Podcasts about judicial conduct

Monday, a public hearing was held for the Massachusetts judge, Shelley Joseph, who is accused of helping a man sneak out the back of her Newton courthouse and evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Dan discussed the charges against Judge Joseph as the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct is moving forward with the power to recommend discipline but not removal.Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal probing allegations of sexual harrassment against Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenge has been adjourned. This is to allow evidence leader, Advocate Salome Scheepers an opportunity to furnish a summary of evidence by gender expert Lisa Vetten to Judge President Mbenenge's legal team. Earlier on, chairperson of the tribunal, reitred Judge President Bernard Ngoepe had ruled that Vetten's evidence should be heard by tribunal. Judge President Ngoepe explains...

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal has reserved its decision in relation to complaints lodged by ten judges of the Western Cape High Court and the Cape Bar Council against Judge Mushtak Parker. Judge Parker is facing allegations of lying under oath and lying by deposing to an affidavit which stated that he was physically assaulted allegedly by the then Judge President John Hlophe - who has since been impeached. The tribunal earlier noted that Judge Parker has failed by participate in the tribunal and has offered no apology nor has he disputed the allegations levelled against him. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC reporter, Canny Maphanga...

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal hearing of 10 Western Cape High Court judges who filed official complaints with the Judicial Service Commission against Judge Mushtak Parker is currently underway after it was postponed by about four years owing to his health condition. Judge Parker is facing allegations of lying under oath and lying by ommission. If found guilty of misconduct, he could face impeachment for allegedly providing conflicting versions of an alleged assault by former judge John Hlophe. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC reporter, Canny Maphanga..

GTP hosts Steve Lowery and Yvonne Godfrey delve into the riveting case of Donald Clark vs. the State of Iowa with guest Mel Orchard from the Spence Law Firm. They explore the wrongful conviction of Donald Clark, a school counselor accused of sexual assault in 2009, and the subsequent legal malpractice case against his public defender for inadequate representation. The discussion highlights the significant emotional and physical toll on Clark during his six and a half years in prison, the courtroom strategies employed, and the eventual $12 million verdict for emotional distress.   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review   Case Details: The case revolves around a legal malpractice action against a state public defender, who represented a client convicted of sexual abuse. The client, Donald Lyle Clark, was convicted and sentenced to prison. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. However, in postconviction proceedings, the court determined that Clark's defense counsel had provided ineffective assistance and ordered a new trial. The state declined to prosecute, and Clark filed a civil action for legal malpractice against the state as the lawyer's employer. The district court granted partial summary judgment, holding that the finding of ineffective assistance in the postconviction proceedings established counsel's negligence as a matter of law. The jury found the lawyer negligent and awarded Clark $12 million in emotional distress damages. The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the judgment for emotional distress damages. The court clarified that to recover emotional distress damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must prove more than negligence. The court held that the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that the criminal defense attorney acted with willful and wanton disregard for the client's rights or safety. The court concluded that the district court erred by instructing the jury that negligence was sufficient. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. (Source)   Guest Bio: Mel Orchard Mel Orchard is a trial lawyer, trying cases in the courtrooms across America, for the past 27 years. Mel has litigated and/or tried hundreds of cases in his career and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement and verdicts for his clients. During his trial career, Mel has been a part of record-breaking civil jury verdicts in various jurisdictions (Wyoming, Arizona, and Iowa). He has also devoted significant time to pro bono work through Lawyers and Advocates for Wyoming, and many local and national charities. In addition to preparing for trial or being in trial, Mel was a senior faculty member and board member at the Trial Lawyer's College in Wyoming and was recently selected to join the Board. Mel also lectures and presents to various legal organizations throughout the country including Bar Associations, Leadership Organizations and has taught Judicial Ethics to various groups of judges. He was Chairman for the Wyoming Commission for Judicial Conduct and Ethics where he served as a member for six years after appointment. Read Full Bio   Links: The Spence Law Firm on Facebook: Spence Law Firm Check out previous episodes and meet the GTP Team: Great Trials Podcast   Show Sponsors: Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

In the Second Century before the Common Era, the Jewish world was in an upheaval due largely to various splinter sects, such as the Sadducees and Boethusians, causing internal conflict and confusion among the nation. The two great leaders of the Jews at the time had many challenges on their hands. In this podcast we tell […]

This Day in Legal History: Gary Gilmore ExecutedOn January 17, 1977, Gary Gilmore was executed by firing squad in Utah, becoming the first person to be put to death in the United States after a 10-year pause in capital punishment. This execution followed the Supreme Court's landmark 1976 decision in Gregg v. Georgia, which reinstated the death penalty under revised statutes that addressed prior concerns about arbitrariness and fairness. Gilmore had been convicted of two murders committed during robberies in Utah and notably refused to appeal his death sentence, demanding instead that it be carried out promptly.His case drew significant public and media attention, particularly as it coincided with the reopening of the death penalty debate in the U.S. After the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia temporarily invalidated capital punishment, states had revised their laws to provide more structured sentencing guidelines. Gilmore's execution marked the first test of those reforms.The event reignited intense national debates over the morality, fairness, and efficacy of capital punishment. Proponents argued that it served as a deterrent and a just response to heinous crimes, while critics questioned its alignment with human rights principles and pointed to racial and socioeconomic disparities in its application. The firing squad method itself sparked further controversy over humane execution practices.Gilmore's case also influenced popular culture, inspiring Norman Mailer's Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Executioner's Song. His willingness to accept the penalty became a focal point in discussions about agency and justice within the death penalty system. The debates sparked by his execution continue to shape U.S. legal discourse, reflecting unresolved tensions over capital punishment in the American legal system.Pam Bondi, Trump's pick for attorney general, disclosed a net worth of $12.2 million, including nearly $3 million in Trump Media shares received after the public debut of Truth Social's parent company last year. Her financial disclosures, submitted during the Senate confirmation process, revealed significant earnings linked to Trump-related entities since leaving public service in 2019. Bondi earned $1.1 million as a lobbyist with Ballard Partners, a firm led by Trump fundraiser Brian Ballard, and $520,000 from the Trump-affiliated America First Policy Institute.She also reported earning $203,738 in 2024 as a lawyer with Panza, Maurer & Maynard, where her clients included Pfizer. Bondi's stake in Trump Media Technology Group includes $3 million in stock and warrants valued at $3.9 million as of December 2024, acquired as compensation for consulting services. Her financial disclosures showed $1.7 million in liabilities, largely from real estate mortgages and notes payable to relatives. Democrats expressed concerns about her close ties to Trump during her Senate hearing, questioning her independence if confirmed as attorney general.Trump AG Pick Bondi Discloses $3 Million in Truth Social StockDemocratic attorneys general are preparing to defend key Biden administration policies as Donald Trump is set to begin his second term as president. With Trump's plans to reverse rules on immigration, the environment, and transgender rights, AGs from over a dozen states, including California, New Jersey, and Michigan, have moved to intervene in legal cases. One major effort involves defending a Biden rule providing health insurance to immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, which is currently challenged by Republican AGs.These Democratic coalitions are also seeking to uphold Biden-era regulations on environmental protections, gun dealers, and firearm devices that allow rapid firing. New Jersey AG Matt Platkin emphasized their focus on protecting residents' rights and ensuring Trump's administration adheres to the rule of law. This strategy mirrors actions during Trump's first term when Democratic AGs filed 155 lawsuits against his policies, achieving an 83% success rate. However, the current legal landscape presents new challenges, with a more conservative judiciary shaped by Trump's earlier appointments. Democratic AG offices, however, are now more experienced, having honed their strategies in prior legal battles. Political experts anticipate numerous lawsuits targeting executive actions Trump may issue early in his term.Democratic states brace for Trump by launching defense of Biden policies | ReutersIn the latest development of the ongoing saga surrounding 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman, the Federal Circuit's Judicial Council has dismissed her appeal against suspension as "meritless." In a brief filed with the DC Circuit, the Council, alongside the Department of Justice, argued that Newman's claim—that her suspension amounts to unconstitutional removal without impeachment—should be rejected under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.Judge Newman, the oldest active federal judge, was suspended after refusing to cooperate with an investigation into her mental fitness. Her second one-year suspension from hearing new cases remains in effect, though the government maintains it is not permanent and could be lifted if she agrees to participate in the inquiry. Newman has challenged the suspension through administrative proceedings and an appeal in the DC Circuit, where her court, known for its jurisdiction over patent cases, is also located.The brief, representing Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and the Judicial Council, asserts that Congress distinguishes temporary suspensions from removal. Newman's legal team, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, continues to argue her case.97-Year-Old Judge's Suspension Appeal 'Meritless,' Council SaysThe Biden administration will leave enforcement of the TikTok ban to the incoming Trump administration, signaling no immediate action to force the app offline when a new law targeting the platform takes effect. While TikTok itself could shut down to highlight the law's impact on its 170 million U.S. users, the Biden administration stated it will not enforce the ban, instead emphasizing that TikTok should operate under American ownership. The law imposes penalties on tech companies like Apple and Google if they continue providing services to TikTok while it remains under ByteDance's ownership, exposing them to significant financial risk. However, any delay in enforcement would require the president to grant an extension under strict conditions, none of which TikTok has met. Efforts in Congress to extend the deadline have stalled, with security concerns raised by lawmakers like Senator Tom Cotton blocking attempts to provide ByteDance with more time to divest.President-elect Trump has signaled openness to negotiating a resolution to keep TikTok operational, citing its value to his campaign and young voters. Discussions within his team include a potential executive order to delay the ban while exploring ways to safeguard user data. The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on the law, though justices have expressed concerns about national security risks tied to TikTok's Chinese ownership. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders, including Senator Chuck Schumer, are urging further action to balance security, privacy, and the platform's continued availability.Biden administration will leave it to Trump to implement TikTok ban - ABC NewsThis week's closing theme is by Giuseppe Verdi (1813-1901). Verdi is one of the most celebrated composers in the history of opera, renowned for his ability to blend dramatic storytelling with deeply emotive music. A central figure in 19th-century Italian opera, Verdi's works, including La Traviata, Rigoletto, and Aida, remain staples of the repertoire worldwide. His music often reflected his passion for Italian nationalism and human emotion, making his operas timeless in their appeal. Among his earliest triumphs was Nabucco (1842), a work that established him as a leading composer and marked the start of his long and illustrious career.Nabucco, Verdi's third opera, tells the story of the plight of the Israelites under the rule of the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (Nabucco). Its overture, a brilliant instrumental prelude, captures the opera's dramatic intensity and stirring themes. The piece begins with ominous, foreboding chords that hint at the struggles to come, followed by a sweeping and heroic melody that reflects the resilience and hope central to the story. The overture's dynamic shifts and richly textured orchestration showcase Verdi's ability to infuse orchestral music with the same dramatic power found in his vocal writing.Notably, Nabucco became a symbol of Italian unification during the Risorgimento, with its famous chorus "Va, pensiero" resonating as an anthem of liberation. While the overture does not include this iconic melody, it captures the essence of the opera's emotional and political undertones. As this week's closing theme, the Nabucco overture offers a perfect blend of drama, passion, and triumph, embodying Verdi's mastery and the timeless power of his music.Without further ado, Giuseppe Verdi's overture from Nabucco. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Day five of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal hearing the sexual harassment allegations against Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge continued on Friday. The judge's secretary, Andiswa Mengo, continued her testimony, saying the judge allegedly sent her a video of his private parts, calling it a python. If Judge Mbenenge is found guilty, he could be impeached from his position as Judge President.

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal probing sexual harassment allegations against Judge President Selby Mbenenge has sought to understand why the complainant told him to "earn it" in response to his persistent requests for her images. This as the whatsapp message exchanges between the pair were put under the spotlight on the second day of the tribunal. According to the witness, Andiswa Mengo - the interactions which took place between June 2021 and November 2022 via in-person and electronic communication - were unwanted. Mengo spoke through an interpreter when she was probed on her "earn it" response. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC reporter, Canny Maphanga

A landmark case starts today where Judge President Selby Mbenenge faces allegations of sexual harassment. This groundbreaking case marks the first time a sitting judge in South Africa will be formally investigated for such allegations, potentially setting a precedent for handling similar cases within the judiciary. The Judicial Conduct Tribunal is due to hear evidence from a secretary in the judiciary, who reported unwanted interactions with Judge Mbenenge during 2021 and 2022. For more, Elvis Presslin spoke to Judges Matters Researcher and Advocacy Officer, Mbekezeli Benjamin

Wade Wilson, the 30-year-old convicted murderer dubbed the “Deadpool Killer,” is receiving an unexpected wave of support from women and other backers despite his conviction for the brutal slaying of two women in 2019. Wilson, who is currently on death row, has been inundated with nearly 4,000 messages from prison, many of which include inappropriate X-rated photos. Authorities have had to reject 163 such images. As the August 27, 2024 sentencing date approaches, Wilson's supporters have flooded the chambers of Lee County Circuit Judge Nicholas R. Thompson, imploring him to spare Wilson's life. This flood of letters and pleas comes despite a jury's recommendation for the death penalty. Among Wilson's supporters is a woman from Visalia, California, who has pledged her undying devotion to the killer. “As someone who cares unconditionally for Wade, I have deeply reflected on the gravity of the situation and impact of your decision,” she wrote in a letter to the judge. Another supporter, a mother of two, argued that Wilson has changed since his incarceration. “If you look past his tattoos to his face structure since being in prison and medicated, he is healthier,” she wrote, suggesting that his current appearance is an improvement over his gaunt booking photo. However, legal experts caution that these emotional appeals are unlikely to influence the court. According to The Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are prohibited from considering communications made outside of the courtroom, ensuring that only evidence presented during the trial will impact the final decision. Wilson's case is marked by its extreme violence and depravity. On October 7, 2019, Wilson met Kristine Melton, 35, and her friend Stephanie Sailors at Buddah LIVE, a bar in Fort Myers. After closing time, Wilson accompanied Melton and Sailors to the home of Jayson Shepard, where they spent several hours. The next morning, Wilson, Melton, and Sailors went to Melton's Cape Coral home. After Sailors left, Wilson strangled Melton to death while she slept and then stole her car. Later that day, Wilson encountered Diane Ruiz, 43, walking along a Cape Coral street. He asked her for directions and lured her into his car. When Ruiz attempted to exit the vehicle, Wilson attacked her, beating and strangling her before pushing her out of the car and running over her multiple times. Wilson confessed to his crimes in graphic detail to his father, Steven Testasecca, who subsequently contacted the authorities. Wilson was arrested on October 8, 2019. During his confession, Wilson described his actions as “killing for the sake of killing,” telling police, “I came across my mind to murder, just kill, kill, kill.” Wilson was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, grand theft, burglary of a dwelling, battery, and petit theft. Despite efforts to present himself in a more favorable light for the jury, including covering his tattoos and wearing a new suit, the jury recommended the death penalty for both murders on June 25, 2024. This recommendation came after a trial phase where jurors considered both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In a shift from previous Florida law, which required unanimous jury recommendations for the death penalty, a new statute signed by Governor Ron DeSantis in April 2023 allows for a death sentence recommendation with as few as eight jurors voting in favor. The jury in Wilson's trial voted 9-3 and 10-2 in favor of death, making their recommendation a significant legal step toward a potential execution. Wilson's sentencing, initially scheduled for July 23, 2024, was delayed after his attorneys requested additional time due to scheduling conflicts with two court-appointed mental health experts. The sentencing has been rescheduled to August 27, 2024. Additionally, Wilson's legal team has filed a motion for a new trial or acquittal on the murder charges and other counts, though Judge Thompson has yet to rule on these motions. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Karen Read Trial, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Wade Wilson, the 30-year-old convicted murderer dubbed the “Deadpool Killer,” is receiving an unexpected wave of support from women and other backers despite his conviction for the brutal slaying of two women in 2019. Wilson, who is currently on death row, has been inundated with nearly 4,000 messages from prison, many of which include inappropriate X-rated photos. Authorities have had to reject 163 such images. As the August 27, 2024 sentencing date approaches, Wilson's supporters have flooded the chambers of Lee County Circuit Judge Nicholas R. Thompson, imploring him to spare Wilson's life. This flood of letters and pleas comes despite a jury's recommendation for the death penalty. Among Wilson's supporters is a woman from Visalia, California, who has pledged her undying devotion to the killer. “As someone who cares unconditionally for Wade, I have deeply reflected on the gravity of the situation and impact of your decision,” she wrote in a letter to the judge. Another supporter, a mother of two, argued that Wilson has changed since his incarceration. “If you look past his tattoos to his face structure since being in prison and medicated, he is healthier,” she wrote, suggesting that his current appearance is an improvement over his gaunt booking photo. However, legal experts caution that these emotional appeals are unlikely to influence the court. According to The Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are prohibited from considering communications made outside of the courtroom, ensuring that only evidence presented during the trial will impact the final decision. Wilson's case is marked by its extreme violence and depravity. On October 7, 2019, Wilson met Kristine Melton, 35, and her friend Stephanie Sailors at Buddah LIVE, a bar in Fort Myers. After closing time, Wilson accompanied Melton and Sailors to the home of Jayson Shepard, where they spent several hours. The next morning, Wilson, Melton, and Sailors went to Melton's Cape Coral home. After Sailors left, Wilson strangled Melton to death while she slept and then stole her car. Later that day, Wilson encountered Diane Ruiz, 43, walking along a Cape Coral street. He asked her for directions and lured her into his car. When Ruiz attempted to exit the vehicle, Wilson attacked her, beating and strangling her before pushing her out of the car and running over her multiple times. Wilson confessed to his crimes in graphic detail to his father, Steven Testasecca, who subsequently contacted the authorities. Wilson was arrested on October 8, 2019. During his confession, Wilson described his actions as “killing for the sake of killing,” telling police, “I came across my mind to murder, just kill, kill, kill.” Wilson was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, grand theft, burglary of a dwelling, battery, and petit theft. Despite efforts to present himself in a more favorable light for the jury, including covering his tattoos and wearing a new suit, the jury recommended the death penalty for both murders on June 25, 2024. This recommendation came after a trial phase where jurors considered both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In a shift from previous Florida law, which required unanimous jury recommendations for the death penalty, a new statute signed by Governor Ron DeSantis in April 2023 allows for a death sentence recommendation with as few as eight jurors voting in favor. The jury in Wilson's trial voted 9-3 and 10-2 in favor of death, making their recommendation a significant legal step toward a potential execution. Wilson's sentencing, initially scheduled for July 23, 2024, was delayed after his attorneys requested additional time due to scheduling conflicts with two court-appointed mental health experts. The sentencing has been rescheduled to August 27, 2024. Additionally, Wilson's legal team has filed a motion for a new trial or acquittal on the murder charges and other counts, though Judge Thompson has yet to rule on these motions. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Karen Read Trial, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

