawyers serving in the Senate, the House and in private practice, would confirm the appointments.
A third proposal, by Rep. Steve Hunter, R-Joplin, would have kept the nonpartisan court plan's method of selecting judges but done away with one of its other features - periodic retention of judges by voters. Instead, the Legislature would vote every 10 years by a simple majority whether to retain a judge. In addition, the proposed amendment would allow the governor to request removal of a judge, subject to a two-thirds vote by lawmakers.
As you can see, the partisan election fear that is being portrayed by the Missouri Bar is more like being threatened by the boogie-man than the existence of any substantial attempt to implement partisan elections.
Red -
If you've read the local blogs, you would understand why I choose not to engage with Whistleblower. He or she is not to be trusted, and, when you run into someone like that on a blog, you can either try to outlast them with the truth, and spend your days responding to their lies and ranting, or you can simply ignore them. I've done both with blower, and this way is far, far better for all concerned.
I don't think you're a crank - but I'm not sure why my bar status is any of your concern. If you want to debate facts or logic, let's do that.
Dan - thanks for taking the time to reply.
I did not ask for your Bar status. I asked for your association with the Missouri Bar. If you were a member of the bar, but chose to conceal the fact, that would cause me to question your objectivity and your inclination to be forthright. If you were commenting on a beer I would not ask as it would not be relevant. In this case I think it is.
I did take the time to research "whistleblower" on a number of blogs. I did find some of his posts to be confrontational but I did not see any that were full of lies, as you claim. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place. If you could provide the address of these blogs I would like to see them.
Red...
Dan's refusal to address my claims is more like the Wizard of Oz telling everyone to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
Dan presents misleading information, and when confronted, claims that I am the one telling the lies.
He cannot refute my claims. He cannot provide you with a link to any blog that would expose the imaginary lies that he claims exist.
Be careful. Dan likes to be stroked on his blog. If you question him, he will ignore you. Ouch!
I doubt that Dan is a member of the Bar. If he is, he sure doesn't appear to be proud of it.
Red - All lawyers are members of the bar - the entire spectrum of political opinion from Matt Bartle to Jolie Justus.
Whistleblower has lied about conspiracies and all kinds of nonsense at BlogCCP, here, and just about every other blog that has addressed the Missouri Plan. He tried to mislead us into believing that Lynn Ann Vogel opposed the Missouri Plan until I called her up and asked her.
My compromise is to ignore him - not delete him. He's wrong about what he writes, and most commenters realize that after they see how strange his conspiracy theories are. If not, that's okay, too. I can't save the world, but I can save myself some pointless aggravation.
Red...
As you can see, I continue to tell the truth; Dan continues to mislead.
He cannot produce a link to one page where I have ever inferred that I knew Lynn Vogel's position on the Missouri Plan. Is this because his internet skills are lacking, or is it that it doesn't exist? Yes to both, may be the correct answer, but I can assure you that the second is true.
“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” – Harry Truman
And the Truman quote that Dan lives by –“If you cannot convince them, confuse them.”
What does Roe want to replace it with?
Dan - I believed you at first. You avoided direct questions and that made me question you.
Whistleblower - I have to give this to you.
Dan mentioned CCP Blog. I found the place where you first mentioned Lynn Ann Vogel and you did not state her position on the Missouri Plan. You did question how an anonymous blogger knew her position.
http://blogccp.blogspot.com/2007/10/blunt-loves-secret-selection-of-judges.html
Dan - I spent some time investigating your allegations against Whistleblower and found them to be unfounded. Your responses have been evasive. You, Stephen Bough and some other attorneys from CCP Blog have done your darndest to attack Whistleblower's credibility but have failed miserably.
If you want to call Whistleblower a liar then man up and give some proof.
Whistleblower - thanks for your efforts. I don't think Dan will ever admit that your claims are factual. Thanks for enlightening me.
Judge Judy III...
I'm not sure what Jeff Roe wants to do. I don't believe that he has ever presented an option.
Red...
Thanks for taking the time to defend me. I'm sure Dan will bring in his group of thugs tomorrow to continue their defamation efforts.
