We begin by pointing out what we especially liked about Law Day 2011. Judicial Watch really liked the fact that the Public Defenders who did attend were more or less excluded. Oh, PDs were there, but they were marginalized, even made to stand apart from the rest of us real lawyers.
This is, of course, as it should be. Public Defenders have no legitimate place in our system of justice, primarily because they represent poor guilty criminals. If our judicial system stands for anything, it stands for truth, and the truth is that the quality of justice is not the same for the poor as it is for the rich. If O.J. Simpson had been poor, he would have been convicted of murdering his wife. But he was rich and could afford the best private attorneys. Justice isn’t free and the poor have no right to equal justice because they cannot afford to pay for it the way the rest of us can.
And that is because they are lazy. Poor people are lazy. There. We said it. And we feel better for having done so. And they are almost always guilty. They got arrested, didn’t they? Even if our hard working and honest police and district attorneys do make a mistake, and arrest and convict some poor fool for crimes he did not do, you can bet he did do something else that justifies locking him up, even if we don’t know exactly what. So our system always works out a fair and just result in the end.
Another thing we liked about our last Law Day was the openly self-congratulatory purpose underlying the event. And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with people meeting to pat themselves on the back for a job well done. And there is nothing wrong with a little nepotism combined with self-congratulatory zeal. For example, during our last Law Day celebration, an award was given out to recognize the contribution of a non-lawyer. Now, isn’t that nice? We think it’s nice, and it’s great PR for lawyers to pat the back of a non-lawyer every now and then. It is even better when the non-lawyer is someone who works for lawyers – which is what happened at our last Law Day. The non-lawyer award was given to someone who works for the District Attorney’s Office – which was just perfect. We recognized a non-lawyer, but one that does and says things we like and is part of the system we control.
But what can we do to make the next Law Day even better? We here at Judicial Watch make the following suggestions:
Adopt a slogan, something like “The Law – It’s Great!” Or, for those with a literary background “Kafka was Wrong.”
Give out more awards. We suggest “Crime Victim of the Year” and “Most Limber Bailiff” or “DA who got the most three strikes life sentences imposed on a shoplifter.”
Feature cheerleaders. Who doesn’t like cheerleaders, and what event isn’t made better when cheerleaders are involved? Cheerleaders are by definition part of self-congratulatory mechanisms, and isn’t that what Law Day is all about? Of course the DA’s office maintains its own cheerleading squad (they’re called “Victims’ Rights Advocates”) so there should be a ready supply, and you can be sure they won’t embarrass the prosecution.
Again, we recognize that our last Law Day celebration was excellent. But like any statute that becomes law, we, like our legislature, should never hesitate to make something good even gooder.
The law – it’s great! And so are we.
See you next year!
This is the first editorial from the Yolo Judicial Watch Editorial Board comprised of Abhi Anand, Steve Berlin, Paul Boylan, Vanessa Guerrero, and Jeremy Ogul.
If this is an example of the Yolo Judicial Watch Editorial Board’s skills at critical thinking and creative writing, it is no wonder Yolo Judicial Watch often comes off as nothing but an attempt to bash the local DA – rather than taking an objective look at the abuses that are going on within the legal criminal system. Forgive the harsh criticism, but I found this article snide, offensive, and way off the mark. If you had objections to how Law Day was handled, state what your criticisms were directly, and the reasons why. It would have come off much better and would have had greater credibility… if anything you have hurt the cause… Just my opinion 🙂
I thought it was hilarious Elaine, either you don’t appreciate satire or don’t have a great sense of humor. I’m sure we’ll see more reasoned efforts in the future, but this was obviously light and deceptively deep, hitting on a number of key points. I like the DA who got the most three strikes life sentences imposed on a shoplifter.” So true?
I also thought this article was hilarious. Clearly some tongue-in-cheek, wink-wink satire. Should have been posted on April Fools Day maybe, but an enjoyable read nonetheless!
Okay, here goes –
[quote]he last one, held on May 2, 2011, was such a magnificent spiritual, cultural and political celebration of “the Law” that we simply could not bring ourselves to report upon it.[/quote]
Why didn’t you report on it at the time it occurred? Why now, in a flippant, unobjective way that would explain the problems you had with it?
[quote]Judicial Watch really liked the fact that the Public Defenders who did attend were more or less excluded. Oh, PDs were there, but they were marginalized, even made to stand apart from the rest of us real lawyers.[/quote]
How were they marginalized. Saying it happened gives the reader no clue on what you mean by this statement.