This Day in Legal History: Weimar Republic BornOn July 31, 1919, the Constitution of the German Reich was signed in Weimar, Germany, marking the birth of the Weimar Republic. This constitution established a full democracy in Germany, introducing a President, Parliament, and an independent judiciary to govern the nation. It was a groundbreaking document, making Germany the first nation to grant women the right to vote, thus setting a precedent for gender equality in Europe. The Weimar Constitution aimed to create a balance of power, with the President holding significant authority, including emergency powers, while the Parliament, or Reichstag, was responsible for legislation.The Constitution also enshrined civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and sought to create a welfare state with provisions for unemployment benefits and worker protections. Despite these progressive elements, the Weimar Republic faced numerous challenges, including political extremism, economic instability, and societal divisions. These issues ultimately undermined the Republic, leading to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933, which brought an end to the Weimar era.The Weimar Constitution is often studied as a significant yet flawed attempt at democracy in a turbulent period of German history, highlighting both the potential and vulnerabilities of democratic governance. This event underscores the importance of stable political and economic foundations in maintaining a democratic system.Law school graduates typically pay over $1,000 to take the bar exam, but this fall, they have a chance to earn $1,500 by participating in a beta test for the National Conference of Bar Examiners' (NCBE) new NextGen Bar exam. This revamped exam, set to debut in July 2026, is seeking about 2,200 participants from the 46,000 taking the 2024 bar exam for an October trial run. Researchers will use the prototype to compare results with the current exam and to develop a new national score scale. The trial will also evaluate the effectiveness of individual questions and assist jurisdictions in setting their passing scores.The NextGen Bar exam, developed in response to criticisms that the existing test doesn't reflect actual law practice, aims to be more skills-oriented and less reliant on rote memorization. It will be nine hours long, split over two days, compared to the current exam's 12 hours. The new exam will be administered on computers instead of paper. So far, 21 jurisdictions plan to adopt the new exam between July 2026 and July 2028. The prototype test will be conducted in 32 states on October 18-19 or October 25-26, with sign-ups from August 19-29, targeting graduates from both ABA-accredited and non-ABA-accredited law schools, including first-time and repeat bar takers.Bar exam officials offer law grads $1,500 to beta test revised exam | ReutersMeta Platforms has agreed to a $1.4 billion settlement with Texas to resolve a lawsuit accusing the company of illegally using facial-recognition technology to collect biometric data from millions of Texans without their consent. This settlement, announced on July 30, 2024, is the largest ever reached by a single state. The lawsuit, filed in 2022, was the first significant case under Texas' 2009 biometric privacy law, which allows for damages of up to $25,000 per violation. Texas claimed that Facebook, Meta's subsidiary, captured biometric data billions of times from user-uploaded photos and videos via the "Tag Suggestions" feature, which has since been discontinued.Meta, while pleased with the settlement, continues to deny any wrongdoing and is considering future business investments in Texas, such as developing data centers. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the settlement, emphasizing the state's commitment to holding major tech companies accountable for privacy violations. This agreement was reached in May, just weeks before a trial was scheduled to begin. In a similar case, Meta paid $650 million in 2020 to settle a biometric privacy lawsuit under Illinois law. Meanwhile, Google is currently contesting a separate lawsuit in Texas over alleged violations of the state's biometric law.Meta to Pay Record $1.4 Billion to End Texas Biometric Suit (2)Meta to pay $1.4 billion to settle Texas facial recognition data lawsuit | ReutersThe Senate passed landmark legislation aimed at making social media platforms safer for children, marking significant congressional action to regulate the tech industry for the first time in over 25 years. In a bipartisan vote of 91-3, senators approved two bills to enhance privacy and safety for kids on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat. The legislation now moves to the House, where its future is uncertain due to a tight legislative schedule and concerns about potential impacts on free speech and user privacy.The push for regulation comes amid growing public pressure to address the mental health risks posed to children by social media, including addictive algorithms and harmful content. The Biden administration, mental health advocates, and parents have been vocal in demanding action. The Senate's overwhelming support is seen as a potential catalyst for House approval.The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) form the legislative package. KOSA aims to create a "duty of care" for social media companies to prevent harm like suicide and eating disorders by regulating app design features. Violations would be penalized by the Federal Trade Commission. COPPA 2.0 updates a 1998 law to prevent companies from collecting personal information from teens aged 13-16 without consent and bans targeted advertising to kids.Opponents argue that the bills could lead to online censorship, but supporters counter that the focus is on platform design, not content. Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Wyden voted against the measures, citing censorship concerns. However, co-sponsor Sen. Marsha Blackburn insists the bills are about providing tools for parents and kids to protect themselves online.House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed interest in reaching an agreement on the proposals. Sen. Richard Blumenthal hopes the House will recognize the urgency of protecting children online and act accordingly.Big Tech Gets Rare Rebuke in Senate With Kids' Privacy RulesA federal watchdog report revealed that judiciary employees filed 17 complaints against federal judges from fiscal 2020 to 2022, highlighting issues like abusive conduct, religious discrimination, and pregnancy-related harassment. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that some judges faced consequences, such as private reprimands or findings of creating hostile work environments. These complaints were processed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Additionally, judiciary employees filed 161 employment dispute resolution complaints, containing over 500 allegations, primarily of discrimination.The report noted a rise in allegations from 124 in fiscal 2020 to 336 in fiscal 2022. This increase could be due to improved trust in reporting mechanisms or the return to in-person work post-pandemic. The GAO emphasized that judiciary employees' protections are similar to those for most federal employees, though some protections are more limited. The judiciary's training materials align with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) practices, but inconsistencies exist across circuits.The GAO recommended that the judiciary start tracking informal reports of workplace misconduct to better understand and address the scope of the problem. Currently, this data isn't collected, potentially leading to an undercount of incidents. A national climate survey conducted last year might help evaluate policy effectiveness, though its data wasn't ready in time for the GAO report. The Administrative Office of the US Courts cooperated with the GAO study, facilitating interviews with various judiciary personnel despite some delays.It is worth noting that, short of impeachment, there is little that can be done to truly reprimand a federal judge. US Court Staff Filed 17 Complaints Against Judges, Watchdog SaysThe Fifth Circuit Court ruled that Texas can maintain a floating river barrier on the Mexico border, marking a significant victory for Governor Greg Abbott against the Biden Administration. This decision overturns a previous preliminary injunction by a federal trial court, which had ordered Texas to cease work on the 1,000-foot barrier and move it to the riverbank. Judge Don R. Willett stated that the district court erred in its judgment, contradicting long-standing precedent.The case is scheduled to return to the district court for trial on August 6 in Austin, Texas. The ruling also reverses an earlier Fifth Circuit panel decision that had upheld the district court's injunction. Judges Andrew S. Oldham, Priscilla Richman, and James C. Ho provided concurring opinions, with Ho partially dissenting, arguing that federal courts may lack jurisdiction since Abbott invoked the federal invasion clause in response to the immigration crisis.During oral arguments, some conservative judges suggested that the barrier is lawful under the premise that Texas has the right to defend itself against a migrant invasion. Texas has used the invasion clause to justify other border policies that typically fall under federal jurisdiction. Other judges contended that the Rio Grande stretch with the barrier is not navigable, meaning Texas did not violate the federal Rivers and Harbors Act. The barriers have been in place since January, pending the full court's review of the panel's decision favoring Biden.Texas Can Maintain Floating Border Barriers, Fifth Circuit Rules This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal tasked with probing a complaint against suspended Judge Tintswalo Makhubele has convened in Johannesburg as hearings continue into the allegations leveled against Makhubele .The civil civil society organisation, #UniteBehind, alleges that Makhubele violated the separation of powers principle by being both a Judge and chairperson of a state-owned company and allegedly advancing corruption and state capture. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC reporter, Zoleka Qodashe...

This Day in Legal History: Operation SataniqueOn July 10, 1985, French intelligence agents bombed the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbor, New Zealand. This covert operation, codenamed "Operation Satanique," aimed to prevent the vessel from protesting French nuclear tests in the South Pacific. The attack resulted in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and the tragic death of Portuguese photographer Fernando Pereira.The incident quickly escalated into an international scandal, straining diplomatic relations between France and New Zealand. In the aftermath, two French agents, Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur, were apprehended and sentenced to ten years in a New Zealand prison for manslaughter. However, under international pressure, a deal was struck that allowed the agents to serve their sentences on a French-controlled island in the Pacific.Litigation between France and New Zealand ensued, culminating in a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In this landmark case, New Zealand sought compensation for the attack and the breach of its sovereignty. The ICJ ruling required France to pay New Zealand $7 million in damages and issue a formal apology, marking a significant moment in international law and state accountability.This event highlighted the tensions surrounding nuclear testing and environmental activism during the Cold War era. It also underscored the importance of respecting international law and the sovereignty of nations. The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior remains a poignant reminder of the lengths to which states might go to protect their interests, often at great moral and legal cost. The case of New Zealand v. France before the International Court of Justice demonstrated the legal processes and repercussions when a nation's sovereignty is violated by another state. This case emphasized the role of the ICJ in resolving international disputes and upholding international law.Alec Baldwin's trial for the 2021 fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the "Rust" movie set has turned its focus on the Colt .45 "Peacemaker" revolver involved. Jury selection occurred in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with Baldwin and his wife in attendance. The trial, starting almost three years after the incident, sees prosecutors and defense lawyers questioning jurors about their knowledge of the case and Baldwin's influence as a public figure.The case is unprecedented in U.S. history, as actors rarely face criminal charges for on-set fatalities. Baldwin could face up to 18 months in prison if convicted. The "Rust" armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, was previously found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for mistakenly loading a live round into the gun, receiving an 18-month sentence.A crucial point in the trial is whether Baldwin should have inspected the gun after being told it was "cold," meaning it should have been empty or contained dummy rounds. Baldwin has stated he did not pull the trigger, but an FBI examination found the gun would not fire without the trigger being pulled. Baldwin's defense argues that the gun was modified, potentially allowing it to fire without a trigger pull, but the FBI destroyed the gun during testing, complicating the defense's ability to prove this claim. Legal experts suggest that the condition of the firearm and its modifications will be central to the trial's outcome.Alec Baldwin manslaughter trial revolves around Wild West gun | ReutersJudge Pauline Newman, a 97-year-old member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, lost her lawsuit seeking reinstatement after being suspended for alleged cognitive and physical impairments due to age. Newman challenged her suspension, arguing that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, which governs the removal of judges, was unconstitutional. However, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper dismissed her claims, asserting that the law does not violate due process rights. Newman's attorney announced plans to appeal the decision.The Federal Circuit suspended Newman in September for at least a year or until she complies with court-ordered medical examinations. Chief Judge Kimberly Moore highlighted Newman's alleged cognitive decline and lack of cooperation with mental health inquiries. Newman, a notable figure in patent law, has defended her fitness for duty, citing favorable medical reports and maintaining public appearances.This case marks a rare public debate over judicial fitness, coinciding with broader discussions about age and capability in public office. The Federal Circuit's judicial council has demanded further explanation from Newman regarding her suspension, signaling potential for the suspension's extension due to her continued non-cooperation.US judge, 97, loses lawsuit seeking reinstatement | Reuters97-Year-Old Judge Newman to Appeal Loss in Suspension Suit (3)A D.C. Circuit panel ruled that Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and a pro-Clinton PAC, Correct the Record, must face claims of improperly disclosing millions in expenditures. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) dismissed a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center, alleging violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The court found that the FEC's dismissal was "contrary to law" as it stretched exemptions for internet spending beyond legal limits.The court emphasized that campaign committees must disclose coordinated expenditures as contributions, with exemptions only for unpaid internet communications. The Campaign Legal Center accused the Clinton campaign of accepting undisclosed contributions from Correct the Record, including opposition research and media activities. The ruling requires the FEC to clarify the internet exemption's bounds and consider enforcement actions against the Clinton campaign and Correct the Record. If the FEC does not act within 30 days, the Campaign Legal Center can pursue a private lawsuit.The D.C. Circuit's decision upholds a lower court ruling that the FEC's dismissal was unlawful. It also highlighted how the FEC's interpretation of exemptions could allow circumvention of campaign finance laws. The case has been remanded to the district court and then back to the FEC for further action. Judges J. Michelle Childs and Harry T. Edwards joined in the opinion.Clinton Campaign Case to Prompt Review of Disclosure Exemption This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

It's Monday, July 1st, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Ugandan Muslims murdered Ugandan evangelist An evangelist who had received death threats from Muslim extremists was murdered after leading Muslims to Christ in eastern Uganda, reports Morning Star News. The body of 36-year-old evangelist Richard Malinga was found in the evening at Kayete Swamp in the Butebo District after he had texted his pastor that he was surrounded by Muslims. A local resident found the victim dead, in a pool of blood, and tied with ropes. Please pray that God would unmistakenly reveal Himself to these Muslim murderers, that they would repent, and profess Jesus Christ as their Savior. Biden v. Trump: Differing visions on the economy During last Thursday night's presidential debate, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump laid out starkly different visions. BIDEN: “His economy, he rewarded the wealthy. He had the largest tax cut in American history -- $2 trillion. You raised the deficit larger than any President has in any one term. He's the only president of the Herbert Hoover who's lost more jobs than he had when he began, since Herbert Hoover.” TRUMP: “The only thing he was right about is I gave you the largest tax cut in history. That's why we had all the jobs and the jobs went down and then they bounced back. “He's taking credit for bounced back jobs. You can't do that. He also said he inherited 9% inflation. No, he inherited almost no inflation and it stayed that way for 14 months. And then it blew up under his leadership because they spent money like a bunch of people that didn't know what they were doing. And they don't know what they were doing. It was the worst, probably the worst administration in history.” Biden falsely claimed he has better control of border than Trump Jake Tapper asked President Biden about the open border which he sanctioned. TAPPER: “President Biden, a record number of migrants have illegally crossed the southern border on your watch, overwhelming border states and overburdening cities such as New York and Chicago, and in some cases, causing real safety and security concerns. Given that, why should voters trust you to solve this crisis?” BIDEN: “Because we worked very hard to get a bipartisan agreement that not only changed all of that, but made sure that we are in a situation where you had no circumstance where they could come across the border with the number of border police that there are now. We significantly increased the number of asylum officers. “What I've done, since I've changed the law, what's happened? I've changed it in a way that now they're 40% fewer people coming across the border illegally. It's better than when he left office. And I'm going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the total initiative, relative to what we can do with more Border Patrol and more asylum officers.” TAPPER: “President Trump?” TRUMP: “I really don't know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don't think he knows what he said, either. “Look, we had the safest border in the history of our country. All he had to do was leave it. He decided to open up our border, open up our country to people that are from prisons, people that are from mental institutions, insane asylum, terrorists. We have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now, all terrorists, all over the world, not just in South America, all over the world they come from the Middle East, everywhere. “He didn't need legislation because I didn't have legislation. I said, ‘Close the border.' We had the safest border in history. In that final couple of months of my presidency, we had the safest border in history. Now, we have the worst border in history.” Are Trump supporters a threat to American democracy? Tapper asked Biden to defend one of his wild campaign claims. JAKE TAPPER: “President Biden, you have said, ‘Donald Trump and his [“Make America Great Again”] Republicans are determined to destroy American democracy. Do you believe that the tens of millions of Americans who are likely to vote for President Trump will be voting against American democracy?” BIDEN: “More they know about what he's done, yes. The more they know about what he's done.” Biden's committed to veto any national abortion ban On the abortion question, Biden committed to veto any national abortion ban if the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate and he is re-elected. BIDEN: “What he going to do, if in fact the [“Make America Great Again” Republicans and he gets elected, and the MAGA Republicans control the Congress, and they pass a universal ban on abortion period across the board at six weeks or seven or eight or 10 weeks, something very, very conservative? Is he gonna sign that bill? I'll veto it. He'll sign it.” CNN Poll: Trump trounced Biden in debate Registered voters who watched CNN's presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump largely think Trump outperformed Biden, according to a CNN poll of debate watchers conducted by Social Science Research Solutions. In the poll, 67% thought Trump was the better debater.  And, oddly enough, 33% thought Biden won the debate, reports CNN. Most said they have no real confidence in Biden's ability to lead the country. Kelly Ann Conway: Biden “can't do the job” Appearing on Fox News Channel's Special Report with Brett Baier, former Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway was blunt in her analysis of Biden's debate performance. CONWAY: “Joe Biden asked for this debate. He basically begged for this debate to save his presidency. And he's now harmed it even more. “The serious point is the one that people take away from this, which is this: This is a man who can't do the job. What's wrong with that? By the way, can't we admit that everybody has a relative who's in a situation like this? I hope Joe Biden lives another 20 years. I just think it should be spent in Delaware ASAP. “You [Brett Baier] and Peter Doocy just said the two magic words as to why it's not easy to remove Joe Biden and hasn't been easy for the 18 months they should have done it: Kamala Harris, people fear her. The fact that you even mentioned [California Governor] Gavin Newsom and [Michigan Governor] Gretchen Whitmer. How are we not mentioning the black woman Vice President? It's because she shed 20 senior staffers, because nobody has confidence in her competence. They are scared about her being the president. And I think that's a very important point here.” Justice of peace cannot be forced to officiate “gay” faux weddings On Friday, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled in favor of Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Waco, who had been reprimanded for not performing homosexual faux weddings, reports The Christian Post. The court also reinstated her lawsuit against the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission had previously issued a public warning for her refusal to officiate faux homosexual weddings, citing a violation of judicial impartiality based on perverted sexual preference. Oklahoma requires a Bible in every classroom Oklahoma officials announced Thursday the state is requiring a copy of the Bible to be in every public school classroom, beginning immediately, reports The Oklahoman. In a press conference, Ryan Walters, Superintendent of Oklahoma Public Schools, explained that the Bible was essentially foundational to America. WALTERS: “The Bible is a necessary historical document to teach our kids about the history of this country, to have a complete understanding of Western civilization, to have an understanding of the basis of our legal system, and is frankly, we're talking about the Bible, one of the most foundational documents used for the Constitution and the birth of our country. “It is essential that our kids have an understanding of the Bible and its historical context.” Proverbs 30:5 says, “Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.” 32 Worldview listeners donated $6,837 And finally, toward our $84,000 final goal in our month-long fundraiser, 32 Worldview listeners stepped up to the plate on Friday and Saturday to help fund our 6-member team for another fiscal year. Our thanks to Julia in Goodyear, Arizona and Barbara in Hephzibah, Georgia – both of whom gave $10 as well as Faith in Thomson, Georgia, Micah and Anna in Canby, Oregon, and Jill in Saugerties, New York – each of whom gave $25. We appreciate Edwin in Cedar Hill, Princes Town, Trinidad who gave $30 as well as Cherise in Bennett, Colorado, Karen in Waterford, Wisconsin, and Theresa in Port Orchard, Washington – each of whom gave $50, Marie and Steven in Plainview, Texas who gave $62, 17-year-old Trevor in Madill, Oklahoma who gave $70, and Karl in Spicewood, Texas who gave $85 We're grateful to God for Janice in Prescott, Arizona, Heather in Eagle, Idaho, Helen in San Diego, California, Marty in Winchester, Oregon, Jody in Westerlo, New York, Micah in Buckeye, Arizona, Gabrielle in Goodyear, Arizona, Jan in  Greenville, South Carolina, and Thane in Robinson, Illinois – each of whom gave $100. We're thankful for the gifts of Kara in Abingdon, Virginia who pledged $10/month for 12 months for a gift of $120, Joel and Heidi in Columbus, Nebraska who gave $125, as well as Tom in Georgetown, Ontario, Canada and Sean in Burlington, Wisconsin – both of whom gave $200. We were touched by the sacrifice of Victoria in Paradise, Pennsylvania, Lisa in Tinton Falls, New Jersey, and Edwin in Wellsburg, Iowa – each of whom pledged $25/month for 12 months for a gift of $300, Debbie in Wurtsboro, New York who gave $300, Justin in Wray, Colorado who gave $500, David in Northumberland, Pennsylvania who pledged $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600, as well as David and Alexis in Crittendon, Kentucky who gave $2,500. Those 32 donors gave $6,837.  Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please. (sound effect of drum roll) $86,975! (audience cheering) We not only reached our $84,000 goal, but we surpassed it by $2,975.  On behalf of Rebekah Swanson and Kayla White who select the image and upload the newscast onto multiple platforms, Emily Munday who researches some of the stories, as well as Kevin Swanson, Jonathan Clark, and myself who write the newscast, thank you for voting with your treasure to enable us to continue for another year. Psalm 118:24 says, “This is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it." Why Kentucky listeners gave $2,500 to The Worldview And finally, on Saturday night, I called Alexis in Crittendon, Kentucky. She and her husband David made a $2,500 donation to The Worldview. She explained what she appreciates about the newscast. ALEXIS: “I like that it's from a Christian standpoint and that I can get the news without having to get all the junk with it in this day and age. I've been listening to it since I was 16. I just really appreciate you guys and all that you do with it.” She recalled one story that stood out. ALEXIS: “We live in Kentucky and there was that truck driver that went over the bridge that I heard about, but didn't really know the full story. But then you guys covered the full story. I really appreciated that and thought it was really neat that she was a Christian and that she was praying and everything during the whole circumstance and just how much of a miracle it was that they rescued her.” Here's a soundbite from that truck driver whose truck got into an accident on the bridge which sent it careening through the railing, and then was dangling above the Ohio River. TRUCK DRIVER: “If I start freaking out and screaming and moving around, the truck might fall into the river. I was praying. I was crying. And I was trying to just stay calm and just hope and pray that they would be able to get me out because I didn't think they will be able to.” When I told Alexis that the donation which her husband, David, and she had made, enabled us to meet and surpass our $84,000 fundraising goal, she said this. ALEXIS: “Praise the Lord! I'm so happy that we were able to help.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, July 1st, in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Another Trump trick to punish his arch enemy Judge Merchan presiding over the Trump criminal trial in New York has failed. The Judge just revealed that he was cleared of any ethics violations and received no reprimand because he made $35 worth of political contributions to Democratic causes. Michael Popok compares the ruling by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with the prior rulings in the Judge's favor by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics which also gave him a clean bill of health. Thanks to Field of Greens! Get 15% off your first order + free rush shipping at https://FieldOfGreens.com and use promo code MEIDAS! Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the quiet suburb of Cherry Hill, a respected rabbi orchestrates the brutal murder of his wife to pursue an affair with a radio host, unraveling a community's trust and exposing a tangled web of deceit and betrayal. Subscribe on your favorite podcasting apps: https://talkmurder.com/subscribeSupport us on patreon: https://patreon.com/talkmurderSee our technology: https://talkmurder.com/gearContent warning: the true crime stories discussed on this podcast can involve graphic and disturbing subject matter. Listener discretion is strongly advised.Fair use disclaimer: some materials used in this work are included under the fair use doctrine for educational purposes. Any copyrighted materials are owned by their respective copyright holders. Questions regarding use of copyrighted materials may be directed to legal [@] Talkocast.com

Justice Arthur Engoron, highly recognized for affixing a record penalty on previous U.S. President Donald Trump in a civil misrepresentation case pursued by New York Chief Law Officer Letitia James, is now under inspection. Accusations have arisen, stating the magistrate had confidential interactions with property attorney Adam Leitman Bailey, this incident transpired merely few weeks prior he sanctioned the significant $454 million charge on the former leader. The conduct of the judge is now under investigation by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, aiming to discern whether he acknowledged Bailey's unofficial counsel before issuing the substantial fine. According to a report from a local NBC station, the lawyer confessed that he had elucidated his concerns to the judge, specifically in relation to the use of the fraudulence statute in this scenario. Bailey argued that using the fraud statute to devastate a mammoth organization didn't align with its original purpose, especially when there were no apparent victims of the said fraud. Bailey cited his worries about the application of the law in this specific instance and projected that the verdict may have dire consequences on New York's financial landscape. Nevertheless, Justice Engoron, who had earlier dismissed a similar argument proposed by the legal representatives of the former President Trump in court, maintained that Bailey's counsel held no sway over his final decision. This series of events has been widely discussed, shedding light on the complexities of judicial advice and its potential influence on court rulings.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the quiet suburb of Cherry Hill, a respected rabbi orchestrates the brutal murder of his wife to pursue an affair with a radio host, unraveling a community's trust and exposing a tangled web of deceit and betrayal. Subscribe on your favorite podcasting apps: https://talkmurder.com/subscribeSupport us on patreon: https://patreon.com/talkmurderSee our technology: https://talkmurder.com/gearContent warning: the true crime stories discussed on this podcast can involve graphic and disturbing subject matter. Listener discretion is strongly advised.Fair use disclaimer: some materials used in this work are included under the fair use doctrine for educational purposes. Any copyrighted materials are owned by their respective copyright holders. Questions regarding use of copyrighted materials may be directed to legal [@] Talkocast.com