I didn't come to this blog looking for support. I only try to put out the information that they try to hide from the readers.
Less than a week ago Dan posted an article titled "How to be a bad commenter". If you take the time to read that article, you will see that Dan has taught himself well.
Alright - this is why any sane person would just delete blowers comments and be done with it. Responding to them, or their adoption by others, is time-consuming and frustrating. But, because I now have a triumvirate of commenters thinking there is a shred of value to what blower has to say, I'll spend a bit of my morning violating my own advice.
1. How is it misleading to point out that judges have lost retention elections when, in fact, judges have lost retential elections?? There's nothing misleading about it! It's the truth. If there's a certain type of judge you think needs to lose, that's your own problem. In fact, our appellate and supreme court judges are normally selected from the best lower court judges or otherwise outstanding lawyers, so it doesn't surprise anyone who thinks about it that they haven't been booted. That's because they're good.
2. No judges are appointed by the Missouri Bar. None. That is a lie, and a particularly malicious one, because it misleads people into misunderstanding what the Missouri Bar is. The Missouri Bar is not some voluntary association of like-minded individuals gathered to promote its own agenda. The Missouri Bar is composed of all attorneys in the state, every single one of them, with all political stripes. And it does NOT choose any judges whatsoever.
3. If the people are happy with the status quo, why should we change it?
4. The media does tell us about bad judges. Indeed, I am confident that the newspapers would love to find more bad judges to report on. Here in KC, the Star did a fine job of going after a bad judge (one not appointed through the Missouri Plan, but through a plan similar to the ones being advanced by those seeking to change things, I might add), and went to the IMPARTIAL COURTS to obtain necessary records.
5. The Media Law handbook writes about defamation because defamation is one of the most important topics for a pamphlet about the law pertaining to the media. That point is obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a second. (By the way, the handbook does not even mention the Missouri Plan.) Here is a chapter listing of the handbook: Chapter 1 - Defamation
Chapter 2 - Invasion of Privacy
Chapter 3 - Journalist Right of Privacy Primer
Chapter 4 - Missouri Sunshine Law
Chap 5 - A Practical Guide to Sunshine Law Matters
Chap 6 - Obtaining Information From Public Records
Chapter 7 - The Federal Freedom Information Act
Chapter 8 - Access to Government Information
Chapter 9 - From the Witness Stand to News Stand
Chapter 10 - Intelectual Property in the Media
Chapter 11 - Reporter Privilege
Chapter 12 - Developing Law of Internet
Chapter 13 - Media Liability Insurance
Chapter 14 - Eavesdropping Wiretapping
Chapter 15 - Negligence and Incitement
Chapter 16 - Media Employment Contracts
Now, why would blower try to twist that into a threat? Is he really so colossally stupid? I suppose that it could be possible, but I think he's maliciously trying to mislead people about the nature and motivations of the Missouri Bar, and it bothers me to see him use my space to do so.
6. He implies that there is something wrong with the Missouri Bar providing survey information to voters. And, again, he inaccurately claims that the Missouri Bar puts judges on the bench - a flat-out lie!
7. He shifts the focus to the CRRD. The CRRD deals with thousands of complaints from convicts who have nothing better to do than wile away the hours dreaming up conspiracy theories and crackpot theories about the judges that handled their cases. I have no evidence that blower got his start this way, but I wouldn't be surprised. I say that not to be mean, but to point out that the love of conspiracy theories and a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system is a common thread.
8. The Missouri Bar does not want to take over the government. That is a bizarre lie.
9. Lawyers serving in the legislature does not violate separation of powers - nor do lawyers serving in the executive branch. That's a ridiculous argument. In fact, the legislature needs more attorneys, to assist in drafting laws that work. If I recall correctly, the lack of lawyers resulted in an accidental repeal of rape laws a few years ago.
10. Jeff Roe bragged on his blog that an elected Cole County judge altered his opinion because of fear of partisan political retribution.
11. He claims that the Missouri Bar uses deception to defend the Missouri Plan, but points to no evidence.
12. I have wasted much of my early morning proving blower to be false and misleading, and he will claim that nobody has ever proven him false and misleading. What's the point? It's like playing that Whack a Mole game.