[quote]Public Defenders have no legitimate place in our system of justice, primarily because they represent poor guilty criminals. [/quote]
Now what does this mean in the context of what happened on Law Day? What are you even trying to say here? I guess I’m totally dense, bc I am not getting the humor or even the point of this statement as it relates to what occurred on Law Day.
[quote]If O.J. Simpson had been poor, he would have been convicted of murdering his wife. But he was rich and could afford the best private attorneys[/quote]
What is your point here? Did you even watch the OJ Simpson trial and understand the issues? How in heavens name does this relate to what happened on Law Day.
[quote]Justice isn’t free and the poor have no right to equal justice because they cannot afford to pay for it the way the rest of us can.
And that is because they are lazy. [/quote]
I’m still not getting the connection to what happened on Law Day. Frankly, I really don’t know from this article what happened on Law Day.
[quote]Even if our hard working and honest police and district attorneys do make a mistake, and arrest and convict some poor fool for crimes he did not do, you can bet he did do something else that justifies locking him up, even if we don’t know exactly what. So our system always works out a fair and just result in the end.[/quote]
What a ridiculous statement… and what the heck does it have to do with what happened on Law Day?
[quote]Another thing we liked about our last Law Day was the openly self-congratulatory purpose underlying the event. And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with people meeting to pat themselves on the back for a job well done. And there is nothing wrong with a little nepotism combined with self-congratulatory zeal. [/quote]
So what is being said here, that employers should not recognize employees for the work that they do, that this is self-serving? Really?
[quote]For example, during our last Law Day celebration, an award was given out to recognize the contribution of a non-lawyer. Now, isn’t that nice? We think it’s nice, and it’s great PR for lawyers to pat the back of a non-lawyer every now and then. It is even better when the non-lawyer is someone who works for lawyers – which is what happened at our last Law Day[/quote]
So what is being said here? Non lawyers should not be given awards? Or non-lawyers that work for the DA’s office are never worthy of an award? Really?
[quote]Give out more awards. We suggest “Crime Victim of the Year” and “Most Limber Bailiff” or “DA who got the most three strikes life sentences imposed on a shoplifter.”[/quote]
So give out awards that are nasty, meaningless, snarky? Is that what is being suggested here?
[quote]Of course the DA’s office maintains its own cheerleading squad (they’re called “Victims’ Rights Advocates”) so there should be a ready supply, and you can be sure they won’t embarrass the prosecution.[/quote]
Now you are bashing victims’ rights advocates? That is a new low…
SORRY, BUT IMHO THIS ARTICLE WAS DEMEANING, UNINFORMATIVE, MADE NO SENSE, BROUGHT IN A LAUNDRY LIST OF IRRELEVANT ACCUSATIONS TO BASH NOT ONLY THE DA’S OFFICE BUT VICTIMS RIGHTS ADVOCATES. I HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE, BUT THIS JUST WAS NOT TO MY TASTE. SORRY, BUT I JUST DON’T SEE THE HUMOR IN IT.
Elaine: This is not an article, it’s an editorial. It is not supposed to be objective. It is supposed to make a point. I think the target here was not just the DA’s office but the entire law establishment that seems to forget that there is a Public Defender’s office and Defense Attorneys.
I’m not going to speak for them however, they can speak for themselves.
BTW, I did not report on it at the time, because I was not at the event. I’m not sure it is even open to the public.
This editorial comes across as one gigantic sarcastic straw man. Now worth the type commited to it.
DMG: Elaine: This is not an article, it’s an editorial. It is not supposed to be objective.
You got that right! This editorial didn’t appear objective in the least – loaded with innuendo and that was about all it was. no wonder the vanguard’s judicial watch articles leave a lot to be desired – if this is an example of what its editorial board is.
I think the target here was not just the DA’s office but the entire law establishment that seems to forget that there is a Public Defender’s office and Defense Attorneys.
once again, straw man.
I could have just as easily said “the entire defense team establishment that conveniently forgets there are victims of their clients”
see how easy that was?
DMG: “We suggest “Crime Victim of the Year” this is arguably the most offensive part of this editorial. It’s one thing to poke fun at DA’s and the legal system. It is quite another to attack victims of crime which includes raped and brutalized women.
Come David, you know that wasn’t poking fun at the victims, it was poking fun at the DA’s office. If you ever have watched how the victims advocates parade the victims around in the courtroom in front of the jury, you’d get the point. I still remember them doing it in the Solis trial, here this poor family was being used and it was obvious they had the wrong guy.
DMG: Come David, you know that wasn’t poking fun at the victims, it was poking fun at the DA’s office. If you ever have watched how the victims advocates parade the victims around in the courtroom in front of the jury, you’d get the point. I still remember them doing it in the Solis trial, here this poor family was being used and it was obvious they had the wrong guy.