This Day in Legal History: Seventeenth Amendment Ratified On April 8, 1913, a significant transformation in American democracy was cemented with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, fundamentally altering the process for selecting U.S. Senators. Prior to this amendment, senators were chosen by state legislatures, a practice established by the original Constitution that aimed to ensure states' power within the federal system. However, this method was increasingly seen as flawed, particularly due to issues like corruption and deadlock within state legislatures, which often led to Senate seats remaining vacant for extended periods.The push for reform gained momentum in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as Progressive Era advocates argued for more direct democratic control over government. The Seventeenth Amendment represented a pivotal victory for these reformers, as it mandated the direct election of senators by the voting public of each state. This change was intended to make the Senate more responsive to the electorate's will, reduce corruption, and enhance the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded.The amendment's journey to ratification was a testament to the growing demand for political reform. After being passed by Congress in 1912, it was swiftly ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states, reflecting widespread public support for greater democratic involvement in federal government. This process also showcased the amendment mechanism outlined in the Constitution as a powerful tool for evolving the nation's governance structures in response to calls for change.The ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment marked a fundamental shift in the balance of power between state legislatures and the general electorate. By empowering citizens with the ability to directly elect their senators, it significantly expanded American democratic practices. This change not only reshaped the Senate but also had lasting implications for American politics, ensuring that senators would be more directly accountable to the people they represent.Today, the Seventeenth Amendment stands as a critical milestone in the ongoing development of American democracy, embodying the Progressive Era's ideals of increasing public participation and reducing undue influence in the legislative process. Its anniversary serves as a reminder of the enduring importance of democratic reform and the impact of constitutional amendments in shaping the trajectory of the United States.The New York State Bar Association's AI task force recently emphasized the privacy and confidentiality risks attorneys face when using artificial intelligence, urging them to be cautious with client data to prevent breaches. Approved guidelines advise lawyers on AI usage and advocate for educational efforts and comprehensive legislation to address regulatory gaps. While AI offers significant benefits like reducing errors and enhancing efficiency, it also poses privacy and cybersecurity threats. The task force highlighted the potential for AI to improve access to justice but warned against exacerbating the burden on the already overwhelmed court system through its increased use.Confidentiality issues are particularly concerning when information shared with AI, like chatbots, is used for AI training, suggesting that lawyers obtain client consent and ensure data protection. Attorneys are advised against relying solely on AI-generated content without verifying its accuracy and completeness. The report recommends using closed AI systems to mitigate privacy concerns and emphasizes the necessity for attorneys to understand the technology they use or seek assistance to fulfill their duty of competence.The task force pointed out that laws and regulations lag behind AI advancements, with unresolved questions about liability and intellectual property disputes involving AI training data. It calls for education on AI's legal applications and legislative attention to AI-related risks not covered by current laws. The report cautions against viewing AI as a panacea for access to justice issues, highlighting the risk of creating a two-tiered legal system where only the well-resourced benefit, potentially leaving underserved communities at a disadvantage.NY Bar Warns Attorneys of Privacy Risks Posed by AI ToolsA federal appeals court recently addressed a contentious issue of "judge shopping" by ruling against the transfer of a lawsuit challenging a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule on credit card late fees from Texas to Washington, D.C. This lawsuit, initiated by business and banking groups in Fort Worth, Texas, aimed to contest the CFPB's regulation that sought to cap "excessive" late fees, which the agency believes cost consumers approximately $12 billion annually. The CFPB's rule limits charges for late payments to $8 for credit card issuers with over 1 million open accounts, a significant decrease from the previously allowable charges of up to $30 or $41 for subsequent late payments. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals, on a 2-1 vote, sided with the plaintiffs, emphasizing the broader debate over the practice of selecting courts for their sympathetic judges. The dissenting opinion raised concerns about the impact of the ruling on district court discretion and the management of forum shopping. The case's transfer, prompted by a newly announced policy to curb "judge shopping," was nullified, underscoring the ongoing challenges in addressing this legal strategy.US court rejects transfer of credit card fees rule case amid focus on 'judge shopping' | ReutersFederal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman is making a determined effort to keep her lawsuit active, which contests her suspension from hearing cases under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. At 97 years old, Newman, the oldest active federal judge in the U.S. and the longest-serving member of the court that specializes in patent appeals, argues that the Act's provisions are unconstitutionally vague and improperly allowed her peers to suspend her without legitimate grounds. Her suspension came after she declined to undergo medical testing amid an investigation into her capability to serve, instigated by her colleagues at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.In her recent legal filings, Newman challenges not only her suspension but also the broader legal framework that enabled it, specifically criticizing the statute's provision for demanding medical records or psychiatric exams without adequate legal justification. She contends that the process used against her amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of Congress's sole authority to remove her from office and criticizes the vague criteria used to define a disqualifying mental disability.The legal battle has seen parts of Newman's lawsuit dismissed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper, though claims challenging the constitutionality of certain aspects of the Act remain under consideration. In response to a motion to dismiss these remaining claims, Newman and her legal team, represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, argue that the Act's vague definitions and lack of provisions for judicial review of decisions, including those authorizing access to private medical information, undermine its constitutionality.Newman's case, positioned against Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and other members of the Judicial Council, emphasizes a significant legal debate over the standards and procedures for evaluating the fitness of federal judges and the balance of power between judicial and legislative authorities.Newman Urges Judge Not to Dismiss Lawsuit Challenging Suspension Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal inquiry into the conduct of Gauteng high court Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela has been postponed to May, after his legal team notified the tribunal that the judge has been hospitalised. The Tribunal is chaired by retired Constitutional Court Justice Chris Jafta as it investigates complaints lodged against Maumela by Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo regarding alleged excessive delays in handing down a significant number of his judgments. Maumela, who presided over the Senzo Meyiwa trial, has been suspended alongside Judge Nomonde Mngqibisa -Thusi, pending the outcome of the tribunal inquiry. Yesterday the tribunal heard how Maumela took almost 5 years to conclude a single judgment. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC reporter, Horisani Sithole.

March 15, 2024 - We break down the 2024 annual report from the state Commission on Judicial Conduct and consider statutory changes to their oversight with Robert Tembeckjian, the organization's administrator.

Suspended Judge, Tintswalo "Nana" Makhubele has requested an adjournment of the proceedings looking into her conduct. Makhubele is appearing before the Judicial Conduct Tribunal in a misconduct probe lodged by civic organisation, #UniteBehind. It alleges that she violated the separation of powers principle by being both a judge and Chairperson of state owned company, Prasa. Zoleka Qodashe reports...

At the age of 96, Judge Pauline Newman is the nation's oldest federal judge. In 1984, Judge Newman became the first judge appointed directly to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In April of last year, reports surfaced that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore had initiated a complaint against Judge Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. Although the complaint was initially based on alleged “cognitive decline,” it later morphed to focus on her unwillingness to cooperate with Judge Moore's investigation. This program will provide an update on Judge Newman's case and discuss issues related to this most-unusual set of circumstances. This program coincides with panelist David Lat's recent interview with Judge Newman, available here, which allows viewers to hear Judge Newman in her own words. The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability released an opinion in the case, available here. Check out this recording for a discussion of Judge Newman's case, the state of judicial conduct, and more.Featuring: David Lat, Founder, Original JurisdictionProf. Arthur Hellman, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of LawModerator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

This Day in Legal History: David Dudley Field is Born On this day in legal history, we commemorate the birth of David Dudley Field, a pivotal figure in the codification of American law, born in Haddam, Connecticut, on February 13, 1805. Field's contributions to the legal landscape of the United States are monumental, as he tirelessly worked towards the simplification and organization of legal statutes and procedures. A graduate of Williams College, Field embarked on a legal career that would see him become one of the most influential legal reformers of the 19th century.Field believed that the law should be accessible and understandable to every American, not just those formally trained in the legal profession. This belief drove him to advocate for the codification of both civil and criminal law, leading to the drafting of the Field Code in 1848. The Field Code revolutionized the practice of law by systematizing civil procedure into a coherent body of statutes, making it a model that would eventually be adopted, in whole or in part, by many states across the country.Moreover, Field's efforts extended beyond civil law into the realms of criminal law, political, and commercial codes, striving for a comprehensive codification that would standardize legal practice across the United States. His work laid the groundwork for future legal codification and reform, influencing not only American law but also legal systems in other countries.Field's legacy is a testament to his vision of a more rational and efficient legal system. Through his pioneering efforts in legal codification, David Dudley Field helped shape the foundation of modern American jurisprudence. On the anniversary of his birth, we recognize Field not just as a champion of legal codification, but as a visionary who sought to democratize the law and enhance its clarity and fairness for all. His contributions continue to resonate within the legal community, marking him as one of the most significant legal figures in American history.Donald Trump has requested the U.S. Supreme Court to maintain a hold on his criminal trial related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election outcome while he appeals against a lower court's decision that denied him immunity from prosecution. This move introduces a second significant case involving Trump to the Supreme Court amidst his campaign for re-election, with the court already evaluating his eligibility for the presidential ballot due to his involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Trump aims to pause a federal appeals court ruling that permits his prosecution for allegedly seeking to illegally remain in power, challenging the notion that a president could have the 'unbounded authority' to commit crimes undermining election results.Trump, currently leading the Republican nomination race, faces the prospect of being the first major party candidate to undergo a criminal trial during a presidential campaign. This is one of four criminal cases against him, including another election-related prosecution in Georgia and a case concerning hush money payments. Trump has sought to delay these trials until after the November 2024 election, suggesting that a victory would allow him to direct the Justice Department to dismiss the cases.A Supreme Court denial of Trump's request could lead to the scheduling of a new trial date by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Trump's legal team has argued that proceeding with the trial would infringe upon his First Amendment rights and that of his supporters, potentially sidelining him during the campaign season. They contend that Trump's actions leading up to the Capitol riot were within his official presidential duties, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity in civil suits. The special counsel has emphasized the urgency of resolving Trump's immunity claims, suggesting the Supreme Court's role in addressing these critical legal questions.Trump Asks Supreme Court to Keep DC Election Trial on Hold (2)Trump asks US Supreme Court to intervene in his immunity bid | ReutersIn 2023, global law firm Hogan Lovells reported record-breaking revenues and partner profits, indicating a significant rebound in the legal industry's profitability. The firm's average profit per equity partner surged by approximately 20% to $2.74 million, with global revenue climbing to $2.68 billion, recovering from a dip to about $2.43 billion in 2022. This growth comes in the context of a broader legal sector recovery, with many U.S. and global law firms experiencing a turnaround after a relatively slower 2022, marked by decreased demand for M&A and other legal services.Legal industry analyses, including those from Wells Fargo's Legal Specialty Group and the Thomson Reuters Law Firm Financial Index, highlighted 2023 as a year of increased revenue and profitability for law firms on average. However, the success was not uniform across the board, with a Citigroup survey revealing that while the average profits per equity partner grew by 6.6%, 39% of firms saw a decline in partner profits.Hogan Lovells' CEO Miguel Zaldivar attributed the firm's successful growth to its diversified geographic presence, practice areas, and industry sectors, avoiding overreliance on any single market. Under Zaldivar's leadership, who was reappointed for a second term until June 2028, the firm aims to continue its growth, especially in life sciences, technology, energy, financial services, and mobility sectors, focusing on expansion in New York, California, and Texas.The firm, which emerged from a 2010 merger and now boasts over 2,600 lawyers globally, has also been active in strategic hiring. In November, it added nearly 70 lawyers from the dissolved New York firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, alongside other recent hires in Italy and the U.S., bolstering its capabilities in finance, M&A, capital markets, and tax law. These moves are part of Hogan Lovells' strategy to achieve its 2024 goals and further solidify its position in the legal market.Law firm Hogan Lovells reports revenue, profit highs in 2023 | ReutersJudge Pauline Newman's lawsuit against her suspension from the Federal Circuit faces significant challenges after a federal judge, Christopher R. Cooper, denied her preliminary relief and dismissed several claims. Newman, 96, was suspended in September 2023 for refusing medical testing related to an investigation into her fitness to serve. Cooper's ruling found that the US District Court for the District of Columbia lacks jurisdiction over many of Newman's claims or that they failed to state a claim, significantly reducing her lawsuit's scope.Despite Newman's challenges to the suspension, Cooper ruled she isn't entitled to immediate reinstatement, citing a lack of likelihood in prevailing on her remaining claims. The suspension was part of the judiciary's self-regulatory measures under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, a framework upheld by Supreme Court precedent, which Newman contests as unconstitutional.Parts of Newman's legal battle focus on the Act's application and the constitutional challenges it presents, particularly regarding the judiciary's authority to enforce disciplinary actions and define mental disabilities. Cooper did allow some parts of Newman's lawsuit to proceed, mainly those challenging the Act's underlying provisions and her claim that the law fails to clearly define what constitutes a mental disability.However, even with some aspects of Newman's lawsuit moving forward, Cooper emphasized the high standards Newman must meet to succeed on the merits. He dismissed two of her constitutional challenges outright and reserved judgment on others, indicating a tough path ahead for Newman. The ruling also suggests that Newman's attorney is prepared to appeal any unfavorable decision, potentially taking the case as far as the US Supreme Court.This case highlights the judiciary's self-regulatory mechanisms and the challenges judges face when contesting disciplinary actions, setting a precedent for how similar future disputes might be adjudicated.Judge Newman's Reinstatement Odds Wane as Judge Limits Suit (1)In my column on the potential demise of the Chevron doctrine and its implications for tax law, I discuss the critical role Chevron plays in allowing federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws, a principle at risk in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case before the US Supreme Court. I explain that without Chevron's deferential standard, IRS regulations on ambiguous statutes might not automatically be upheld, leading to a significant upheaval in tax law and practice, notably in areas like transfer pricing. Transfer pricing, crucial for how multinational corporations allocate income and expenses across jurisdictions, relies heavily on IRS interpretations of tax legislation, which could be thrown into uncertainty without Chevron.I also highlight the extensive regulatory framework developed under Internal Revenue Code Section 482, which is essential for maintaining compliance and preventing tax evasion through price manipulations. The potential for judicial review of these standards, if Chevron is overturned, introduces a significant risk of uncertainty in international tax practices, affecting multinational corporations' tax planning strategies.Moreover, I touch on the immediate increase in litigation that could follow Chevron's overturn, using the specific case of Microsoft's alleged $28.9 billion tax bill as an example of the financial implications. The removal of Chevron deference could lead to reevaluation of major IRS victories and pose a nearly immediate financial impact, potentially costing taxpayers $30 billion.I argue that the judiciary's increased role in tax regulation would result in greater variability in tax law interpretation, complicating tax planning and compliance. However, I suggest that clear statutes and robust regulatory guidance could mitigate some of these challenges, even if political realities make such clarity difficult to achieve. Finally, I emphasize the importance of preparedness for the tax law community, as the end of Chevron could mark a significant shift in how tax regulations are interpreted and enforced, urging stakeholders to consider the implications of a post-Chevron landscape for regulatory and compliance strategies.Chevron Doctrine's Demise Would Mean Big Changes for Tax Law Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal hearings on a complaint lodged by Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo against suspended Judge Nomonde Mngqibisa-Thusi will be heard in-camera. Mngqibisa-Thusi is appearing before the tribunal and faces possible impeachment if she is found guilty of the allegations of gross incompetence and gross incapacity, leveled against her. Today the Tribunal is set to call three witnesses who will deal with sensitive evidence. SABC reporter, Zoleka Qodashe filed this report...

Wednesday, December 27, 2023 Kerby Anderson hosts today's show. In the first hour, he is joined by the ebullient Kathy Ward from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. In the second hour, Kerby dives deeply into some serious trends across America. Connect with us on Facebook at facebook.com/pointofviewradio and on Twitter @PointofViewRTS with your opinions […]

The Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit has unlawfully suspended a longtime circuit judge, the Hon. Pauline Newman, from hearing new cases for at least a year, after ordering her indefinite suspension several months earlier without due process. NCLA proudly represents Judge Newman, challenging her unlawful pre-investigatory suspension and petitioning the Committee on Judicial Conduct & Disability to review the Judicial Council's September suspension order. Mark and Vec discuss the latest developments in Judge Newman's case with NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew Morris.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit has unlawfully suspended a longtime circuit judge, Hon. Pauline Newman, from hearing new cases for at least a year, after ordering her indefinite suspension several months earlier without due process. NCLA proudly represents Judge Newman, challenging her unlawful pre-investigatory suspension and petitioning the Committee on Judicial Conduct & Disability to review the Judicial Council's September suspension order. Mark and Vec discuss new developments in Judge Newman's case with NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew Morris.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Heard on Memphis Morning News, State Senator Brent Taylor has formally asked for an investigation by the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct and the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility into Shelby County DA Mulroy and Judge Paula Skaham for advocacy of a criminal defendant and personal bias. Support the show: https://www.newstalk989.com/personalities/memphis-morning-news/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) says the judge in former President Donald Trump's New York civil fraud trial holds a clear bias against Mr. Trump. She filed a judicial ethics complaint against him Friday morning with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. President Biden and Chinese regime leader Xi Jinping have confirmed a meeting in California next Wednesday. It will mark their first meeting in nearly a year amid heightened tensions between the two countries. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken welcomed Israel's announcement of daily four-hour humanitarian pauses in its Gaza offensive, but said more should be done to protect civilians. ⭕️Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

To quote Patricia Blocksom: “Equality is a robust concept but a fragile reality.” Fortunately lawyers are good at remaining constantly vigilant and feminism is nothing to be afraid of, quite the opposite: by the end of this our second episode on the Touchstones Report, you will be very grateful you have chosen to let these wonderful women, these wonderful feminists, into your life for a while. Thanks for listening, reach out to us anytime at podcasts@cba.org! Touchstones Report Executive Summary:The CBA's Task Force on Gender Equality's groundbreaking 1993 Report titled “Touchstones for Change: Equality, Diversity, and Accountability” addresses a range of issues related to equality and discrimination in the legal profession. It focuses on barriers to entry into the profession, including law school admission policies, access to articling positions, and the articling experience. The Report also highlights the unique challenges faced by women in the legal profession, such as employment opportunities, career advancement, and the lack of accommodation for family responsibilities.  Additionally, the Report explores the dynamics within private practice, government legal departments, and corporate legal departments, including issues of employment equality, career opportunities, and instances of sexual harassment. Further, the Report delves into the challenges faced by faculties of law and administrative tribunals, examining issues such as representation, career advancement, balancing career and family responsibilities, and sexual harassment. It also addresses the judiciary and the need for a fair and diverse appointment process, judicial education, and tackling discrimination within the judiciary.  The practice of family law is discussed in detail, highlighting issues related to representation, career advancement, funding for legal aid, and challenges with the substantive law.  The Report also emphasizes the role of Law Societies and the CBA in promoting equality within the legal profession. It explores the need for non-discrimination, monitoring, disclosure requirements, alternative discipline processes, and the importance of implementing the Task Force's recommendations. Finally, it touches upon the need for gender equality in substantive law and procedure, examining areas such as family law, intellectual property law, criminal justice, and pensions and benefits. Overall, the Touchstones for Change Report provides a comprehensive overview of the challenges and areas requiring improvement in achieving equality and addressing discrimination within the legal profession in Canada. Reviewing the Summary below, one will see that many of these recommendations have been achieved; however, there is still much to be done to make them all a reality. Summary of Recommendations Chapter Two addresses barriers to entry into the legal profession and recommends a range of measures, including consultation mechanisms between law schools and law societies, outreach programs to promote diversity in the profession, education equity initiatives, affirmative action recruitment in law schools, admissions policy improvements, support for part-time studies, child care services on campus, increased funding for scholarships, gender-inclusive language and sensitivity in classrooms, curriculum reforms, potential Indigenous law school, appointment of Equity Officers and establishment of safe spaces in law schools, combating harassment and bias, and inclusion of gender-related courses in the Bar Admission program. Chapter Five addresses issues within law firm and recommends adopting interview guidelines, implementing employment equity programs, monitoring hiring processes, tracking internal referrals to detect systemic discrimination, supporting female lawyers facing client discrimination, banning sexist activities in client promotion, reviewing promotion practices, establishing mentoring programs for women lawyers, evaluating partnership decision-making processes to eliminate bias, reporting demographic information and retention rates to law societies, establishing parental leave policies, offering child care support, implementing policies to address sexual harassment, promoting workplace equity, conducting educational initiatives and collaborating with relevant organizations to implement and finance these initiatives. In Chapter Six, the Task Force presents recommendations to address gender equality issues within Government Legal Departments, including ensuring fair allocation of work and gender balance on committees, ensuring representation of minority women in the public service and gender equality in management and promotion processes, endorsing membership in professional associations, reviewing recruitment procedures, providing mechanisms for reviewing discretionary decisions related to family responsibilities, accommodating family responsibilities without hindering career advancement, providing anti-discrimination training, establishing advisory committees on gender issues and equal opportunities, and referring legal work to law firms with inclusive employment equity programs. Chapter Seven of the Report recommends that corporate legal departments actively promote employment equity by hiring women from minority groups, referring legal work to law firms with strong employment equity programs that include representation of all women, establishing a Subcommittee on Gender Issues within the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association (CCCA) to develop strategies and monitor progress, and utilizing the CCCA as a resource for corporate policies on parental leave, flexible work arrangements, and programs addressing sexual harassment. Chapter Eight suggests that law schools should prioritize recruiting faculty members from minority groups, regularly review recruitment practices for gender parity and minority representation, ensure affirmative action recruits are recognized as fully qualified, promote women's representation in committees and leadership roles, adopt workplace equity policies, consider women and minority faculty for dean appointments, eliminate gender-based salary differences, address salary inequities, provide reduced teaching loads and sabbaticals, and develop materials and seminars to address gender and minority challenges in teaching, with the Canadian Council of Law Deans playing a supportive role. Chapter Nine advises governments to actively recruit women and under-represented groups for administrative tribunal positions, establish a re-appointment protocol without term limits, consider tribunal lawyers for other government and senior civil service roles, view tribunal experience as valuable for judicial appointments, review adjudicators' salary levels for potential discrimination, and encourage administrative tribunals to implement flexibility policies and suspend appointments during maternity and parental leave. Chapter Ten proposes that the CBA create objective criteria for judicial appointments and establish committees for their development, and advocate for an affirmative action policy to appoint women and minority women, while also addressing discrimination in the appointments process; it recommends mandatory sensitivity courses for judges, fair workload allocation for women judges, and the creation of a Commission on Judicial Conduct with public hearings and equal representation of judges, lawyers, and the public. In Chapter Eleven, the Task Force recommends increasing the emphasis on family law in legal education, improving its status within the legal profession, supporting family law practitioners, and ensuring sufficient funding and judicial resources for family law cases at both federal and provincial levels. In Chapter Twelve, the Task Force recommends that law societies prioritize diversity and enforce non-discrimination rules. The Task Force also suggests establishing internal procedures within law firms to handle gender discrimination complaints and appointing "safe counsel" to investigate such complaints. Additionally, they propose monitoring the progress of women and minority groups within firms, ensuring compliance with human rights legislation, and developing educational initiatives to eliminate discrimination and promote equality. Law societies are also urged to gather statistics on the representation of minorities and conduct studies on racism in the profession. In Chapter Thirteen of the Report, the Task Force recommends that the CBA amend its constitution and mission statement to address discrimination, conduct an inquiry into racism, promote accessibility and inclusion, gather statistics on underrepresented groups, establish committees, support lawyers with family responsibilities, advocate for gender equality, and adopt gender-inclusive language policies. Lastly, the Task Force recommends in Chapter Fourteen that the CBA offer legal education programs on gender bias, develop a national strategy to eliminate gender bias in the justice system, advocate for access to justice measures for women, establish gender issues sub-committees, consult the National Equality Committee on law reform initiatives, and review submissions to address gender-related issues.touchstonesForChange.pdf (cba.org) 