Now, I've only addressed some of the weaknesses in one of his comments. Responding to him thoroughly would take even more of my time, and he would dream up even more outlandish arguments. If Red or Judge Judy have any questions or comments they would like to discuss, I'm more than happy to do so. But Blower is a waste of time.
I don't know.
We know that one crooked judge just got out of jail for taking "loans" from lawyers...and that five or six lawyers got "reprimanded", whoppe doooooooooooo!
Although apparently 17 lawyers and bonding companies were involved.
That they know of.
And only one lawyer...the black guy...is going to go to trial in Federal Court.
Is it like an ICEBERG, with just the top showing? I have heard rumors about the muni court for several years.
IF frigging TRAFFIC TICKETT court is that corrupt, what about the courts with higher stakes?
One is justified in wondering.
Student -
The judge you're talking about was not appointed through the Missouri Plan - instead, she was appointed through a plan similar to some of the proposals being suggested to replace the Missouri Plan.
Student Legal Eagle...
Good Points!
Dan will continue to support the Missouri Bar with deception and outright lies.
Many may wonder about Dan's connection with the Bar.
I would recommend a simple internet search to give you the answers. Since Dan has put his information out on the internet by registering his website, I'm sure he won't mind sharing.
Search Case Net:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/base/welcome.do
Look for Dan Ryan. Could it be that Dan A. Ryan and Daniel Alan Ryan are this Dan Ryan?
The truth shall set you free!
Dan does not disclose his close ties with the Bar or his knowledge of the courts. Could this be the reason for his intimate knowledge?
Make sure you count the cases with "defendant". A pattern begins to develope.
I think I'll start calling the plaintiffs this week. They may be able to shed some more light.
I know Dan, and he's not Daniel A. Ryan.
You are a profoundly stupid and irresponsible person, "Whistleblower".
After ignoring you, he finally took the time to identify 12 points where you were wrong, and you respond by attacking the messenger. The wrong messenger.
Hahahaha - you idiot!!!!
Thank you, Dan, for taking the time to show a dozen flaws in Whistleblower's argument. You are a smart, informed, reliable source of information. I know that you get a fair number of people taking potshots at you, and rarely get a note of appreciation. You deserve a lot of thanks for the work you do.
*rolls his eyes*
Anon and 11:15, I'm not quite ready to canonize Dan just yet. Do you also think professional wrestling is real?
Whistleblower is incompetent. Other than highlighting the fact that one Dan A got alot of traffic tickets, and another is apparently a home contractor of some sort (and a not very good one at that) whistleblower has been successful at exposing himself as a moron.
I'll give Dan approbations for his apparent lack of time management skills, and knack for inconveniencing his faithful readers that have to work their way through tedious posts.
I'm not one of those readers, I just scan these posts for the keywords "mainstream" and "liar" next to each other to spot the occasional ad hominem attacks I receive from this furture saint-of the-blogwaves.
Thank you, anon 11:15, for the kind words, and thank you, Mainstream, for the chuckle. Your next-to-last paragraph is genius.
Whistleblower -
I hope this simple advice will be helpful to you and will enable you to avoid making unsupported remarks.
Just ask Dan if he ever practiced law. He'll give you a straight answer. He's funny that way.
Review some information about the Muni Court. You will discover that it is created and staffed differently than the Circuit Courts, Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court of Missouri. The differences are important, so read slowly.
Student Legal Eagle - Before you try to turn the muni court fiasco into a racial issue or a Missouri Plan issue, please get your facts straight. This issue has no bearing on the Missouri Plan as the judges were not selected under the Missouri Plan. On the racial issue, find out the answers to these questions and then come back and report to class:
1. Which lawyers got in the most trouble or face the worst consequences for loaning money to the judge?
2. Which lawyers loaned money to the judge and then appeared in her court after making the loans?
3. Are the same names listed in answer to questions 1 and 2?
4. Essay - in 500 words or less, why is it significant that the answers to questions one and two are the same?
(Clue: Question 4 may help you answer question 3. I am trying to make this easy for you)
RM
Anonymous...