No, I don’t know. I have only to go by what is written, and the way it appears, they are making fun of the victims. but now in defending them, you are attacking victim’s advocates. unbelievable. as if fighting on behalf of the victims who suffered is a bad thing, or deserving reproach, or the sarcastic comment you just made about “parading them in front of a jury”. So are you telling me, that the victims of rape should not be able to face the accused, or the jury and have their say about how they were treated or suffered?
[i]”If O.J. Simpson had been poor, he would have been convicted of murdering his wife. But he was rich and could afford the best private attorneys.”[/i]
Since he obviously did murder his wife and her friend, you seem to be saying that there is no justice if a defendant has money?
So you should be more explicit: we need more, low-paid, less competent defense attorneys in order to have justice.
I love that this new editorial board has come out in favor of giving jobs to less capable lawyers. Yours is a new, refreshing take, one we have not heard much before on the Vanguard website.
I am personally looking forward to your editorial on baseball, where you advocate in favor of worse pitchers in order to improve offensive outcomes.
The article surprised me. I quiet honestly didn’t think it was funny. It isn’t the type of thing coming out of Yolo Judicial Watch that we expect. The part about the DA’s 3 strikes was right on, however.
[quote]Elaine: This is not an article, it’s an editorial. It is not supposed to be objective.[/quote]
Okay, this is just too much for me and so completely outrageous, I’m going to take the gloves off, which is quite uncharacteristic of me, so I apologize to readers in advance.
Can we assume then from the above statement that your judicial watch articles (overseen by this juvenile “editorial board” that wrote this asinine article) are “not supposed to be objective”? Thank you for confirming for me what I have suspected for some time – the Yolo Judicial Watch part of this blog is driven by a preconceived agenda that our local DA is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg, and there is not even a scintilla of pretense at objectivity. Have I got that about right? Your words – “it’s an editorial, it is not supposed to be objective” – not mine…
If you attempt to justify the above statement you made by trying to distinguish your Judicial Watch articles from the above piece written by your “editorial board”, I would note your editorial board provides no supervision whatsoever over the Judicial Watch articles written by you, but are merely a group of “cheerleaders” with your same agenda, giving you pats on the back for all the articles you have written critical of the DA.
In life, I have always observed that when someone criticizes you of something, more often than not it is what they themselves are guilty of. I find it very enlightening that this “editorial board” would accuse the DA of having a cheerleading section giving the DA pats on the back. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me…
We will have to agree to disagree on this one…
I think the article is hilarious. Seems to take some truth and blow it sky high. Better than some of the stories that the DA comes up…over the top unbelievable nonsense. Youve seemed to rile up the Musser clan pretty good with that one. I think your next editorial might be on “how can we get those Mussers to blog more than 2000 words next time?” hehehe. YJW Editorial = 791 words; ERM = 1115 words; Musser = 358 Words – I think we get it – Mussers didnt like the article but how come they couldnt say that in less words than the entire editorial? I remember seeing a comment from ERM that made claims of being “a friend” and “a supporter” seems more like a basher to me. When you repeatedly blog disastisfaction and do it with more than 1000 words! wow!
Technichic,
since word count is important to you, I’ll be brief. The article comes across as being written by total crackpots who love listening to themselves talk.
Done.
[quote]…over the top unbelievable nonsense.[/quote]
That exactly sums up the caliber of the article written by the so called “editorial board”.
Whether you like how the article was written (satire) or not, the article does hit upon some points and policies that need review and change.
1. Poor people are charged more, convitected more often, and are given longer sentences than rich people. Why?
2. People of color are charged more,convicted more often, and given longer sentences than whites. Why?
3. Our DA’s office tries to impose the three strikes rules on crimes that other DA’s would call a misdemeanor.
I think the point of the article was to highlight these problems in the justice system.
Elaine:
“Can we assume then from the above statement that your judicial watch articles (overseen by this juvenile “editorial board” that wrote this asinine article) are “not supposed to be objective”?”
What makes you believe that the articles are overseen by the editorial board? The Board spent a lot of time debating over how you criticize Law Day and decided that a satirical view would be a fun way to get the point across. Obviously it went against your sensibilities, but then again so do the straight up news stories.
“the Yolo Judicial Watch part of this blog is driven by a preconceived agenda that our local DA is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg, and there is not even a scintilla of pretense at objectivity.”
The Judicial Watch portion of the Vanguard watches court cases and watches over the system. We criticize the DA, but other aspects of the system including the Judges, Jurors, and current laws.