On this day in legal history, November 2nd 1795, President James Knox Polk was born–but he wasn't born president, he was elected later in life.James Knox Polk, the 11th President of the United States (1845-1849), was a significant figure in American history known for his expansionist policies and borderline despotic leadership during a period of territorial growth. Before becoming President, Polk served as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Governor of Tennessee. His presidency was marked by a strong stance on manifest destiny, which posited that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent.One of the most consequential actions during Polk's presidency was the initiation and prosecution of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). This conflict arose from the annexation of Texas and disputes over the western boundary of the United States. Polk believed that acquiring the territories of California and New Mexico from Mexico was crucial for the nation's growth.The war began in 1846 after Mexican troops attacked American forces near the Rio Grande, a region both countries claimed. Polk swiftly sought a declaration of war from Congress, stating that Mexico had "shed American blood on American soil." The war was controversial and had both staunch supporters and vehement opponents.One notable opponent was Congressman Abraham Lincoln, who was a member of the Whig Party and represented Illinois. In 1847, Lincoln introduced a resolution in Congress known as the "Spot Resolutions," which challenged President Polk to provide the exact spot where American blood was spilled, as Polk had claimed in justifying the war. Lincoln's intent was to press Polk on the justification for the war, questioning the integrity of the claim that the conflict was initiated by Mexico on U.S. soil.The war ended in 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which significantly expanded U.S. territory. Under the treaty, Mexico ceded vast territories to the United States including present-day California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Oklahoma in exchange for $15 million.Polk's presidency, while relatively short, had a lasting impact on the nation's territorial boundaries and set the stage for future U.S. expansion. However, the manner in which he pursued territorial acquisition, especially the war with Mexico, left a legacy of controversy that resonated in American politics for many years, particularly as it related to the broader issue of slavery's expansion into new territories.Generally speaking folks that had serious disagreements with Abraham Lincoln have not borne up well under the weight of their positions in the fullness of history. Donald Trump Jr., in a trial concerning fraudulent financial documents at the Trump Organization, testified having minimal involvement in preparing these documents. During his 1.5-hour testimony, he mentioned providing cash-flow figures to accountants while overseeing the company with his brother Eric during their father's presidency (2017-2021). However, he denied direct involvement in preparing the statements of financial condition of properties, which prosecutors claim were fraudulently inflated to secure favorable terms from lenders and insurers. Donald Jr., along with his father and brother Eric, are co-defendants in this case.The trial, presided over by Judge Arthur Engoron, has already seen a ruling that Trump and his company fraudulently inflated asset values, with the lawsuit seeking at least $250 million in fines and bans against Trump and his sons from running businesses in New York. This case is a part of the legal hurdles faced by Trump amidst his campaign for the 2024 Presidential Election. Trump has refuted the allegations, accusing Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Engoron of political bias, despite facing a limited gag order.The trial continues with expected testimonies from Eric and Ivanka Trump, and a scheduled testimony from Donald Trump on the following Monday. This case adds to the legal pressure on Trump, who also faces four separate criminal prosecutions related to attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. Amidst the ongoing legal battles, Trump had a court appearance with his former attorney Michael Cohen, who testified against Trump regarding the inflation of asset values.Donald Trump Jr. says he played minor role in company finances | ReutersA federal judicial panel has decided not to revisit its prior decision of clearing two Republican-appointed judges, Chief U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor and U.S. District Judge Corey Maze, of misconduct regarding the hiring of a law clerk, Crystal Clanton, who was reported to have engaged in racist behavior during her time at a conservative nonprofit. Despite a directive from the national judicial misconduct panel in July 2022 to conduct a new investigation, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Judicial Council upheld its January 2022 decision on the matter. The national panel had criticized the 2nd Circuit for not establishing a special committee to investigate the allegations before clearing the judges.The request for a new investigation was propelled by Democrats on the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee, arguing for a need to assure the public of a lack of racial bias in the judges' chambers. However, the 2nd Circuit, in a two-page order, supported the arguments of Pryor and Maze that the national committee overstepped its authority as the 2nd Circuit's dismissal order was deemed final under the relevant statute. They argued that a 2008 rule enabling the national conduct committee to order the circuit council to act conflicted with the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980.The case came into the spotlight due to Clanton's alleged racist conduct while serving as the national field director of the conservative student group, Turning Point USA, which was highlighted in a 2017 New Yorker story. Following her resignation from Turning Point, Clanton was hired by Ginni Thomas, spouse of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and later pursued a law degree at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. Upon graduation, she was set to clerk for Maze before starting a clerkship under Pryor in 2023, sparking controversy and complaints from House Democrats in 2021.US judges defeat misconduct case over hiring of clerk accused of racism | ReutersDunkin', the doughnut chain, has settled a trademark lawsuit against an e-cigarette maker, Singh Handicraft Corp, who allegedly misused Dunkin's branding for its "Vapin' Donuts" products. The settlement was reported in a filing in New York federal court, where Dunkin' and Singh Handicraft Corp informed the court of their resolution in principle, with Singh agreeing to a permanent injunction to stop the infringement. The lawsuit, filed in September, claimed that Singh's disposable vaporizers used for flavored nicotine bore a strong resemblance to Dunkin's branding. The "Vapin' Donuts" vaporizers were particularly shaped like iced coffee cups and glazed doughnuts, featuring logos with a similar color scheme and font as Dunkin'.The lawsuit also pointed out that Singh offered the vaporizers in flavors identical to Dunkin's drinks, like White Mocha and Iced Cappuccino, which Dunkin' argued could mislead consumers into associating the products with their brand. Some buyers even mentioned purchasing the vaporizers due to their affection for Dunkin'. While the details of the settlement weren't immediately available, this case highlights a scenario of alleged trademark infringement between industries.Dunkin' settles 'Vapin' Donuts' lawsuit against e-cigarette maker | ReutersThis last story includes a reference to a death in an automobile crash, if that isn't something you can hear today we get it and we'll see you back here tomorrow!Tesla secured a major legal victory in the first U.S. trial over allegations that its Autopilot feature led to a fatal crash. This marks Tesla's second significant win this year in court where juries found no defect in its software. The recent case was held in Riverside County Superior Court, concerning a 2019 crash where a Model 3, allegedly on Autopilot, veered off a highway, hit a palm tree and caught fire, resulting in the death of owner Micah Lee and serious injuries to his passengers. The plaintiffs sought $400 million plus punitive damages.Tesla refuted the liability, attributing the crash to the driver's alcohol consumption before the incident and arguing the ambiguity surrounding whether Autopilot was engaged during the crash. The jury, after four days of deliberation, reached a 9-3 verdict, ruling that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Tesla reiterated that its vehicles are well-designed and contribute to road safety, while the plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the verdict but noted that Tesla was heavily scrutinized during the trial.Legal commentators highlighted that the verdicts in this and an earlier case underscore a judicial focus on human responsibility despite the vehicle's Autopilot features. However, Tesla's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems continue to face regulatory, legal scrutiny, and ongoing federal investigations. Despite these challenges, this win in a high-stake trial portrays a favorable judicial stance towards Tesla, at least in terms of manufacturing quality, which may influence the outcomes of future lawsuits involving autonomous driving technology.Tesla wins first US Autopilot trial involving fatal crash | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This day in legal history, October 27, 1787, marks the first publication of the Federalist Papers, an event that significantly influenced the ratification of the United States Constitution. Written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison under the collective pseudonym "PUBLIUS," these essays were intended to sway public opinion in favor of adopting the new Constitution, which had been drafted in Philadelphia earlier that year. The first paper, penned by Alexander Hamilton, was published in a New York newspaper and argued that the proposed system would safeguard against factionalism, a problem that had plagued the country under the Articles of Confederation.The Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays, each dissecting different elements of the Constitution and the broader governmental system it sought to create. From the division of powers among the three branches of government to the mechanisms of checks and balances, the papers provide a comprehensive rationale for the Constitution's architecture. John Jay wrote only a few of the essays due to illness, while Hamilton and Madison carried the bulk of the work. Interestingly, these papers were aimed specifically at the state of New York, as it was a critical swing state for the Constitution's ratification.As an intellectual cornerstone, the Federalist Papers are not just historical artifacts but continue to be cited in legal opinions, scholarly works, and constitutional debates to this day. The trio's incisive arguments succeeded in their immediate goal; New York ratified the Constitution on July 26, 1788. However, the enduring legacy of the Federalist Papers stretches far beyond that, serving as an indispensable guide to understanding the intentions of the Framers and the intricate framework of American governance.This year's annual bonus season for Big Law firms is anticipated to be relatively uneventful in terms of changes to the bonus scale. Top firms are expected to maintain the existing bonus structure, offering up to $115,000 for the most senior associates, even as the industry faces a slowdown in corporate work and some firms have reduced staff. While firms that have laid off associates or faced declining profits are expected to offer market-rate bonuses to signal a return to full strength, eligibility criteria are likely to be stricter. Firms are expected to increase the billable hour requirements for bonuses and may also consider office attendance as a factor.Joshua Holt, a former Goodwin Procter lawyer, suggests that the strict criteria allow firms to claim they offer market rates, even if few associates actually qualify for bonuses. Quinn Emanuel has broken the mold by announcing special bonuses based on seniority and billable hours, but this move is not expected to set a trend. According to industry data, lateral associate hiring has also declined by nearly one-third, reducing expectations for additional bonuses.The widening gap between the most profitable firms and the rest raises questions about whether some firms will cease trying to match industry-leading compensation packages. Moreover, firms like Davis Polk & Wardwell, Sidley Austin, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett have announced they might cut bonuses for associates not meeting office attendance targets, prompting discussions on the fairness of such criteria.Big Law Bonuses Holding Steady But Now Come With More StringsCalifornia has passed a bill (A.B. 39) to license the cryptocurrency industry, making it the second major U.S. state after New York to regulate the sector. While the comprehensive regulations will not come into effect until July 2025, the bill outlines various requirements for applicants and gives the state Department of Financial Protection and Innovation discretion over who should be regulated. Governor Gavin Newsom, who signed the bill, indicated that the licensing framework may still require further clarity and potential cleanup legislation. Industry groups are now focusing their attention on the department, which will write the rules for licensing and enforcement.The bill also includes a provision that allows the department to grant exemptions from the licensing requirements if deemed "in the public interest." This has led industry groups like the Crypto Council for Innovation to lobby for broader exemptions, especially for startups and smaller companies. Joe Ciccolo, a board member of the Digital Currency Traders Alliance, said that the department could handle exemptions in various ways, including categorizing activities into different risk classes or regulating on a case-by-case basis.Concerns have been raised about the logistical challenges of implementing the new licensing system. Industry representatives are wary of a slow rollout similar to New York's and are calling for a public plan detailing how the department will manage the expected influx of applications. Despite these challenges, there's optimism about the law's future, as California officials have reportedly been in communication with counterparts in New York, and the state has shown willingness to listen to industry perspectives.Crypto Industry Girds Itself for California's New Licensing LawNew findings suggest that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to fully repay a significant portion of a $267,230 loan he received in 1999 from wealthy friend Anthony Welters. Senate Democrats have intensified their criticism of the Supreme Court for not having a binding code of conduct in light of this information. The loan was reportedly forgiven in 2008, but Thomas did not disclose the "forgiven debt" on his 2008 financial disclosure forms, raising ethical and legal questions. Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden has asked Thomas to clarify how much debt was forgiven and whether it was reported on his tax returns.In response, Thomas's attorney stated that the loan was never forgiven and that all payments were made until the agreement's terms were satisfied. The case adds to previous criticisms of Thomas for failing to disclose luxury trips and real estate transactions. Unlike other federal judges, Supreme Court justices are not subject to a binding code of ethics, although they do have certain financial disclosure obligations. Legal ethics experts have noted that the failure to disclose the loan is more significant than past omissions, highlighting the absence of a binding ethics code for Supreme Court justices. The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a Democratic-backed bill to mandate such a code, but it faces stiff Republican opposition.Clarence Thomas loan report spurs new ethics criticism of US Supreme Court | ReutersLegal academics are expressing concern over a proposal by the American Bar Association (ABA) to standardize what law students should learn and how they are assessed. The ABA suggests that law schools should adopt and publish specific learning objectives for each class to help schools better understand their educational goals. However, numerous law professors and deans argue that the ABA is overreaching its authority and micromanaging how law is taught. They worry that the proposal could stifle the freedom faculty members have to teach courses based on their own expertise and approaches.Law deans from prestigious institutions like Columbia, UC Berkeley, Vanderbilt, and Georgetown have jointly written that the proposal could constrain faculty members and deprive students of a diverse learning experience. The ABA's managing director of accreditation and legal education, William Adams, explained that the proposed changes aim to provide clearer guidance to schools, as existing standards were criticized for being "too general."The proposal also includes a requirement for all first-year classes to have at least one early assessment and mandates academic support for students who don't perform satisfactorily. Some critics say this proposal could dismantle the successful system of student learning outcomes that the ABA introduced in 2015, which allows schools to set their own objectives and evaluate student progress accordingly.The new proposal extends to individual classes as well, demanding a set of skills and knowledge that students should acquire from each course. Some commenters worry that this could create additional bureaucratic burdens for schools, particularly as the proposal offers no specifics on how these outcomes should be measured. The ABA's legal education council is expected to consider the proposal in its February meeting.Law professors say ABA is 'micromanaging' with proposal to make courses more uniform | ReutersJudge Pauline Newman, the oldest federal judge with active status at 96, is fighting for reinstatement after her colleagues on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit suspended her. The suspension followed an investigation into her mental fitness and her refusal to undergo a full neurological workup. Newman has sued several of her fellow judges and the court's Judicial Council, which voted unanimously to suspend her for at least a year. In a recent filing, Newman argues that the US District Court for the District of Columbia should grant an injunction to restore her to the bench immediately.The Judicial Council contends that the district court lacks the authority to review its disciplinary actions. Newman fired back, stating that a judicial council should not operate without constraints or review mechanisms, as that would be an exercise of "arbitrary power" not tolerated by the Constitution. Newman is also challenging the council's dual suspensions against her; one for a case backlog and another for her refusal to cooperate with the mental fitness investigation.Newman argues that the council was not acting as a court but in an administrative role when they suspended her, which means their actions should be reviewed by a district court, not the Supreme Court. She accused Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore of pre-judging her case, arguing that her colleagues merely adopted formal procedures afterwards.Mediation between Newman and the council has reached a deadlock, and both parties are now disputing a confidentiality agreement they signed before the mediation session. Newman also plans to challenge the council's order at the US Judicial Conference's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability. The case represents a significant clash over the extent to which judicial councils can exercise authority over individual judges.Nation's Oldest Judge Claps Back as She Seeks Reinstatement (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Please note that one of our regular co-hosts Anthony Nourse did not participate in this episode as he was recently appointed as a substitute judge in Fairfax County.  Due to the political nature of this episode, Mr. Nourse had to refrain from participating in this episode as required by the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia.We took a looong summer break that lasted well into September but we are back with an all new episode with a special guest appearance by Blake Woloson who subbed in as a co-host for Anthony Nourse.  In this episode we welcome the two candidates for Fairfax County Circuit Court Clerk.  They are currently on your ballot right now in Fairfax County and early voting has begun!  This is the first debate we have had on our podcast and the candidates kept it very cordial while still advocating for your vote in the November 2023 election here in Fairfax.  Gerarda Culipher and Chris Falcon are your candidates running for the head Clerk of Court in the Fairfax County Circuit Court.  We begin by having the candidates explain just what the job of the head clerk is and then we get into each candidate's vision for how they would handle the position if elected.  Below are the links to each candidate's campaign site:Gerarda Culipher   https://www.culipherforclerk.comChris Falcon   https://www.falconforfairfax.comHere is info on voting in the election (either through early voting which has just begun or on Election Day November 7, 2023 if you prefer to vote the ole fashioned way in person!)https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/elections/upcomingLEGAL DISCLAIMER:If you are listening to this podcast, thank you!  We sincerely hope you are listening to this podcast for its entertainment value and not with the intention of acquiring legal advice for any individual case or situation.  I mean, come on! You wouldn't take advice from someone you have never met or spoken to directly, right?   If you were bleeding profusely, you wouldn't listen to a podcast in hopes of a bandage somehow materializing over the internet and onto your 3D printer.  Seeking actual legal advice can be just as important as a tourniquet.  The hosts of this podcast are in no way intending to create an attorney-client relationship with any listener.  Sorry.  We are sure you all are great people but we cannot stress enough how little we know of you and your case and rather than risk an awkward moment, let us just remember we have never met.  Nothing on this platform be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation!  We are just a group of friends with differing opinions and viewpoints which we will try to explore through discussions of current events, law changes, and whatever else floats our fancy.  