We must all place a lot of value in the fact that an "anonymous" blogger has vouched for Dan.
1. “How is it misleading to point out that judges have lost retention elections when, in fact, judges have lost retential elections?” - I already answered this in my original post
2. “No judges are appointed by the Missouri Bar. None.” - The Bar dominated selection committee presents the Governor with their choices. He must approve one of them, or they will do it for him. Lawyers should not be hand picking the judges that they appear in front of. That would seriously interfere with a corrupt lawyers ability to get the ruling they want.
3.” If the people are happy with the status quo, why should we change it?” - What people are happy? By your standard, all comatose people are happy.
4. “The media does tell us about bad judges.” - All of them? What do you consider bad? Is an appellate judge that recognizes and willfully ignores a constitutional amendment bad?
5. “The Media Law handbook writes about defamation because defamation is one of the most important topics for a pamphlet about the law pertaining to the media.” - It sure is! Say something bad about a judge without the ability to prove it, and the judge will get you. Too bad Dan doesn't feel the same when writing about others.
6.” He implies that there is something wrong with the Missouri Bar providing survey information to voters.” - Yes. I condsider this one-sided. Show me the last Bar survey that exposed any judge to be a bad judge. The bar surveys lawyers and jurors. We don't have professional jurors. I doubt they would know if a judge is good or bad.
7. “He shifts the focus to the CRRD. The CRRD deals with thousands of complaints from convicts who have nothing better to do than wile away the hours dreaming up conspiracy theories and crackpot theories about the judges that handled their cases.” - What about the thousands of complaints filed by law abiding litigants? In 2006, 1800+ complaints were filed with C.R.R.D. only 57 were formally investigated. All of these were filed on the proper form.
8. “The Missouri Bar does not want to take over the government.” - Wow..Now that's a fact you can sink your teeth into. After hours of tedious research, Dan issues his opinion. I hope all your followers believe you.
9. “ Lawyers serving in the legislature does not violate separation of powers - nor do lawyers serving in the executive branch.” - That is not what I presented. Lawyers are licensed by the Judiciary. That tends to blur the intent of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. - Sounds like Dan wants his lawyer friends to take more control over this state. If Dan thinks more lawyers should be in the Legislature, maybe he should start a petition of their own. They have such a great reputation.
“lack of lawyers resulted in an accidental repeal of rape laws a few years ago” – can you provide some documentation to support your claim, or is that just your opinion?
10. “Jeff Roe bragged on his blog that an elected Cole County judge altered his opinion because of fear of partisan political retribution.” - Who gives a crap? I never mentioned Jeff Roe. Further, only Judge Callahan could answer that.
11.” He claims that the Missouri Bar uses deception to defend the Missouri Plan “- I presented plenty of evidence. That would require you to read my comments.
12. – I guess you had already created number 12 and needed to fill in the blanks.
Dan will continue to be evasive. I am sure that I can find out why Dan is so intent on supporting the Missouri Bar. He sure won't tell us.
mainstream...
Other than the fact that a Dan Ryan, who would meet Dan's approximate age, based on his daughter's approximate age, and has no apparent reason for supporting the Missouri Bar, what would make me question Dan's need to be so intimate in the dealings of the courts?
Red Scoundrel asked him about his association with the Missouri Bar, and he avoided it like the plague. That sent up a red flag for me.
We could ask Dan about "my three sons".
I'll admit that my Case Net search was not conclusive. I never stated that it was. I'll do more research before I present information for readers to question Dan's motives on their own.
Dan has invested more time telling others to look away than he has addressing the misleading information that I have called him on. There must be a reason for that, and it isn't that I have presented lies, as he attempts to claim.
RM... or should I say anonymous?
I think you meant to address Student Legal Eagle as to the structure and staffing of the Municiple Courts.
He could find out more in Section 479 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, and Article V, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution.
....
Red Scoundrel asked Dan about his association with the Missouri Bar. Dan did not want to answer that.