Editorials are not supposed to be objective, they are the opinion of the editorial board. Opinions vary from person to person. That’s different from a news story that describes what happened.
“I would note your editorial board provides no supervision whatsoever over the Judicial Watch articles written by you, but are merely a group of “cheerleaders” with your same agenda, giving you pats on the back for all the articles you have written critical of the DA. “
LOL. You have no idea.
“In life, I have always observed that when someone criticizes you of something, more often than not it is what they themselves are guilty of. I find it very enlightening that this “editorial board” would accuse the DA of having a cheerleading section giving the DA pats on the back. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me… “
You’re entitled to your opinion.
“The Board spent a lot of time debating over how you criticize Law Day and decided that a satirical view would be a fun way to get the point across. Obviously it went against your sensibilities, but then again so do the straight up news stories.”
the board ripped on victim’s rights advocates. You’ll have to forgive us if we fail to see the humor in that.
Actually what the board did was poke fun at the fact that the victim’s advocates are pawns of the DA’s office. You have never seen a trial to my knowledge David where the victim’s advocates parade the family of the victims around the courthouse in front of the jury trying to elicit sympathy. But they are being used.
You should have seen the Solis trial, they had ten people they were walking around the courthouse to watch this trial and it was obvious that the guy was not the shooter. Yeah the jury hung, but the DA then dropped the charges. You think the DA would drop the charges of a guy they believed was a murderer? No way. But they still put the family through all of that. That’s not compassion in the least. And that what was being mocked, not victims and not the concept of victim advocacy.
[quote]I think the point of the article was to highlight these problems in the justice system.[/quote]
Then the “editorial board” missed by a mile…
[quote]What makes you believe that the articles are overseen by the editorial board? [/quote]
Something you alluded to in a private conversation we had one time. Clearly I misunderstood what you meant. Can you explain to readers what the “editorial board” is for then, so it is clear what their function is? Would be helpful…
[quote]The Board spent a lot of time debating over how you criticize Law Day and decided that a satirical view would be a fun way to get the point across. [/quote]
Being offensive is hardly the way to get the point across. Secondly, at times I could not even tell what point the “editorial board” was trying to make, and apparently I was not alone. Perhaps your “editorial board” should go back and take English 101, or a Communications course. There are ways to be satirical, get a point across, and not be offensive. Basic journalism…
Not in the least, you and others are talking about the issues (as well as the medium).
“Being offensive is hardly the way to get the point across.”
Every read a Modest Proposal by Swift?
Not sure what was offensive about the piece, but fine. There will be a more standard editorial on Sunday.
To dmg: You still haven’t told readers what this editorial board does, or its specific function…
[quote]Every read a Modest Proposal by Swift? [/quote]
This is what you want your editorial board to emulate? –
”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled …”
I was never a big fan of Swift…
Elaine:
I laid this out a few months ago, it’s still a work in progress but this is the ultimate goal: link ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4309:yolo-judicial-watch-launches-editorial-board&Itemid=100[/url])
A Modest Proposal was a classic criticism. Do I want the board to emulate it? You’ll see how this works, as will I. This was just a fun intro piece that poked fun at the good old boys club.
Well said Elaine; especially in reference to the victim advocates, who, IMHO take their roles seriously — as victim’s rights are not merely codified, in the penal code but are CONSTITUTIONAL rights (CA Constitution, Art I sec 28 – if my memory serves me).
I concur – opinion or not – crude, poorly written & weak attempt to assuage leftists…
[quote]First, the board will oversee the news reporting operations, lending advice and oversight for the Judicial Watch Project. Second, the board will run periodic editorials on issues that arise during the course of our reporting. Third, it will have independence, separated from the news reporting function. [/quote]
[quote]What makes you believe that the articles are overseen by the editorial board?[/quote]
I would say your comment is in direct contradiction to what you say is the function of the “editorial board”.
[quote]A Modest Proposal was a classic criticism. Do I want the board to emulate it? You’ll see how this works, as will I. This was just a fun intro piece that poked fun at the good old boys club.[/quote]
So are you saying you want to emulate Swift’s style? Because that is what your statement sounds like. Secondly, your “editorial board” is not Swift by any stretch of the imagination. If they thought so, then they have delusions of grandeur. Thirdly, this may have been a “fun intro piece” to the editorial board, but apparently it was not a “fun intro piece” to many in the community. And IMHO it totally missed the mark as poking fun at the “good old boys club”, bc half the time I could not even tell what was being made fun of. Others did not “get it” either. As I said, your “editorial board” needs to take a basic English/journalism/communications class – and learn not to be so crass…