NCLA Will Appeal Fed. Circuit Judicial Council's Unlawful Order to Suspend Hon.Pauline Newman In a damaging blow to judicial independence, the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit hasordered the suspension of active circuit judge, the Hon. Pauline Newman, from hearing newcases for at least a year. This suspension comes on top of the six-plus months the Council has already unlawfully suspended her from hearing cases while the investigation was still ongoing, which violates the very Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that the Judicial Council claims to have a solemn obligation to follow. NCLA, which is honored to represent Judge Newman, is challenging her unlawful pre-investigatory suspension in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. NCLA will also petition the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability to review the flawed Judicial Council order. Mark and Vec discuss the outrageous decision to suspend the Hon. Pauline Newman.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this day in legal history, September 21, 1981, the United States Senate approved the nomination by President Reagan of Sandra Day O'Connor to the United States Supreme Court–making her the first female Supreme Court justice. O'Connor, who often leaned conservative, used her political experience from her time in the Arizona state Senate to shape her judicial views. She was known for filing concurring opinions that aimed to limit the scope of majority rulings. She faced opposition from the time of her nomination from anti-abortion and religious groups. During her tenure, O'Connor was known for her pragmatic approach and often served as the swing vote in contentious cases. Initially aligning closely with conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, her voting record later became more moderate as the Court's composition shifted. She played a pivotal role in key decisions, including those related to abortion rights, affirmative action, and campaign finance.She was involved in landmark cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the constitutionality of race-based admissions to universities, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which preserved the core constitutional precept of Roe v. Wade. O'Connor retired in 2006 but left a lasting impact on American jurisprudence, particularly in her nuanced approach to complex legal issues.O'Connor also had a brief stint in acting, appearing as Queen Isabel in a 1996 Shakespeare Theatre production of Henry V. In a landmark decision, she cast the deciding vote in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, which ended the Florida vote recount and paved the way for George W. Bush's presidency. She later expressed reservations about the court's involvement in the case.In another historic moment, O'Connor became the first woman to preside over an oral argument in the Supreme Court during the case of Kelo v. City of New London on February 22, 2005. Later that year, at the age of 75, she announced her plans to retire from the bench. Following her retirement, she took on the ceremonial role of the 23rd chancellor of William and Mary College in Williamsburg, Virginia, a position first held by George Washington. Her groundbreaking career remains a significant chapter in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.The Federal Circuit's active judges have suspended 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for one year for failing to undergo medical testing as part of a disability and misconduct investigation. Initiated by Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore, the probe began after Newman allegedly had a cardiac incident and raised questions about her productivity. The investigation is notable for its public nature, a rarity in judicial disability investigations. Legal scholars suggest that such probes may become more frequent as the average age of federal judges has risen to 69.Newman has contested the investigation, framing it as bullying and arguing that it was motivated by her frequent dissents in favor of stronger patent rights. The council stated that Newman's non-compliance with medical tests hampers their ability to assess her fitness for duty. A special committee had recommended the suspension, citing Newman's consistent refusal to cooperate.Newman's lawyer, Greg Dolin, criticized the investigation's procedures and called the renewable suspension "unlawful" under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Newman plans to appeal the council's order and has also filed a lawsuit seeking reinstatement. She submitted two medical reports affirming her mental fitness, which the council dismissed as inadequate.The case has drawn public attention, contrasting sharply with Newman's recent accolades at a legal conference. Affidavits from court staff depict her as struggling with memory loss and paranoia, adding another layer of complexity to this unprecedented judicial probe.Embattled 96-Year-Old Judge Suspended in Disability Probe (2)A high-stakes antitrust lawsuit has been filed against the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) by around 1,200 former fighters, including Nate "Rock" Quarry. The suit alleges that UFC confines athletes to perpetual contracts and pays them far less than they would earn in a competitive market. The case has been fast-tracked for trial next spring and is closely watched as it could set a precedent for athletes in various sports to fight for better pay using antitrust law.The UFC, owned by Endeavor Group Holdings, generated a record revenue of $1.14 billion last year and reaches over 900 million households globally. Fighters are required to sign exclusive deals, often including four fights per year. However, the UFC allegedly withholds the last fight in a contract until the fighter agrees to renew, effectively trapping them in a cycle of successive contracts.The fighters argue that the UFC is a "monopsony," a sole buyer in a market, and accuse it of abusing this power. Monopsony cases are rare but have gained attention under the Biden administration. While there are other combat sports promotions, the plaintiffs argue that UFC controls the majority of fighters in nearly all weight classes and has also bought or shut down its rivals.The class action status of the lawsuit increases the risk for UFC, as it could be compelled to pay up to $4.8 billion in treble damages. The case could also encourage athletes in other industries to file similar suits. UFC has petitioned to appeal the class certification, arguing that the court erroneously certified the class.The case also highlights the financial struggles of fighters, who are independent contractors paid per bout. While top fighters can earn millions, most fighters have to fund their own training and equipment, leaving them with little net income. The case aims not just for compensation but also to bring about a change in the sport, offering fighters better terms and ending the cycle of perpetual contracts.UFC Fighters Test Antitrust Law to Escape ‘Perpetual' ContractsThe U.S. federal judiciary has enough funds to operate for at least two weeks if the government shuts down due to a lapse in funding. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts stated that court fees and other available funds could be used to continue hearing cases. Some case deadlines may be rescheduled if federal agency attorneys are not working during the shutdown. If the funds do run out, the judiciary would operate on a limited basis, retaining only the staff necessary for mission-critical work.Current government funding is set to expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, putting pressure on lawmakers to reach a deal on a short-term funding bill. Infighting among House Republicans and disagreements between the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate have jeopardized the passage of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2024. House Republicans have proposed allocating $8.7 billion to the federal judiciary for the next fiscal year, while Senate Democrats have proposed $8.56 billion. Both fall short of the judiciary's request for $9.1 billion.Judge Lavenski Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit expressed that a potential government shutdown is a "consistent matter of concern" and that plans are being considered to keep the judiciary operational. The judiciary, which employs nearly 30,000 people, almost ran out of money during the last government shutdown in 2018. The Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, used for electronic filing of documents, remained operational during the previous shutdown. The U.S. Supreme Court, which opens its new term on October 2, has used non-appropriated funds in the past to continue short-term operations.Judiciary Has Funds for Two Weeks if Government Shuts Down (1)A legal team that successfully sued Tesla's board of directors for allegedly overpaying themselves is now seeking $229 million in legal fees, amounting to $10,690 an hour. The request was made in a filing in Delaware's Court of Chancery on September 8. If approved, this would be one of the largest fee awards ever resulting from a shareholder lawsuit against a board. The case took several years to build and focused on the compensation paid to Tesla's directors from 2017 to 2020.The 12 director defendants, including James Murdoch and Larry Ellison, had agreed to return $735 million in compensation and forego another potential $184 million. They also agreed to overhaul the board's compensation determination process. The settlement money will be paid to Tesla and indirectly benefit shareholders, making this a derivative lawsuit.The law firms involved in the case estimate the total settlement value at $919 million and are seeking 25% of that sum as their fee. They are also requesting about $1 million in expenses. Partners and staff from the law firms involved have billed thousands of hours on the case.Courts typically review fee requests by balancing the need to reward risk and effort against the risk of a disproportionate windfall that could undermine public confidence in the legal system. David Paige, founder of Legal Fee Advisors, described the fee request as "extraordinary" compared to typical hourly rates for corporate attorneys, which can go up to $2,000.Tesla's directors have not yet objected to the fee request but are expected to do so, according to court filings. A hearing to approve the settlement and the legal fees is scheduled for October 13, and Tesla shareholders have until Friday to file any objections.In 2012, Delaware courts approved an hourly rate that worked out to $35,000 in a Southern Copper shareholder lawsuit, setting a precedent that the outcome achieved should be the focus, not the hourly rate.Lawyers who sued Tesla board for excess pay want $10,000 an hour | ReutersA recent Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that a majority of Americans, including both Democrats and Republicans, support the ongoing strikes in the auto industry and Hollywood. The poll found that 58% of Americans back the United Auto Workers union's strike against Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis for better pay and benefits. In the entertainment industry, 60% support the strikes by screenwriters and actors for better pay and protections. Among Democrats, the support is especially strong, with 72% backing the auto workers strike and 79% supporting the Hollywood strike. Interestingly, a significant number of Republicans also expressed support for the strikes, despite the party's traditional pro-business stance. The poll reflects a broader trend of increased union activism in the U.S., with 2023 on track to become the busiest year for strikes since 2019.Americans broadly support auto, Hollywood strikes -Reuters/Ipsos pollA U.S. authors' trade group, including renowned writers like John Grisham and George R.R. Martin, has filed a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of unlawfully training its AI chatbot, ChatGPT, on copyrighted works from these authors. The Authors Guild, which filed the suit, is also concerned that the training data may have been sourced from illegal online book repositories. OpenAI has defended its actions by claiming that the use of internet-scraped training data falls under "fair use" according to U.S. copyright law. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal landscape where AI companies are facing challenges over the data used to train their systems.John Grisham, other top US authors sue OpenAI over copyrights | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Judge Pauline Newman saga reached a tentative end—or a respite—when the Federal Circuit imposed a year-long probation on the 96-year-old federal appellate judge. Aliza Shatzman of the Legal Accountability Project discusses the allegations of cognitive decline and workplace misconduct against her, and how the investigation and report may be a model for more transparency into judicial officers.Aliza notes:There is a kind of “omerta” code among clerks against sharing negative experiences.But Aliza is seeing the beginning of a cultural change in the legal community toward more transparency.Coming Spring 2024, the Legal Accountability Project will offer a database to aspiring clerks with at least 1,000 entries about former judicial clerk experiences.To the calls for more transparency, Aliza is not seeing any opposition from judges.…but there is some resistance from some law schools.Judge Newman has a storied career: pilot, racecar driver, bartender on the Seine River, inventor, maverick IP attorney, and finally, brilliant—and often contrarian—federal appellate judge. How does one assess a complaint that Judge Newman, an extraordinary individual, is acting out of the ordinary? Ultimately, the court based its sanctions ruling not on Judge Newman's cognition but on her refusal to comply with the investigation.This investigation vindicates the rule of transparency in the Judicial Conduct & Disability Act and may serve as a model for future investigations.Why the Judge Newman saga does not portend an opening of a “floodgates” of complaints against judges.Aliza Shatzman's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Our June 2022 interview with Aliza.The Legal Accountability Project's website.Aliza Shatzman's published articles on the subject of Judge Newman in Slate and Above the Law.Aliza Shatman's article with the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law, entitled "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it."Our episode 90 on the California Bias Prevention Committee.Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos floats the possibility that new Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz could be impeached and removed from office for her obvious violations of the state's Code of Judicial Conduct.

Dan breaks a couple of big exclusive stories: Congressman Tom Tiffany decides not to challenge Senator Tammy Baldwin and the new liberal Supreme Court majority apparently violates the Code of Judicial Conduct by firing the Director of State Courts without following proper procedure.

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal of High Court Judge Tintswalo Annah Nana Makhubele resumed today. The tribunal is considering allegations of misconduct in relation to Judge Makhubele's time as chair of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) board. This is after commuter activist organisation #UniteBehind laid the complaint with the Judicial Service Commission in 2019 accusing Makhubele of misconduct when she took up dual roles of Gauteng High Court judge and chairperson of the PRASA board. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to reporter Canny Maphanga...

In 1984, Hon. Pauline Newman became the first judge appointed directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Newman has served on that court since, and serves to this day. Reports surfaced in April of this year that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore had initiated a complaint against Judge Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. On May 10, 2023, Judge Newman filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Chief Judge Moore; two other Federal Circuit judges in their capacities as members of the special committee appointed by Chief Judge Moore to investigate the complaint; and the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit and its members. Judge Newman's federal lawsuit raises issues not just of judicial conduct (given the underlying complaint) and patent law (which are interesting given Judge Newman's and the court's history as well as what some view as its drift away from innovation-protective jurisprudence), but also separation of powers (since Judge Newman was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate), and even age/disability discrimination (Judge Newman is 95 years old). Our panel discussed these and related issues arising from this most-unusual set of circumstances. Featuring: Prof. Paul R. Gugliuzza, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of LawProf. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law HoustonProf. Arthur Hellman, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of LawCheryl Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer, BrightStar CareModerator: John J. Park Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP

NCLA Asks U.S. District Court to Stop Unconstitutional Suspension of Circuit Judge Pauline Newman Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and the Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for theFederal Circuit have indefinitely suspended highly-respected veteran Judge Pauline Newman from hearing new cases—and they did so before investigating her. The 1980 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act does not authorize such indefinite or pre-investigatory suspensions. Another federal statute requires Federal Circuit panels to be comprised of a fair draw from all the Court's active judges. Hence, suspending Judge Newman also infringes on the right of every Federal Circuit plaintiff and defendant to have their cases heard by a fair draw from all the Court's active judges. Moreover, Judge Newman herself has an interest in fulfilling the duties of her judicial office, which cannot be taken away without due process of law. Judges singling out other federal judges for suspension is not due process and violates Congress' sole constitutional authority to impeach federal judges. Vec and Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin discuss NCLA's recent amended Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in Newman v. Moore.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Judicial Conduct Committee is expected to meet in Johannesburg today to process some of the complaints laid against some of the country's judges. There has been an increasing number of judges who have been reported to the Judicial Service Commission for alleged misconducct, inmcluding Judge President John Hlophe, Judge Mushtak Parker, Judge Nana Makhubele. Two more judges, Tshifhiwa Maumela and Nomonde Mngqibisa are also facing possible suspension by the president for failing to deliver judgments on time. Bongiwe Zwane spoke to Co-ordinator at Judges Mattter, Alison Tilley- 

On this week's edition of New York NOW (6/02/2023): Next week is the last week of this year's legislative session. We'll tell you what to expect. Jon Campbell from WNYC/Gothamist and Ashley Hupfl from the Daily Gazette have more news and analysis from the week. Judicial ethics is in the national spotlight, but should New York expand its own judicial ethics watchdog? Robert Tembeckjian, head of the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct, joins us to discuss. Explore more: nynow.org

Please note that one of our regular co-hosts Anthony Nourse did not participate in this episode as he was recently appointed as a substitute judge in Fairfax County.  Due to the political nature of this episode, Mr. Nourse had to refrain from participating in this episode as required by the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia.Every 4 years in Virginia, there is an election to vote for the head Commonwealth Attorney in each county  throughout Virginia.  This year, there is a fight in Fairfax County for the Commonwealth Attorney position.  The primary opened up for early voting May 5, 2023 and the primary itself is on June 20, 2023 which is your last day to get out to vote.  This year there are two candidates running for Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney: the incumbent/current Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano and his challenger Ed Nuttall.  Both are running in the Democrat Primary June 20, 2023 to try to gain the Democrat Nomination and only one of them will be able to run in the election on November 3, 2023.  There is no Republican candidate so unless someone runs as an Independent one of these two men will be voted in as Commonwealth Attorney in Fairfax.  We invited both of them onto the show but never received a response from Mr. Descano or his team.  We did get a chance to ask Mr. Nuttall about why he is running, what he would change, and how he would do things differently.  LEGAL DISCLAIMER:If you are listening to this podcast, thank you!  We sincerely hope you are listening to this podcast for its entertainment value and not with the intention of acquiring legal advice for any individual case or situation.  I mean, come on! You wouldn't take advice from someone you have never met or spoken to directly, right?   If you were bleeding profusely, you wouldn't listen to a podcast in hopes of a bandage somehow materializing over the internet and onto your 3D printer.  Seeking actual legal advice can be just as important as a tourniquet.  The hosts of this podcast are in no way intending to create an attorney-client relationship with any listener.  Sorry.  We are sure you all are great people but we cannot stress enough how little we know of you and your case and rather than risk an awkward moment, let us just remember we have never met.  Nothing on this platform be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation!  We are just a group of friends with differing opinions and viewpoints which we will try to explore through discussions of current events, law changes, and whatever else floats our fancy.  

JPMorgan Chase, the largest financial institution on Wall Street, reportedly requires its workers to give six months' notice before being allowed to leave for another job. A JPMorgan employee posted on the social media platform Blind, which allows career professionals anonymity, that the lengthy notice period may result in a new job offer being rescinded. The worker claims to earn around $400,000 annually in total compensation after accumulating 15 years of experience. The post stated that the worker was amenable to staying through the notice period but was worried that the new employer would rescind the offer and not wait for six months. Last year, workers at JPMorgan's India corporate offices reported that the Wall Street giant was raising its notice period to 60 days for vice presidents and below and 90 days for executive directors. Some financial professionals say that it is common for banks and hedge funds to include noncompete clauses in employees' contracts that prohibit them from being hired by a competitor for up to six months. The purpose of the notice period is believed to be to prevent staffing shortages when employees leave. However, it has been criticized as an example of an outdated "handcuff" policy that runs against the trend towards worker empowerment. And it may do more than just run against current trends. We have reported in the past on the FTC's increasing attention given to things like non-compete agreements and other employment contract provisions that tend towards the more employee-restrictive end of the management–labor spectrum. Will the FTC be putting JPMorgan in its crosshairs next? We'll see!JPMorgan's Six-Month Notice Rule Is an Old School ‘Handcuff'JPMorgan Chase ‘requires its tech workers give 6 months' notice before they quit'AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. will appear in Delaware's Court of Chancery on Tuesday to face shareholders and a pension fund challenging the movie theater operator's attempts to convert its preferred equity units into common stock. A hearing for AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. previously scheduled for Thursday was canceled, with a new one set for Tuesday, where Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn will discuss "settlement scheduling and logistics." The proposed deal would let AMC move forward with its controversial conversion plan after two months of fast-tracked litigation. The preferred equity units (APE) are fractional units of preferred shares issued in a special dividend to retail investors who previously bailed out the company, but shareholders argue that the vote approving the deal wasn't conducted fairly and sidelines retail investors.Terminally online folks will remember, in early 2021, a group of retail investors on the social media platform Reddit, specifically on the subreddit r/wallstreetbets, organized a buying spree of shares in the struggling movie theater chain AMC Entertainment (AMC). The group coordinated their purchases through online brokerage platforms such as Robinhood, causing a surge in the stock's price. The phenomenon, dubbed the "Reddit rally" or "meme stock" frenzy, garnered widespread media attention and attracted more investors to join in the buying frenzy. The buying spree caused AMC's stock price to soar, rising by over 2,500% at one point. This Week in Chancery Court: AMC's Stock Conversion FightSamsung has been ordered to pay more than $303 million to computer-memory firm Netlist by a Texas federal jury for infringing several patents related to data processing. The court determined that Samsung's “memory modules” for high-performance computing infringed all five patents that Netlist had accused Samsung of violating. Netlist had asked for $404 million in damages. Netlist claimed that Samsung took its patented module technology after the two companies had collaborated on another project. Representatives for the companies have not immediately commented on the verdict.Netlist Inc has claimed that Samsung's memory products specifically used in cloud-computing servers and other data-intensive technology infringe upon the aforementioned. Netlist argues that its technology increases the power efficiency of memory modules and allows users to get useful information from vast amounts of data in a shorter time. However, Samsung countered this by stating that its technology works differently and merely achieves the same result and that, additionally, Netlist's patents are invalid. Allegations have also been made that other companies, including Google and SK Hynix, have violated Netlist's patented technologies related to the handshaking mechanism of various memory chips such as those used in enterprise cloud computing servers. Following the jury's verdict awarding more than $303 million to Netlist, the company's stocks rose by 21%.Samsung hit with $303 million jury verdict in computer-memory patent lawsuit | ReutersIn an update to the Federal Circuit judge competency story – Judge Pauline Newman, the Federal Circuit's oldest and longest-serving judge, is seeking to have her chief judge's complaint about her fitness to remain on the bench moved to a different circuit. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represents Newman, has filed a letter requesting the transfer to a potentially more neutral venue. The internal court battle has raised issues about the process for addressing a judge's alleged physical and mental impairments and lifetime judicial appointments. The complaint was initiated by Chief Judge Kimberly Moore under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, questioning Newman's physical and mental ability to remain an active judge. Newman and the NCLA intend to contest the allegations. The group has also asked that Newman be immediately restored to her full capacity as a Federal Circuit judge. Judge Newman Seeks to Move Fitness Complaint From Fed. Cir. (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Dan explains why Wisconsin's Code of Judicial Conduct will prevent Supreme Court candidate Janet Protasiewicz from hearing any abortion cases (or cases involving gerrymandering or Act 10 collective bargaining reforms).

 Pretoria high court Judge Tintswalo Makhubele has come under scrutiny as she appears under the Judicial Conduct Tribunal. The Judicial Conduct Tribunal hearing commenced on Monday at the Southern Sun hotel in Rosebank, north of Johannesburg following complaints leveled against her by #UniteBehind with the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) against Judge Makhubele. She's been implicated in gross misconduct for allegedly holding a dual status as a Judge and as Chair of the PRASA Board of Control. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC reporter, Pearl Magubane.

Just as Supreme Court candidate Janet Protasiewicz's obvious violations of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, a Democratic Party janitor/news reporter cleans up after her.

On this week's edition of New York NOW (1/27/2023): New polling shows how voters feel about some of the big ticket items in Gov. Kathy Hochul's 2023 agenda. Steve Greenberg from the Siena Research Institute joins us to explain. What happens when judges in New York break the rules, or break the law? We'll explain with Robert Tembeckjian, administrator and counsel for New York's Commission on Judicial Conduct. Learn More: nynow.org 

Dan explains how liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Janet Protasiewicz is repeatedly violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and what you can do about it.

Dec. 30, 2022 - State Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Brad Hoylman, a Manhattan Democrat, discusses his legislation designed to beef up the enforcement capacity of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. He also weighs in on Gov. Kathy Hochul's nomination of Judge Hector LaSalle to serve as the state's next chief judge.

Dec. 30, 2022 - State Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Brad Hoylman, a Manhattan Democrat, discusses his legislation designed to beef up the enforcement capacity of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. He also weighs in on Gov. Kathy Hochul's nomination of Judge Hector LaSalle to serve as the state's next chief judge.

Dec. 30, 2022 - State Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Brad Hoylman, a Manhattan Democrat, discusses his legislation designed to beef up the enforcement capacity of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. He also weighs in on Gov. Kathy Hochul's nomination of Judge Hector LaSalle to serve as the state's next chief judge.