I don't think the question was irrelevant to the topic and his position. Do you?
If Dan was to say that he did practive law in the past, it would be reasonable to ask why he no longer does so.
Maybe that's a can of worms that Dan would rather not open.
I'm the anonymous from 11:15, and this is why I admire Dan for putting himself on the line. Now he has a dishonest piece of pseudonymous crap like Whistleblower trying to track down and publish personal information about him. Why would Whistleblower do that? I don't care if Dan is a freaking judge (he's not) - his facts and opinions speak for themselves.
Whistleblower, think again about what you are doing. Dan allows you to post whatever you want, and remain anonymous. Now you are threatening to try to publish personal information about him, while hiding behind a fake name.
Think about it. What kind of person are you - other than anonymous?
Dan, from yesterday: "Debunking him only makes him wilder."
Wow. I guess you got that one right, Dan.
anonymous...
I have not published personal information about Dan. When you register a domain name, current policies require that the contact information for your domain name registration be included in a public database known as WHOIS.
If Dan is not, or never was an attorney, it would only be reasonable that he aquired his knowledge as an experienced litigant.
Item #7 of Dan's 7:00 AM comment attempted to imply that I had some sort of criminal past. Therefore, he opened the door. BTW..I have not had so much as a traffic ticket in more than 20 years. And no, I didn't have any that an attorney or any freind fixed for me.
I am not trying to remain anonymous. I never have. I log in as a registered blogger. My blogger profile provides a link to my website. The first page of my web presentation displays my name. Do I need to draw a map?
It is kind of funny that "anonymous" would blast someone as being anonymous. That takes courage!
I invoke Godwin's Law.
Page 56 in the powerpoint deck.
Noted
Thanks for the support, anonymouses 11:15, 4:06 and 4:18. I should have followed my policy, and I shall do so from now on. As 4:18 points out, I knew what was coming.
For the record, I don't think Dan is hiding anything about whether he is a lawyer. I recall several threads in this blog where he mentioned he is a lawyer. Check the thread on Jan Helder for example. If you are concerned about the issue - ask him straight up. He'll tell you.
Hey RM, here are your answers.
1. The Black one.
2. Several of them, I won't name names unless you insist. Some are white.
3. No.
Now I have two questions.
1. Whats your interest in this?
2. Why are you covering up?
Take as many pages as you need, as spin is hard to do in just a sentence or two.
What exactly do you think RM is covering up, Student? Don't be ridiculous.
The real truth is that the one who got hit hardest is the one who lied to investigators. It's a lesson that gets taught again and again - the coverup is often worse than the crime.
You never did get around to acknowledging that the KC Municipal court has nothing to do with the Missouri Plan, and is, in fact, more similar to the plans being floated by the right wingers.
The Student has a point though.
So what if muni court hacks aren't appointed by the mo plan?
The court is full of corruption, and you MUST be aware of it. Sure, the black guy is on trial for basically lying but all the others got was a slap on the wrist.
For loaning money to a judge?
And you think thats OK?
And my boss tells me shit goes on at higher levels too.
Who ya kiddin?
Are you seriously trying to pretend that the "non-partisan" plan does not involve political wheeling and dealing?
I can't believet that YOU really believe that. I know you are smarter than that.
Student -
Are you surprised that the guy who lied about what he did is being treated more harshly? Anyone remember an ex-president who got in way more trouble than he deserved because he lied about it?
When a member of the bar does something ethically wrong, he or she can suffer consequences from private reprimand to suspension to license revocation. The disciplinary committee looks at many factors including whether the lawyer accepts responsibility for his actions.
The criminal justice system works the same way when it comes to sentencing. The outcome has nothing to do with race and everything to do with conduct before and after the loan. The lawyer you are so worried about loaned money to the judge, appeared before her and then lied about it. That's a big deal. Some of the others loaned money, but didn't appear before the judge and came clean about what they did. They were not treated as harshly. Some loaned the judge money, appeared before her and told the truth. They were treated harshly, but not as harshly as the one who lied. I wouldn't call it a slap on the wrist, but they will not do time.
Post a Comment
<< Home