I spent an amazing year clerking on the Ninth Circuit for Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, who could not have been a better boss. And after speaking to numerous clerks over the years, I believe that most enjoy positive clerkship experiences like mine. When law students and young lawyers ask for my opinion on clerking, I generally recommend it (depending on the individual's particular circumstances).But not every law clerk is as fortunate as I was. As we have learned in recent years, some clerks are subjected to harassment and abuse from the judges they clerk for. And because of judges' power and prestige, as well as structural problems that exempt the judiciary from most forms of workplace accountability, clerks often find themselves with nowhere to turn when mistreated by their judicial employers.Aliza Shatzman wants to change that. After being harassed and discriminated against by the judge for whom she clerked, she has become a leading advocate for greater judicial accountability and transparency. She has submitted testimony to Congress, written and spoken widely about these issues, and co-founded the Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit devoted to “ensur[ing] that as many law clerks as possible have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not.”I was pleased to welcome Aliza to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. We talked about her harrowing clerkship experience, the need to pass the Judiciary Accountability Act, why she launched the Legal Accountability Project, and the Project's current initiatives, including a centralized clerkships reporting database. You can listen to our conversation by clicking on the embed above.Show Notes:* Statement for the Record of Aliza Shatzman, Former DC Superior Court Law Clerk, House Judiciary Committee* The Conservative Case for the Judiciary Accountability Act, by Aliza Shatzman for the Harvard Journal on Legislation* Law schools are part of the problem—but they can (and should) be part of the solution, by Aliza Shatzman for the Yale Law & Policy Review* The Legal Accountability Project, official websitePrefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below.Two quick notes:* This transcript has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter meaning—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning.* Because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email. To view the entire post, simply click on "View entire message" in your email app.David Lat: Hello, and welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to by visiting davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the sixth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 28. My normal schedule is to post episodes every other Wednesday.One of the nice things about having your own podcast is the ability to cover topics that are important to you. One topic near and dear to my own heart is clerking. I have written about law clerks and judicial clerkships for years, dating back to my first blog, Underneath Their Robes, and my novel, Supreme Ambitions, is also set in the clerkship world.I had a wonderful experience clerking for Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain of the Ninth Circuit, who continues to be a mentor and friend more than two decades after my clerkship, and I want every law clerk to have such a great experience. So I was pleased to welcome to the podcast Aliza Shatzman, co-founder and president of the Legal Accountability Project. The goal of the Project is to ensure that as many law clerks as possible have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not.Aliza is an attorney and advocate based in Washington, D.C. She graduated from Williams College and the Washington University School of Law. After law school, Aliza moved to Washington to clerk for a judge on the D.C. Superior Court. Unfortunately, she endured terrible harassment and abuse during her clerkship, as well as retaliation afterwards. She has shared her story—in congressional testimony, articles, and interviews like this one—in order to increase judicial accountability and transparency.As Aliza discusses, one reason it can be so hard to hold judges accountable for mistreating law clerks is the culture of “hero worship” that surrounds judges. And here I have a confession to make: I have definitely contributed to the culture of “judicial celebrity” over the years, which I have come to increasingly regret over time. Without further ado, here's my interview of Aliza Shatzman.DL: Thanks so much for joining me, Aliza!Aliza Shatzman: Thanks for having me on the show.DL: So let's start at the beginning, before we get into your work with the Legal Accountability Project. Why did you decide to go to law school?AS: I went to law school because I wanted to be a reproductive-rights litigator. I wanted to be a trial attorney at Planned Parenthood. I'd always had kind of a sense of moral outrage, particularly on injustices affecting women. Between college and law school, I took a couple of years—I interned and worked on the Hill, did some internships at Planned Parenthood and the National Women's Law Center, and was really just moved by some of the personal stories I heard. So I went to law school knowing I wanted to do public-interest work.DL: And you were at Wash U, I believe, for law school?AS: I was, yes. I was a transfer, so I spent my 1L year at UNC and then transferred to Wash U.DL: And did your plans change in law school in terms of what you wanted to do? It seems like you certainly wanted to stay in public interest, but did your interests shift?AS: They definitely did. Pretty early in law school, I got the prosecutor bug. I did four different internships with the Justice Department during law school, and then decided that I wanted to become a homicide prosecutor in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office.DL: And what did you do towards that end? You mentioned the internships—what did you do right after law school?AS: I decided to clerk in D.C. Superior Court during the 2019-2020 term. I knew that D.C. AUSAs appeared before D.C. Superior Court judges, so I was really focused on clerking in that courthouse.DL: As I recall from some of your writing, and you've written quite a bit about your clerkship experience, you were initially pretty excited about it, right? And you had heard from professors or references or recommenders good things about the judge you were going to clerk for?AS: Yes, I was excited to launch my career, and definitely Wash U professors made calls on my behalf to help me secure the clerkship. I was definitely excited when I went into it, and the messaging at Wash U Law, like at most law schools, was uniformly positive. This was going to be a lifelong mentor-mentee relationship; the position was going to confer only professional benefits. Nobody back when I was applying for clerkships, or when I started my clerkship, talked about any potential downsides to clerking.DL: And of course it's also good for the law schools to send graduates into these prestigious positions.AS: Indeed it is. They report those clerkship numbers publicly in a variety of fashions, and especially with similarly ranked schools, it goes to their ability to get the most competitive applicants to law school and the best professors who come with their own clerkship networks and relationships with the judiciary. So the relationship between the judiciary and law schools is very closely intertwined in a way that I don't think I fully realized until I started writing and speaking about this.DL: That's so true, and I would also add: applicants are much more savvy than say I was. When I went to law school, I didn't even really know what a clerkship was. But I get calls every year from people who are thinking about law school and a lot of them will ask, “Oh, if I want a clerk, is this a good law school for that?” People are more aware than they were maybe when you were in law school, and certainly when I was in law school, about the value professionally and as a credential of a clerkship.AS: Definitely. I would caution that the law schools that report the highest number of clerks per year are not necessarily the ones most focused on ensuring a positive clerkship experience. And this is based on a lot of conversations with law schools, a lot of conversations with students. But yes, there is a huge push toward clerking. And even now, I'm not dissuading anybody from clerking in the work I'm doing now. It's really about ensuring a positive clerkship experience. And that is different for every student. That is different for every applicant. There is no one-size-fits-all model, and I remain concerned that law schools are just trying to funnel students into as many clerkships as possible.DL: Yes. Weren't you told when you were applying to accept the first clerkship you were offered because this is such a plum position?AS: I absolutely was. And there are still law schools that are giving that advice, which is bad advice, and some have backed off it in recent years, maybe because I'm poking at them and telling them to stop giving that advice. I was told to apply broadly, across the U.S. and across the political spectrum, and to accept the first clerkship I was offered. I did all those things. I should not have done those things, but I did.DL: That brings us to your clerkship in D.C. Superior Court. I think some of my—or many of my—listeners might be familiar with your experience. But for those who are not, can you talk about it?AS: Definitely. I think it's important to share my experience. My experience is not rare, but it is one that is rarely shared publicly, and every clerkship application cycle, so much ink is spilled, so many statements are made, to highlight the best of circumstances. Nobody's talking about the worst of circumstances.I started this clerkship in D.C. Superior Court in August 2019, and just weeks into it, the judge for whom I clerked began to harass me and discriminate against me because of my gender. He would kick me out of the courtroom, telling me I made him “uncomfortable” and he “just felt more comfortable” with my male co-clerk. He told me I was “bossy” and “aggressive” and had “personality issues.” The day I found out I passed the D.C. bar exam—a big day in my life—he called me into his chambers, got in my face and said, “You're bossy. And I know bossy because my wife is bossy.”DL: Oh my gosh. You would've thought, “Congratulations on passing the bar!”AS: I think he also said, “I didn't think you'd pass.”DL: Oh my gosh. Wow.AS: Yeah, I'm painting a picture of this judge. I was just devastated. I remember crying in the courthouse bathroom, crying myself to sleep at night. This was my first legal job out of law school. This judge just seemed to be singling me out for mistreatment. I wished I could be reassigned to another judge. My workplace didn't have an employee dispute resolution or “EDR” plan that might have enabled that to happen. I did confide in some attorney mentors and some other clerks, who advised me to stick it out, and I knew that I needed a year of work experience to be eligible to apply to the U.S. Attorney's Office. So I really tried to.DL: So you were just going forward, crying in the bathroom, putting up with this abuse and harassment, but the best advice—or not the best, but the advice you were given—was, just keep on trucking?AS: Yes, that's correct.DL: Okay, and then what happened?AS: Pandemic happened. March 2020, I moved back to Philly to stay with my parents and worked remotely, and the judge basically ignored me for six weeks, before he called me up and told me he was ending my clerkship early because I made him “uncomfortable” and “lacked respect” for him, but he “didn't want to get into it.” Then he hung up on me.DL: Oh my gosh. So he did that. Just fired you over the phone. Wow. He did not even give you the courtesy of meeting in person. And also I think you mentioned in one of the pieces you wrote that in the lead-up to this, weren't you sending him things like orders and other drafts to look at, and he wouldn't respond to you, he would respond to your co clerk?AS: Yes. Yes.DL: That's crazy. AS: It was pretty bad. I reached out to the D.C. Courts' HR. They said there's nothing they could do because HR doesn't regulate judges, judges and law clerks have a unique relationship, and then they asked me whether I knew that I was an at-will employee. So then I reached out to my law school, Wash U, for support and advice, and I found out the judge had a history of harassing his clerks, which law school officials, including several professors, and the clerkships director, who still works there, knew about at the time I accepted the clerkship. But they decided not to share that with me, I guess, because they wanted another Wash U law student to clerk.DL: Wow. Now this is something we'll return to, but when you were applying for clerkships, did you have access to evaluations or reports about this judge in the Wash U. clerkships office that might have told you about these bad experiences?AS: I did not. Wash U does not conduct a post-clerkship survey. At the time, I did not even know whether they had a list of former clerks who clerked for this judge or others, so they are far behind others in the T20 [top 20 law schools] in this regard.DL: I remember, when I was at Yale, there were these lists of clerks, former clerks, to different judges. You could look them up, and there were evaluations. And we'll return to this—the evaluations were almost uniformly positive because anyone could walk in and look at them, and if you wrote a scathing report, that probably would not be a great thing. But they were there. And I remember sometimes you could read between the lines, and maybe detect something less effusive, but they were mostly positive.AS: Yep. Your alma mater might push back on that, but you are correct. Most of the reports are positive. Yes. DL: Fair enough. Let's go back to where you've been left in this process, and HR says they can't help you, and your law school can't help you. What did you do next?AS: I reached out to some other D.C. judges who connected me with the commission where I ultimately filed my judicial complaint. I wrote it, but I wanted to wait to find a new job because I was worried the judge would retaliate against me. It took me about a year to get back on my feet. I secured my dream job in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office and moved back to D.C. in the summer of 2021, intending to launch my career as a prosecutor and, I hoped, put all this behind me. I had not been in touch with the judge, and I was hoping to move forward.DL: And I think he had said at some point to you that he would give you a neutral reference if asked?AS: Yes. That's correct.DL: You're at the U.S. Attorney's Office. This is your dream job. This is what you had wanted to do in law school. This is why you clerked for the D.C. Superior Court, to get this job. It seems like everything is going great, right?AS: For a couple weeks. Security clearance seemed to be taking a little bit longer than it should have, which was a red flag. But I was two weeks into training, I'd already started working there, they'd given me all the materials—and I received some pretty devastating news that altered the course of my life. I was told that the judge had made negative statements about me during my background investigation, I wouldn't be able to obtain a security clearance, and my job offer was being revoked.DL: Wow…. And then what did you do next? Did you have any ability to push back or explain or say, look, this was a really biased and unfair review or assessment?AS: I called HR, I called management at the D.C. U.S.A.O. and they said there was nothing they could do, that the decision was final. I absolutely tried to explain. I cried on the phone. I ultimately filed a FOIA request, which was denied in full, even though it was a reference about me that led to the denial of my security clearance. I actually was offered the opportunity a couple days later to interview for another job with that office, and then they revoked that too, based on the judge's same negative reference. At this point, I was two years into my legal career, and this judge just seemed to have enormous power to ruin my reputation and destroy my career.So I filed a judicial complaint with the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure. That is a regulatory body for D.C. judges. I hired attorneys and in the summer, in fall of 2021, participated in the investigation into the now-former judge, and we were partway through that when I found out separately that the judge was on administrative leave pending an investigation into other misconduct. At the time he had filed this negative reference, but the U.S.A.O. really was not alerted to the circumstances surrounding that negative reference until January 2022, when pursuant to the terms of our private settlement agreement, separate from anything the judiciary can or would do for a law clerk, the former judge issued a clarifying statement addressing some but not all of his outrageous claims. But by then, the damage had been done. It had been way too long, and I was pretty much blackballed from what I thought was my dream job.DL: Wow. Now, I think you wrote at some point that you did see some of the content of the negative reference—how did you get that? You mentioned your FOIA request was denied.AS: I have a copy of the negative reference, through private settlement negotiations between my attorneys and the then-judge's. I am enormously grateful for everything my attorneys did for me. Were it not for them, I would never have seen this outrageous negative reference, and most law clerks in my position are not fortunate enough to be able to hire attorneys to pursue this type of a claim.DL: I'm curious, this is maybe a bit of a digression, but whom did you hire? It's not like “clerkship abuse” is a practice area. Were these employment lawyers, did they have experience with the judiciary, how did you even know where to turn?AS: Great question. I found my attorneys through a high-profile person in the movement to prevent harassment in the judiciary. She let me use her name. Gave me a list. I started calling through it. It was a large employment litigation shop that does this type of work—not this type of work specifically, but they were fantastic. I'm really grateful for them.DL: So you reached an agreement with the judge. Were you then able to move on with your life professionally? What happened after that?AS: Sort of. I agreed not to identify the judge by name. That is why I refer to him as “the former judge.” He agreed to issue a clarifying statement to the U.S.A.O. addressing some of the claims in the reference. I reapplied to the U.S.A.O., but they definitely did not want anything to do with me. So I found a new job as a family law attorney and thought I would pursue that work.But during the summer when I was going through the judicial misconduct investigation, I became aware of the Judiciary Accountability Act, or “JAA,” which is legislation that would extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees, including law clerks. Currently, folks like me cannot sue our harassers and seek damages for harms done to our lives. So I reached out to a bunch of House and Senate offices involved with that bill to share my story, advocate for the legislation, advocate for an amendment to cover the D.C. courts, which are Article I courts and are currently not covered under the bill. And then a House Judiciary hearing occurred in March of 2022, and I was invited to submit written testimony advocating for the bill, sharing my story. And then I got involved in the weeks and months following that [with] further advocacy work around these issues. Eventually I launched the non-profit in June.DL: I would recommend to people that they check out your testimony. I put it in the show notes. It's very powerful, very detailed. It identifies the problem and talks about possible solutions. In a nutshell—you talked a little bit about it just now—what would the Judiciary Accountability Act do?AS: The JAA, H.R. 4827 and S. 2553, is such important legislation. It would extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders, but it would do a lot of other important things too. It would clarify that Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which defines judicial misconduct, includes discrimination, harassment, retaliation—currently it doesn't even say that. It would specify that judges who retire, resign, or die amid a misconduct investigation—those [inquiries] won't cease. Currently they do. Some of the most notorious harassers, like former Judge [Alex] Kozinski, step down amid a misconduct investigation, and the judiciary loses jurisdiction over them.It would also standardize employee dispute resolution or EDR plans in the federal courthouses. Courts are theoretically required to follow the EDR plan, but they each implement it a little bit differently. And then it would also impose some really important data collection requirements on the federal judiciary, requiring them to collect and publicly report the results of a workplace culture assessment. They have been just notoriously unwilling to do that until very recently. It would require more transparency around the judicial misconduct complaints. When a judge is adjudicated to have committed misconduct, currently, if you go on the U.S. Courts website, their names are redacted. They are not searchable. It would increase transparency in that. It would also require the judiciary to report data on the lack of diversity in law clerk and federal public defender hiring. The real dearth of data in these spaces has allowed judges to get away with misconduct for decades.DL: This legislation seems like a very important part of the solution. Was your suggestion that it be amended to include D.C. Superior Court and similar courts accepted? Is that now part of the proposed legislation?AS: It's not yet—a Senate hearing would help to revisit this and other issues. It's definitely under consideration. I was told that it was more an oversight than anything else. So, I'm hopeful.DL: What is the status of the JAA right now? Are you optimistic about its chances of passage?AS: It's kind of stalled in Congress. It has 26 co-sponsors in the House, one Republican, six co-sponsors in the Senate, no Republicans yet, but I think that really does not—I know that does not represent the broad swath of folks interested in this legislation. It just needs some sustained attention and a Senate hearing. I always caution that we can't only talk about these issues when there's a flashy hearing. At the same time, I've been told that [a hearing] would garner additional co-sponsors, so it's really important.It's a bipartisan issue. Both Democratic and Republican judicial appointees harass their clerks, both liberal and conservative clerks face mistreatment. The federal judiciary leadership is a weirdly powerful lobby, and they are vociferously opposed to this bill. They have been since 1995, when Title VII was extended to the other two branches. It just needs some sustained attention. Congress has a lot going on every year, but I'm going to keep poking at them about this bill, about a Senate hearing. It's so important. Law clerks absolutely cannot wait another year for these urgently needed reforms. It's outrageous that law clerks are uniquely exempt from Title VII.DL: Why is it that it has so much less support on the Republican side of the aisle? I agree with you that it doesn't seem like it should be a partisan issue.AS: It just doesn't have enough folks lobbying Republicans on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees right now, which was part of the point of my article with the Harvard Journal on Legislation, The Conservative Case for the JAA. I have been reaching out to Republican offices to talk about the bill, and they are receptive and interested. House Republicans during the March 2022 hearing seemed receptive as well, at least to the Title VII protections. I'm a little worried they might want to sever the bill and deal with the Title VII protections now and handle other things later, which I don't think they should do. It just has a lack of support generally, and if we got more Dems we might get more Republicans too. It's a question of putting someone's personal face and story on abstract issues and giving this bill sustained attention.DL: Absolutely. And your testimony did that. And several other women came forward as well and offered testimony. There has been media coverage, so it is starting to get traction. But I guess we'll see what happens in January or in the new session.AS: The lack of people willing to come out and speak publicly on this issue makes it more challenging because judiciary leadership likes to claim these issues are not pervasive in the courts. And I think House and Senate Republicans, probably some House and Senate Democrats too, think similarly, because there's just a dearth of folks willing to share their stories publicly. My story is definitely not rare, but it is certainly rarely shared. And there is just a real culture of fear and silence, one of deifying judges and disbelieving law clerks. I think we're in a better position now than we were in 2018 or 2020, when two previous hearings occurred on these issues. But we still have a long way to go.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. What do you say to arguments that the judge-clerk relationship is a unique relationship and there are duties of clerk confidentiality? There were certainly clerks who, for example, wanted to report allegations against Judge Kozinski, but they were worried about violating the duty of confidentiality. What do you say to people who say this is going to undermine that, that special relationship that makes a clerkship such a great mentorship experience for so many?AS: The judiciary has taken some steps to clarify that the duty of confidentiality does not deal with workplace issues, and anybody who is mistreated can and should report that. Perhaps it is a unique relationship, but I think a clerkship should be considered a job like any other, and the judges should be considered employers running a small workplace. What makes it a unique job is that judges have outsized influence over their former clerks' lives, careers, and reputations, and that this first legal job for many folks has outsized influence over their future career success, which makes it particularly important that we address these issues and particularly important that the next generation of young attorneys are protected from mistreatment.DL: Another point you've made in your writings is at least for the Article III judges, there's life tenure, so in some ways they have even more protection than members of Congress or the president. They're not responsible to the voters. And also they're in some ways more low-profile. Even if there's a kind of hero worship or celebrity worship of judges, at the end of the day, they're not as famous as, say, U.S. senators—so they can probably get away with a lot more, I would guess.AS: Absolutely, they can and they do. Continuing to exempt judges from Title VII and conferring upon them life tenure really sends the message that they're untouchable, that they're above the laws they enforce. They shouldn't be. And definitely life tenure contributes to these problematic behaviors.There's a lack of accountability in the judiciary. Judges are never disciplined. Complaints are rarely filed to begin with. It is a broken system, and I think the JAA and the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which is the federal complaint process whereby a clerk can complain about a judge, are really the floor and not the ceiling for judicial accountability legislation. And I would just underscore for anybody who thinks my story is rare or particularly outrageous, it is definitely not, and judges are empowered to get away with outrageous misconduct. And what keeps law clerks silent, what keeps them from filing any sort of complaint, is that they fear that what happened to me will happen to them. That is how judges, some judges, the misbehaving ones, lord their power over their clerks, which is really troubling. It's definitely not all judges. There are lots of wonderful judges who reach out to me to extend their support for what I'm doing and thank me. But these issues are unaddressed in both the state and federal courts, and I'm really hoping that judiciary leadership takes it seriously.DL: What about the argument that the judiciary can police itself and that things like the JAA are threats to judicial independence and the separation of powers?AS: Internal self-policing leads to a lack of policing, and any attempts at internal self-discipline really lead to a lack of discipline. I remain enormously troubled that all judicial accountability mechanisms are run by other judges in the courthouse or the circuit where the complainant law clerk and the misbehaving judge work. Judges are notoriously unwilling to discipline their colleagues. Even when they see misconduct occurring, they're notoriously unwilling to even pull a judge aside and say something.The judicial independence argument is kind of nonsense. We are not talking about suing judges for their rulings, something I would not support. We are saying that judges are employers running a workplace like any other, like the other two branches of government, those are employers. When employees are mistreated, they can sue and seek damages. We're just talking about treating judges like other employers.DL: Have we seen any disasters result from the fact that other governmental entities are subject to suit for workplace violations?AS: Not at all. And part of it is just it sends the right message to say that you are an employer, you are subject to Title VII, you are an employee, you are protected by it. We have not seen any downstream negative consequences from extending Title VII to the other two branches of government.DL: Your testimony was in March 2022, this year, and then in June you started the Legal Accountability Project. Can you tell us what that is about?AS: Sure. So the Legal Accountability Project basically seeks to ensure that law clerks have a positive clerkship experience and then extends support and resources to the ones who don't. I think of the nonprofit as the resource I wish existed as a Wash U law student applying for a clerkship, a law clerk facing harassment and unsure where to go for help, and a former clerk engaging in the formal judicial complaint process. And we're working on a couple of major initiatives in collaboration with law schools beginning this year, and I think that law schools have historically received a free pass in the conversation about judicial accountability and that they should be the first to step forward and make some changes to protect the next generation of folks.DL: You have a couple of projects or initiatives you're working at the Project—can you talk about some of them that you're rolling out this fall?AS: Absolutely. So the Legal Accountability Project is basically premised on gaps that I see in the clerkship application process, a lack of standardization, a lack of transparency, as well as larger issues related to a lack of accountability in our judiciary. So I speak to a lot of law students and I'll say, “So you want to clerk? Great. How would you avoid judges who harass their clerks?” Some might say, “I'd ask someone,” but who are you going to ask? Clerkship directors and deans tell students to “do their research,” but what research are they going to do when so little information about judges is available on an equitable basis?The major initiative we're working on this year is a centralized clerkships reporting database, which is going to democratize information about judges so students considering a clerkship have as much info about as many judges as possible before they make what is clearly a really important decision about their careers. It's basically a better version of the post-clerkship survey that a handful of schools do already internally. As you and I talked about earlier, the schools that do them recognize they're mostly positive reports in there. What I try to tell schools is no school has a monopoly on information about judges. Every school has a ceiling on the number of judges they can keep track of, and it totally depends on who their alumni have clerked for in the past.We are going to have law clerk alumni from participating schools create an account with us and write a report about their judge and their clerkship—good, bad, medium, we want to hear everything—and our questions elucidate lots of information you might want to know before clerking. Certainly mistreatment is something we seek to capture in a way that law schools are not doing right now, but it's also how does the judge provide feedback, do I get writing and courtroom experience, can I take vacation? All kinds of stuff you might want to know about your boss and your job, most of which is just not available to students right now.Law clerk alumni report into the database. It's a subscription model, so law schools pay us $5 per student per year based on their total J.D. enrollment, and then in exchange, law students get access to reading the reports. But why it's better than anything law schools do right now [is that applicants] don't just get to read their [own school's] alumni reports. They read the reports of all the alumni from all the schools participating in database. I am confident this is the best way to infuse transparency into the opaque clerkship application process and protect the next generation of attorneys against harassment.DL: It sounds really useful. It's a resource I would've wanted to have when I was applying for clerkships. Are you going to require clerks to put their names in? Because obviously, as we know from your case, retaliation can be a problem. But if the clerks are[] anonymous, is there a fear of false reports? And what about if students want to get in touch with somebody for further discussion? Can people be anonymous?AS: Yes, law clerks can report anonymously. There is an option on the last page: would you like to provide your name to students considering this clerkship? We anticipate that the law clerks who face mistreatment will report anonymously, and that is one of many reasons why a lot of law-clerk alumni like this. They also feel an increased sense of anonymity because there are just more people reporting in from more schools in a way. I talk to students and alums from schools that do a post-clerkship survey and they say, I would not fill out my school's, I don't feel sufficiently anonymous, I would fill out yours.Your question about false reports—we do not have a culture of false allegations against judges. We have a culture of fear and gross underreporting. I'm not at all concerned about false allegations. We do obviously have a privacy policy, and law clerks are signing off that they will report truthfully. I am confident they will. I think students and alumni understand this is a desperately needed resource, and if there were false reports or folks misusing the database, it could no longer exist.What you talked about with the clerk-to-student information sharing is often referred to as the “clerkships whisper network.” This is inefficient at best and ineffective at worst, and that the folks who have the information, it often does not get shared with the folks who need. We are not saying you should not reach out to former clerks. What we are saying is that it is an inefficient system, and for law clerks who face mistreatment, they typically do a couple things. They either don't report that back to their law schools, or they take themselves off the list of alumni to be contacted for clerkships, or they do respond to requests, but they are re-traumatized every time somebody reaches out, or they just don't share the full information. Those are all issues we're seeking to combat. Instead of those things, the mistreated clerk can take 10 minutes, fill out our post-clerkship survey once, and then never have to be contacted again. So we think it's better.DL: Again, I think it's a great resource and a great idea. Are you worried about—again, I think this would be unlikely because it's sort of like the Streisand Effect, it would just draw more attention—but are you worried about a judge, say, finding out about this and then suing the Project to try and either unmask this person or get a retraction or, I don't know what….AS: A couple things. This is not a public-access website. The only people who will have access to reading the reports are students from participating law schools and young alums from those law schools. Law clerk alumni get write-only access. They write a report, they can't read them. Part of the privacy policy is that you cannot screenshot this, you cannot share this with folks who do not have access. We are not worried about defamation because we will have Section 230 immunity. We are just posting what people want to write. They can write seven paragraphs, they can write my judge was nice, we're just posting what they write.Judges actually support this. They reach out to me a lot to convey their private support. We're hoping to turn that into public support very soon. Judges understand that positive reviews in the database will bolster not only their reputations, but also their clerkship applicant pools, because what I see is it's historically marginalized groups, women, non-white folks, LGBTQ folks, who face the brunt of mistreatment during these clerkships, and either decide not to apply or they apply less broadly because they just don't have the info they need. I receive a lot of outreach from LGBTQ students asking who are the friendly judges to apply to, who are the not-so-friendly ones to avoid? I have to say we don't have that info yet, but we will. Judges like this. I know it's a disproportionate sample of folks who reach out to say, I support you and I'm a judge, and probably the ones who hate this are going to be quiet. It should be a red flag if any judges are out there publicly opposing this because there must be reasons why they do. And look, the thing is, we are doing what a handful of schools, including your alma mater, already do internally. Judges know which schools have a database. They bring them up and they don't make us think about that because they know that most other employers, in most other professions, are reviewed. Why should they be uniquely not subject to any reviews?DL: What is the status of the database—when will it go live, when will people start to be able to access these reports?AS: The database is a working prototype right now, and our engineers are building the final product. Law clerk alumni will begin reporting into it this winter, and it will go live in spring 2023 for students from participating schools considering clerkships. And for folks who think this is a good idea, if you are a law student or an attorney, reach out to your law school and encourage them to partner with us. Most administrations are considering this right now, and we think student and alumni support is going to make a difference everywhere.DL: I think people should, if they're interested in this resource, let their school know that the school should sign up for it if it hasn't already. Before we go, I was wondering if you could also talk about what the Project is working on in terms of the culture assessment?AS: Yes, we are doing a workplace culture assessment of the federal and state judiciaries. It's a climate survey that's finally going to answer the question, “How pervasive is harassment in the judiciary?” The federal judiciary has just been notoriously unwilling to do this until very recently. [After] five years of advocates poking at them, they finally agreed to do one, but they've specifically not committed to reporting the results publicly, which I think is an enormous red flag.We are surveying both state and federal clerks from a variety of institutions. In addition to standard climate-survey-type questions, we're also asking a section of questions that is particularly important, and it's about law clerk concerns about reporting formally to the judiciary, informally to their law schools. The federal judiciary likes to claim that these issues are not pervasive, yet they have conducted no type of workplace assessment that would show that.Unfortunately, a handful of law school clerkship directors and deans say things to me like, “We're blessed to work with only good judges in this circuit! All our alumni have a positive experience!” That is nonsense. But the dearth of folks reporting back to their law schools right now means that they can kind of disclaim responsibility, so we're seeking to quantify that as well for some challenging clerkship directors and some challenging judiciary officials.DL: When do you expect the assessment to be available?AS: We're not going to send it out until summer of 2023, so a little while. We're trying to focus on the database. We overshot our timelines a bit for getting schools on board, so our full effort goes toward that right now. But I've been heartened by the very positive response from the vast majority of law schools who are very willing to engage, and I appreciate that.It's the right time. Advocates over the past couple years have really laid the groundwork, and now it's time to make changes to protect the next generation of young attorneys. Law schools are working in good faith with me and I appreciate that, but no school is doing an adequate job of protecting their students and alumni against mistreatment right now. We are offering them concrete solutions for radically under-addressed issues, and I hope everybody considers partnering with us this year.We're definitely facing a first-mover problem. Everybody's looking around and seeing who's partnering with us. That's the first question we get from every dean, who else is doing this? Somebody's got to be first. There are a couple of really brave deans and clerkship directors who I'm optimistic will be leaders.DL: I think, just based on having observed the legal profession for so long, that they're like lemmings. Once you get one or two or three, especially if they're big-name schools, you'll get many. You just need—it's like what just happened with these U.S. News rankings and Yale and Harvard—you just need somebody to do it. So you're working on a first mover, but you don't have one just yet?AS: We're very optimistic about a couple. We're not ready to announce them, but we feel very good.DL: Well, in closing, Aliza, I'm so thankful for your time and insight. For people who want to reach out to you to help out with the Project or to tap into resources, what's the best way for them to either contact you or get in touch with the Project?AS: Our website is legalaccountabilityproject dot org, and my email is Aliza dot Shatzman at legalaccountabilityproject dot org. I receive a lot of outreach from current and former clerks. I always appreciate that. Please reach out, learn more, support us. We're recording this the day before Giving Tuesday, so it's a good time to support us.DL: You are a 501(c)(3)?AS: We are working on it. We will be in a few weeks.DL: Excellent. Well, anyway, thank you so much for your time, your insight, and all of the work you're doing on these very important issues. A lot of us really appreciate what you're doing.AS: Thank you.DL: Thanks again to Aliza, who is doing very important work. Reasonable minds can disagree on the details of specific reform proposals, but everyone who cares about the judiciary should care about the workplace treatment of law clerks.As always, thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers, for tuning in. If you'd like to connect with me, you can email me at davidlat@substack.com, and you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to Original Jurisdiction. Since this podcast is new, please spread the word by telling your friends about it. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by your paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast should appear two weeks from now, on or about Wednesday, December 14. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

On this midweek show, Crystal has a delightful conversation with Washington Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu about her path to becoming the first Asian American, first Latina, first woman of color, and first LGBTQ+ justice on the court. They discuss the importance of state supreme courts in light of recent decisions that threaten people's rights on the national level, how that translates to why we should scrutinize judicial elections, and common misconceptions people have about the state Supreme Court. Justice Yu then shares about efforts to make courts more accessible and equitable to everyone, what she's most proud of in her career, and how people can be involved in restoring confidence in the justice system. Notes:  This episode was recorded before the end of filing week in May. The candidate filing deadline passed without any challenger filing to run against Justice Yu, so she will appear unopposed on the November ballot and serve another term on our state's highest court. This episode was also recorded before the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, hence the reference to the leaked draft about overturning Roe vs Wade. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii and Justice Yu at @JudgeMaryYu.   Resources Washington Supreme Court Bio - Justice Mary I. Yu: https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=Yu   Campaign Website - Justice Mary Yu: https://justicemaryyu.com/   “Who's Marrying the First Gay Couple? Judge Mary Yu” by Dominic Holden from The Stranger:https://www.thestranger.com/blogs/2012/12/08/15483647/whos-marrying-the-first-gay-couple-judge-mary-yu   Justice Mary Yu On Jimmy Kimmel Show: https://vimeo.com/673039715   State of Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct: https://www.cjc.state.wa.us/   Washington State Court Rules: Code of Judicial Conduct: https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=ga&set=CJC   Civil Right to Counsel or “Civil Gideon”: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defense/civil_right_to_counsel1/   June 4th Letter - Washington Supreme Court:https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20News/Judiciary%20Legal%20Community%20SIGNED%20060420.pdf   Washington Leadership Institute: https://www.law.uw.edu/academics/continuing-education/wli Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I'm once again just so excited to welcome to the program another very distinguished State Supreme Court Justice - Justice Mary Yu is with us today. Thank you so much for joining us. [00:00:51] Justice Mary Yu: Oh, Crystal, thank you for the invitation. I really appreciate your interest and I'm looking forward to having a fun conversation. [00:01:00] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And so I just wanted to start off talking and ask you - what was your path to the Supreme Court? [00:01:08] Justice Mary Yu: Well, I came from the trial court - so I was a trial court judge in King County Superior Court for 14 years - that felt like a lifetime in many ways. And prior to that, I was a prosecutor in the King County Prosecutor's Office. And then before that, I was just frankly very proud to be working, doing some organizing work in social justice in Chicago. So a little crooked path, but nevertheless, it's what brought me to the court here. [00:01:38] Crystal Fincher: Well, and I have found that those crooked paths are sometimes the most useful and oftentimes give you such helpful perspectives because you're not just coming from one point of view, you've seen things from different perspectives, have walked in different shoes, and have been able to see that. And you're actually the first Asian American, first Latina, first woman of color, and first LGBTQ+ justice on our State Supreme Court. What has that meant to you and how do you think that impacts the work that you do? [00:02:08] Justice Mary Yu: Gosh, Crystal - being the first sometimes can be a real burden in the sense that I know that I worry about not messing it up for others. I'm worried that, really, my path will create more opportunities for others. And so I'm aware of the fact that when people see me, they see all of what you just described. And I think at one level for our community, there's a lot of expectations that others will be able to follow, that this has opened up the door for all of us. On the other hand, I know that with that comes a lot of assumptions about it - our community - some will be positive, some will be negative. I think some people in their own mind wonder or not - I have a packed agenda or am predisposed to do something or decide a case in a particular way because I'm first. And I don't think that that's true, other than I do bring a level of sensitivity to what it's like to not have resources, what it's like to be other, what it's like to be an outsider. And frankly, I see that that's an asset at our table because there are nine of us and it means nine different viewpoints. And frankly, I think the viewpoint that I bring of the other, the outsider, a person of color, a person with little economic resources growing up - they ought be at the table too, not to control, but to contribute. [00:03:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, that's such a great point. A lot of people are just now figuring out how important our courts are, our supreme courts are - not just at a national level, but especially if we lose rights at the national level, our states are really our firewall and the only thing standing between a lot of people and their rights. So right now, when we are basically looking at the overturning of Roe vs Wade - there was the leaked draft that looks like it's going to become official at some time soon. How do you view the state of not only abortion rights, but the ability to be covered by contraception and just access to healthcare for everyone. Where do we stand here in the state? And where do you stand, as a justice, in how you approach these issues? [00:04:33] Justice Mary Yu: Yeah, well, Crystal, I think you're right in the sense that a lot of these issues are going to be decided eventually by state supreme courts. And so state constitutions are pretty important and state supreme courts are important around the country. Each one of us is different, if you will, because our constitutions are different. So there really is no exact pattern of what this all means. In the State of Washington, I think we've already had the executive and the legislative branches indicate that they intend to protect the right to abortion, that they intend to protect healthcare rights for all people. And our branch - we don't declare policies, right? We will wait for a case to come to us. So at one level, it's inappropriate for me to comment on what are we gonna do when that happens. And yet at the same time, I can say is - our court is very protective of our own State Constitution. In our own state, we have had a long history of protecting privacy and individual rights. It's a long track record that our court's not gonna step in and undo. So I think Washingtonians can feel very comfortable that our court's going to follow precedent, our court's going to continue to protect the rights of Washingtonians as we have done for the last couple of hundred years, in some ways - even the territorial courts. So, it's right to be concerned. I can see the concern that people would have of what does this all mean when you look at the United States Supreme Court? But my understanding when I have reviewed the opinion - it really is seeming to indicate that these issues should be decided at the state level. And of course, I think they would be decided by the legislative branch. [00:06:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I think one thing that surprises people still sometimes - for as much as people who are involved in politics and who do this know all of the rules and policies and everything surrounding elections - I think a lot of people, talk to a lot of people who see our federal Supreme Court being appointed, and then being very surprised that we elect our Supreme Court justices in this state. How do you think that impacts just how we should be looking at the Supreme Court, how we should be looking at these elections, and what is at stake with our State Supreme Court elections. [00:07:01] Justice Mary Yu: First of all, I do think that everybody ought to scrutinize all judges in all judicial elections. I think it's really important that Washington State has retained the right to vote for their judges. Now, what's interesting is we have a hybrid because when there's a vacancy, someone is appointed to fill the vacancy before they're subject to election. For example, I was appointed initially by Governor Locke to the Superior Court. At the Supreme Court, I was appointed by Governor Inslee and then stood for election. So in many ways we have part of the same process in terms of an appointment, but the check on it, if you will, is elections. And elections are an opportunity for the electorate to really evaluate someone and decide whether or not they want to retain that individual as a justice in our state. Unfortunately, people drop right off in the sense that they don't vote all the way down ballot. We are always at the bottom of the ballot and most people would say - I don't know anything about judges. There is an interest this year - because of all these issues that you mentioned, people are suddenly looking and saying who's on our court and what does it mean? And what's their track record and who are they? I think that's a good thing. I think it's really important for people to educate themselves, take another class on civics, and understand who's on our court - how many, who are they, what have they written, what have they said? Because they will - ultimately may be the decision makers on these important matters. It's not only in terms of healthcare, perhaps abortion, but it really includes questions related to race, incarceration, the death penalty - all the things that are important to people and touch them in every single way. So, I hope that people will pay attention, that they will bother to actually invite us to come and speak, invite us to come into classrooms, into forums. All of us are always willing to answer questions about what we do. [00:08:59] Crystal Fincher: And I do have to say - in our interactions with you, you have been exceedingly willing to talk and to share and just wanting to help people understand how the process works, how they can access and be a part of the process. And I really do appreciate just talking about how critical it is to engage in judicial elections at all levels. And even when it comes to just same-sex marriage and rights that people have to love the person who they love without penalty or consequence - was looking back, it was super fun - back in 2012, after the long and hard fought battle for marriage equality was won, you were actually on Jimmy Kimmel doing [Perfectly Named People] and you officiated the first same sex marriages in Washington State. What does it feel like - just the euphoria of that time and winning rights that so many had fought for so long to secure, to landing back where we are right now, where that looks to be in jeopardy once again? [00:10:15] Justice Mary Yu: Yeah, it's really interesting because when we talk about crooked paths, it was a crooked path to get to the place where same-sex marriage would be legal in the State of Washington. Unfortunately our court went - it had the opportunity to decide the matter, decided it incorrectly - and then it went to the people and it was really the vote of the people. It was a popular vote that really granted us the right to marry the person that we love. Again, another check on all of our systems. For me, I have to admit that my bailiff, who was a young Japanese man whose parents had to go to someplace else to get married because they lived in DC and could not marry because they were an interracial couple, said to me - Judge, we shouldn't wait one more moment for people to marry who they wanna marry, so let's start to do weddings at midnight, as soon as the law takes effect. And it was, as you described, it was a joyous moment. It was something to celebrate because finally we had equal rights, right? The right to marry who you love. I would say, Crystal, I don't think that's in jeopardy in the State of Washington, given that it is the law and there hasn't been a challenge to that law. And regardless of what may happen at the federal level, that's not going to really jeopardize the law in the State of Washington as it exists now. Now, if there's a challenge to it because of some federal action, that's a whole different matter - then it would make its way through the legal system, and perhaps somebody might challenge the law that was enacted by the citizens somehow, but that's not the pattern everywhere in the country. And despite the fact that we have a little comfort in the State of Washington, I think we should be concerned because we care about other people, and we care about other people in other states where they don't have a state protection and they did rely on federal law to grant them the right to marry someone. So what we're developing, which should be a concern to everyone, is just this big checkerboard in the country of rights being different, depending on where you live. That's a serious concern, especially for people who are transient - for example, those who are in the military - should their families have certain rights in one state and yet when they move, not have those same rights in another state. And we know that those military personnel will be moving around to different states, so it's a real concern. [00:12:46] Crystal Fincher: It is an absolute concern. One other concern that I've heard a number of people raise is just looking at the quality and the qualification of judges - there being a number of concerns at some of the judges that have been appointed, particularly in the last administration, who aside from questions of partisanship, just on questions of - do you understand the law as it is, in order to protect it. And people may have different perspectives on how to protect the law, how to decide if a case is consistent with it, but truly understanding and being just qualified enough to sit there and make those judgements is a different issue than partisanship. You happen to be rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" by several bar associations, you're endorsed by all of the other State Supreme Court justices, and just so many people. I could spend, literally five minutes, just talking about all of the awards and accolades that you've been given. But when it comes to some of our local judicial elections that don't receive a lot of scrutiny, where a lot of times newspapers that used to cover those and that used to look into the backgrounds of judges - they've lost a lot of resources - and so there is a fear that there could be people who land in our courts here in this state that just aren't qualified, that are coming with an incorrect perspective of what the law is, who the law protects, and how it should operate. And that especially given this national climate and with some of the just extremism that we have been enduring, that that poses a real danger for local communities, potentially even when we do have a State Supreme Court that is doing its job correctly. How do you view that risk? [00:14:58] Justice Mary Yu: It's a real risk to begin with - what you described isn't something that's sort of a sci-fi movie. It's a real risk, but that's why people like you play an important role, as well as other media outlets. You do invite people to come and speak and talk with you. You have the opportunity to ask some questions and to help educate the electorate. As long as Washington remains a populous state where elections are important, you will always face the risk that there could be somebody who's not qualified or not competent to serve. It's the risk we take, it's the price we pay for the right to vote, the right to selection, the right to have a voice, and not to give up citizen power. But I would hope that the bar associations and other people would continue to try to make themselves available to rate judges, to ask questions, and to try to educate the broader community about who these people are. [00:15:54] Crystal Fincher: What do you think are the most common misconceptions that people have about the court? [00:15:58] Justice Mary Yu: Sometimes I wonder whether there are misconceptions or frankly realities, because I think a lot of people think that our courts are bureaucratic, insensitive, do not treat people of color fairly. And as much as I wanna be defensive about ourselves, I think some of that is very real - is we have to do a better job of becoming more accessible, of becoming a little less bureaucratic and simpler in our procedures. And we're trying to get there. I think some of the other unfortunate misconceptions are - is that we are groupthink or that we decide decisions together just to get along. And yet, if anybody studied our opinions, they would see that is hardly - hardly - the reality is it's hard fought, we sometimes will split 5-4 on some cases. We do our job best when we are in disagreement. So we're not a groupthink entity - none of our courts really, I would hope, are just stamping just to go along and create an assembly line. Every so often you might have a judicial officer that brings shame on the rest of us - somebody who has done something imprudent. I know there are a couple in terms of some sexual assault allegations and that's harmful because it hurts the whole judiciary when something like that occurs. But I think overall, we have a really functional system in the State of Washington and it may be because we're very transparent and open, and people can walk into our courtrooms anytime and watch the proceedings. [00:17:31] Crystal Fincher: You do bring up an interesting issue where there are a couple of judges that are the subjects of investigations or controversies, currently. There was just a recent situation where a judge had used the N-word and had some other behavior that their colleagues thought was inappropriate. Do you think our system of discipline and accountability for judges at all levels is sufficient? [00:17:59] Justice Mary Yu: I do. I do think it is. The Judicial Conduct Commission has the ability to investigate if there is a complaint. And I can say from personal experience, they are robust in scrutinizing judges and trying to really enhance confidence in terms of what we do. I think it's pretty robust and it's a very open process - anybody can file a complaint - that person's identity is protected, so there's no risk to them because judges can - right - they can punish, they can be coercive, they can manipulate. I think it's really important to protect people who would file a complaint, and we have that process. I think probably publicizing the rules might be a good thing in the sense of more people should know that in the State of Washington, we have a code of judicial conduct. We do have a code that governs how we should do what we do. We have a code that really guides us in terms of when we should recuse or not. We have a really strong board of ethics that will provide an opinion if a judge needs specific advice on a particular circumstance and probably the public does not know that. And I would say we might do a better job of letting people know. [00:19:16] Crystal Fincher: That is certainly very helpful. I do think a lot of people don't know. I'm also wondering what more can be done to help people, even if they don't come with a lot of resources, to participate in our judicial system and to be protected by it at all levels in our state. There are so many situations where - not so much at the Supreme Court, even though people are still trying to figure some stuff out there - but where a defendant may be up for eviction and they're in a tough situation, and coming in and they don't know all the rules, their landlord knows all the rules, seems to be very chummy with everyone else in there, 'cause they own a lot of properties and it seems like the system is working for them. They're all familiar with it, they're doing the same song and dance that they do all the time to the detriment of someone who still has rights and protections under the law. What more can be done to help people, especially those who are not familiar with the system or who don't have the money to hire people who are, to be able to receive all of their protections that they're entitled to. [00:20:30] Justice Mary Yu: We've been working really hard to try to increase civil legal aid. And that is to try to ensure that people have representation on the civil side as well. We've received a lot of money from the Legislature this past year to really offer representation to individuals who are being evicted. That's just one particular circumstance, but I have to admit that I'm very sensitive to the fact that there are a lot of hearings where people not only are at a loss in terms of housing, but their jobs, benefits, the inability to access healthcare at times. There are a host of issues where people need representation, so I have to admit that I'm a fan of civil representation 100%. I would love to have a case come to us that gives us the opportunity to do the same thing we did on a criminal side. And that is "Civil Gideon" - is to say that everyone deserves the right to be represented by an attorney, regardless of your income. I know it would be expensive, and yet the rights that are at risk in the civil arena are great, right? It is to be homeless, to be without a job, to be without benefits - are very real things for individuals. So we're trying, I think - our court and along with others are big advocates of trying to ensure that there is civil legal aid available to individuals. [00:21:54] Crystal Fincher: That would be tremendously helpful, and certainly would cost more. I do hope that we get better as a society. And as we - we're having legislative elections and conversations right now, but that we also examine the cost of going without it and what it means to potentially push someone into homelessness, or out of a job, or into financial crisis because they don't have healthcare or the services that they need - it is so costly. And often in ways that can't be compensated or reimbursed. So I just - I completely agree with you and thank you so much for bringing that up. What are other challenges you think the Court is suited to address within the justice system? [00:22:48] Justice Mary Yu: Well, I would say two areas I know that I have spent a lot of energy on that I think are very important is - one, has to do with funding of our courts. As you may know, our courts charge for everything, and you have to pay a filing fee, we also use monetary sanctions. And why do we do that? Because we have to fund ourselves. So I'm a big advocate that some day - there has to be some heavy lifting - and our courts really should be part of the general fund, so that we are not the cash registers. So we don't have to collect the funds in order to pay for the services that we're providing. We're a branch of government that ought to be, again, accessible and available to everyone. I know of no other branch where you have to pay before you get served, and yet that's what happens in our court systems. I know the judges, who are in our municipal courts or in our district courts, feel awful about having to constantly collect money in order to sustain therapeutic courts or any other kind of court that serves people. So that's one that I think is really important and we're working very hard on. The second is we're really wrestling with how do we eradicate racism from our system? It's systemic, it's institutional, and it's taking a lot of work to invite everyone to say - how do we do this better? How do we examine ourselves and our practices and how do we change? So we look at jury diversity, we've looked at legal financial obligations. We are trying very hard at every level to say - this is our responsibility, it is our duty to ensure that every single person can be guaranteed truly not only access, but a fair process. So we're doing a lot of education at this point. And as you may know, in 2020, our court issued a letter to the entire legal community inviting everyone to join us in examining our systems and to eradicating racism at every level. So we're doing that heavy work - those are the two things that I have as a priority, and that I think are important. [00:24:54] Crystal Fincher: And I appreciate that in our recent conversation with Justice Whitener, we talked about that letter and just how important it was in the role that our court took in leading the country, really and acknowledging that and stating plainly this is a problem that we are responsible to solve. It is widely acknowledged - I certainly believe we can't start to solve problems until we acknowledge them, and so having that acknowledgement and having people who are, who seem to be doing the work to fix it is something that I appreciate and I'm thankful for. You - again. I could go on about all of the accolades that you've received for quite some time. You received the 2019 Crosscut Courage in Elected Office award. You recently, just late last year, had your portrait unveiled at Seattle University. You have - my goodness, there's so much - you received the 2020 Latino Bar Association Trailblazer Award, the "Established Leader" Pride Award from Mayor Jenny Durkan in the City of Seattle, the 2018 "Voice of Social Justice" from the Greater Seattle Business Association, the 2017 "Lifetime Achievement" - and I'm telling you, I - this is literally about a sixth of the things that I could list from you. As you look at your career, what are you most proud of? [00:26:34] Justice Mary Yu: It's a hard question. It's hard because when I think about my life and not just a career, I think I am most proud that I think I fulfilled my parents' dream. And that's because both of my parents came to this country very, very poor with nothing. My mother was a farm worker. My father grew up on a ship that just floated around the world for years - he was a boy without a parent. And their dream when they came together, I think, was simply to provide an opportunity for their children to have food on the table, to have a decent job, and to maybe have an education. So when I look back and I look at my life, I think I'm most proud that I fulfilled their dream of in one generation, having the opportunity to be successful. When I look at my career, I would say the thing that I'm most proud of is having been a mentor to so many young people of color who have grown up and who are now judges. I am proud to be the co-chair of the Leadership Institute with Mr. James Williams, where we have graduated 196 lawyers from our leadership program and our focus is on underrepresented lawyers. And what we do is just really enable and empower them to see their gifts and talents. And we have a lot of them who have become judges. And we have one who is the US Attorney for Western Washington - Nick Brown was one of our graduates. So I would say I'm most proud of those acts because it's about giving back and it's about enabling others to do this work, so I would be very happy to rest on those laurels, is to say - you paid it back, Mary, and that's what it's all about. [00:28:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and they would be so proud and that you are also helping to enable that for so many other people in this state - I certainly appreciate. And I guess as we are looking forward and your continuing service on the court, assuming you're going to be re-elected, assuming all of us get out there and vote to make sure that happens. What do you most want to accomplish moving forward? [00:29:06] Justice Mary Yu: I wanna continue to do what I am doing, 'cause I think that's really important. And I'd like to put some more energy into restoring confidence in our courts. I'm trying to respond to Eric Liu's call to be concerned about the health of our democracy. His call has really resonated with me that we can't live with just accepting polarization - this is not the future of our country and the future of who we are. And that all of us, as judges and lawyers, we should be very, very concerned about keeping our democracy alive, keeping it healthy, and frankly being engaged. [00:29:47] Crystal Fincher: And if you give people some advice on how they can help ensure that within our judicial system, what would you say? [00:29:57] Justice Mary Yu: Crystal, can you pose that question again? I'm sorry. [00:29:59] Crystal Fincher: Oh, sure - no problem. If you were to give folks, one piece of advice for how they could engage with our judicial system, or something that they could do to help it be more equitable and healthier and to restore that trust - what advice would you get for people for what they could do to help that? [00:30:19] Justice Mary Yu: I'd say come to jury service - come to jury service and be a part of the decision making. Restore confidence in what we do - when I was a trial judge, I remember talking to the whole pool of jurors, 70 people who were just dying to get outta there. And I would just say before you raise your hand and ask to leave, I just want you to imagine and think about this - that if it were you, would you not want somebody like yourself to be sitting there to be the decision maker? Because all the people who come into our court system, they're there because there's something really important to them. The things that they hold most near and dear - and it could be innocence in a criminal trial, injury that they haven't been compensated for, some unfair contract, whatever it might be - it's something important to those individuals. And who would you want to be seated, sitting there, listening to this. Would you not want somebody like yourself? And I'd just say - just pause and think about that. And I'd have to say hands went down and people became a little embarrassed and thought - well, yeah, I guess I could do this. I can't do it for 10 weeks, I could do it for two days or three days. So I would say to everyone is - please, if you have the opportunity to serve as a juror, do so. You become the fact finder, which is the most important part of a trial - is somebody who determines what is true and what is not, or what you wanna believe or what you don't wanna believe. It doesn't even matter if it's truthful or not. What do you believe and how do you determine credibility should rest in the hands of other people? So I would say that's something everyone can do - is please come to jury service when you can. And if you get that summons, that's the beginning. From there, you'll be able to see the rest of the flaws and then maybe you can help us figure out the rest. [00:32:17] Crystal Fincher: Great advice. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today - sincerely appreciate this conversation and all of the work you've done and continue to do. Thank you so much, Justice Yu. [00:32:29] Justice Mary Yu: Crystal, thank you so much. [00:32:31] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

Today's episode is a recording of a live forum between Seattle Municipal Court Judge candidates - Judge Adam Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi for Position 3, Nyjat Rose-Akins and Judge Damon Shadid for Position 7. The forum was live streamed by Hacks & Wonks on October 12, 2022 and moderated by Crystal Fincher.   Resources Find links to the YouTube video and transcript here   Campaign Website - Judge Adam Eisenberg   Campaign Website - Pooja Vaddadi   Campaign Website - Nyjat Rose-Akins   Campaign Website - Judge Damon Shadid   Register to vote, update your registration, see what's on your ballot and more here   Past felony conviction? Information on re-registering to vote at the Washington Voting Rights Restoration Coalition   Transcript [00:00:00] Bryce Cannatelli: Hello everyone. This is Bryce from the Hacks & Wonks team. Today's episode is a recording of our City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge forum which was originally streamed live on October 12. You can find video from the event as well as a full text transcript on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. Thank you for listening! [00:00:34] Crystal Fincher: Greetings, everyone. My name is Crystal Fincher. I'm a political consultant and the host of this candidate forum tonight. Welcome to this Hacks & Wonks 2022 Primary Candidate Forum for City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Positions 3 and 7. For those who need a refresher, the Seattle Municipal Court handles all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes, civil infractions, and other offenses authorized under the Seattle municipal Code and Revised Code of Washington statutes. Misdemeanors are crimes where the maximum sentence is 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Gross Misdemeanors are crimes that carry a maximum sentence of 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, including offenses such as driving under the influence, domestic violence, theft, and trespass. Infractions are acts that are prohibited by law but are not legally defined as a crime, like parking tickets and traffic or non-traffic infractions. And Civil Offenses are filed with the court when the City of Seattle seeks enforcement of its fire code, housing, and other city ordinance violations. The majority of the Seattle Municipal Court Judges' time is dedicated to jury trials and pretrial hearings. They also hear sentencings, arraignments, reviews, non-jury, or 'bench' trials, and can perform marriage ceremonies. Seattle Municipal Court has seven judges who are elected to four-year terms. Every other year, the judges select one judge to act as the Presiding Judge for a two-year term. The Presiding Judge's responsibilities including: overseeing the magistrates, lead the management and administration of the court's business, recommend policies and procedures that improve the court's effectiveness, allocate resources that maximize the court's ability to resolve disputes fairly and expeditiously, and determine judicial assignments. We're excited to be able to live stream this forum on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Additionally, we are recording this forum for rebroadcast and later viewing. We invite our audience to ask questions of our candidates. If you're watching a live stream online, then you can ask questions by commenting on the live stream. You can also text your questions to 206-395-6248, and that number will scroll at the bottom of the screen. The candidates running for City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Position 3 with us right now are - in alphabetical order - Adam Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi. And for Position 7 we have - again, in alphabetical order - Nyjat Rose-Akins and Damon Shadid. A few reminders before we jump into the forum. I want to remind you to vote. Ballots will be mailed to your mailbox starting Wednesday, October 19th - that's this coming Wednesday. You can register to vote, update your registration, and see what will be on your ballot at MyVote.wa.gov. I want to mention that tonight's answers will be timed. Each candidate will have one minute to introduce themselves initially, and 90 seconds to answer each subsequent question. Candidates may be engaged with rebuttal or follow up with questions and will have 30 seconds to respond. Time will be indicated by the colored dot labeled "timer" on the screen. The dot will initially appear as green, when there are 30 seconds left it will turn yellow, and when there are 10 seconds left it will turn red. You will be muted when time is up. Now we'll turn to the candidates who will each have one minute to introduce themselves, starting with Adam Eisenberg. Then Pooja Vaddadi. Next Nyjat Rose-Akins. Finally Damon Shadid. So starting with our first candidate. [00:04:13] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Good evening. Municipal courts present a unique opportunity for restorative justice and diversion. For many of the people who come before me, this is their first stop in the legal system - I want it to be their last. I grew up with an abusive father and I know that treatment is critical to healing survivors, families, and abusers. That's why I helped create the Domestic Violence Intervention Project, a community-based program that serves as an alternative to jail. DVIP provides individualized treatment to break cycles of abuse and trauma. I'm proud to be the only LGBTQ+ member of the Seattle Municipal Court bench. Before being appointed in 2017, I had 25 years of experience as a prosecutor, civil defense attorney, magistrate and commissioner. I believe my diverse background is why I've been rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" by the King County Bar and four minority bar associations. It's also why I've been elected Presiding Judge by my peers and why I have the support of Supreme Court Justices Yu, González and Whitener, local district Democrats, the unions that represent our court clerks and many more. Thank you. [00:05:11] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And next. [00:05:17] Pooja Vaddadi: Okay, sorry - thank you. My name is Pooja Vaddadi and I'm running for judge in Seattle to serve the community that raised me and bring about a positive change in the culture of Seattle Municipal Court. I'm a career public defender and my platform is centered on a recommitment to fairness, compassion, and restorative justice. At this time, I've been endorsed by every Democratic organization in Seattle and King County that has endorsed in this race, as well as the Washington Young Democrats, the Democrats for Diversity and Inclusion and the National Women's Political Caucus. Aside from three legislative districts, these endorsements are exclusive. I always planned to run for judge, but I wish that I didn't have to run right now. Practice at Seattle Municipal Court showed me a toxic and biased judiciary acting against the interest of public safety and undermining the institution of the court. I'm running now because it is urgent that we change direction. This campaign is about the people of Seattle. As a public defender, I came to understand the specific challenges that prevent misdemeanor defendants from interacting productively with the criminal justice system. I'm running to bring the court back in touch with the law and with the circumstances of those it serves. [00:06:17] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:06:21] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Nyjat Rose-Akins and I'm running for Position 7 on the Seattle Municipal Court bench. I love Seattle. I became a U.S. citizen here, but I've seen the breakdown in collaboration across the city. I'm running to help repair that breakdown to improve the community's confidence in the court and to return to an individualized approach to judicial decision-making. I'm running because I've spent the last 12 years working with victims and managing relationships - the community relationships with police. In my 12 years at the City Attorney's Office, I've partnered with businesses, government officials, community members, and law enforcement. I've seen firsthand that issues affecting communities are rarely resolved in silos. Real change takes collaboration from all those involved, a willingness to listen, and the ability to have the courage to say when things are not working. I am running for Seattle Municipal Court to make it better. Thank you. [00:07:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon Shadid. [00:07:22] Judge Damon Shadid: My name is Judge Damon Shadid. I've been a judge at Seattle Municipal Court for the past eight years. For the past four years, I've been presiding over the majority of Seattle Municipal Court's therapeutic courts - including Community Court which I helped found, Mental Health Court which I helped expand, and the Consolidated Calendar which I was able to create in partnership with other criminal legal system organizations. All of these programs have one thing in common. Accountability is best sought through rehabilitation, not through holding people in jail. Without rehabilitation, we are not going to make our community safer - and that's what all of my programs do. It is an individualized approach to find out what people's barriers are and to help them connect with the vital social services that will help them exit the criminal legal system. I'm proud to be endorsed by the Progressive Voters Guide, by The Seattle Times, by nine Supreme Court Justices, by many labor organizations, as well as community leaders, including - [00:08:31] Crystal Fincher: Thank you, I believe that's your time. Our first question will begin with Nyjat Rose-Akins, then follow up with Damon Shadid. What is your evaluation of the Community Court system? What is working and what's not working? [00:08:46] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you for that question. My evaluation of the Community Court system that is run out of Seattle Municipal Court is that it is not working. I have been partnering with members in the community as well as businesses and really trying to understand what is happening in that court. As a prosecutor - when I initially started at the City Attorney's Office in 2010 - I worked in Community Court. So I understand how the program is supposed to work. And currently I do not believe it's working because right now it seems as if it's a very indiscriminate approach to low-level crime, meaning it seems as if all types of crimes can come in regardless of what that individual may be doing in the community and whether or not that individual continues to commit crime even after being in Community Court. For instance, an individual - me reviewing the docket in the court, the court dockets - I've seen individuals with six, seven, eight crimes all at one time in Community Court. That shows me that that is not working. And low-level crime should be something very small. However, I'm seeing crimes where individuals are stealing thousands of dollars, $970 from businesses and Home Depot and Target. So my issue with it is that it doesn't seem to be working and we continue to just recycle people in and out without any real solution. [00:10:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Shadid. [00:10:22] Judge Damon Shadid: It's interesting. My opponent has never appeared in Community Court, which I founded - she was in a prior iteration of Community Court. But let me give you some numbers to show you how Community Court is working. 80% of the graduates of Community Court have no further criminal law violations - 80%. That's over two years that we ran the numbers and the graduates are not coming back in the criminal legal system - that is results that work. Let me tell you something else - now, Community Court was created in a collaboration with the City Attorney's Office and with the Public Defender's Office. We meet every two weeks, we tweak the program, we make it better. And in all of these meetings - my opponent has never come to the meeting, has never offered any sort of critique of the court, but instead has come from the outside where she's only reviewed dockets, but never actually been in the court, never been in the meetings. If she had been in the meeting, she would know that they work. She would know that we're collaborating and she would know that what we are trying to do is bring accountability through rehabilitation and it is working. Of the people who come to court, 90% of those people enter Community Court. Of those 90%, 75% graduate. And of those graduates, 90% don't re-offend in the next two years. Those are real numbers. Those work and we should keep going with Community Court, make it better, and expand it. [00:11:48] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:11:54] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. I believe a lot of Community Court is working. I've had a lot of clients that cycled in and out of Community Court and have been met with very many resources through that court. What I've noticed that hasn't been working is that a lot of roadblocks have been set up by the City Attorney's Office and a majority of the judges have more or less gone along with what the City Attorney proposes - and that is to exclude everybody off the High Utilizer Initiative list. That list is made up of people who have severe mental illnesses and people who are homeless and struggling with desperation and poverty. And I believe those people are the people that would benefit the most from a court like Community Court. Certain people on that list are also part of the Trueblood class and should just not be capable of being prosecuted because of the severity of their mental illness as well. And so Community Court obviously would not be the right place for them. But again, prosecution or keeping them off of any kind of diversion list is not going to help people who just cannot be prosecuted because of a mental illness. I believe that the Community Court can work better if the City Attorney, the Public Defenders and the Judges - again - decide to work together and come to a policy that works for everybody on the same page. I don't think it's working right now because people are butting heads in the court and in the Public Defenders and the City Attorney. People need to be on the same side and that's the side of public safety and helping prevent poverty and homelessness. Thank you. [00:13:24] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Adam Eisenberg. [00:13:27] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Yes. So the thing that's most important to understand about Community Court is it's a triage court. It's meant to get people in the court system and out of the court system as quickly as possible, hook them up with social services, give them - if we can get them to housing, get them to housing - and move them on. The reality is some folks don't fit in Community Court. And while I don't necessarily agree that coming up with a list of 109 people or 110 or whatever is the best solution, the reality is that we need to figure out a way of addressing the folks who commit very low-level crimes, but don't succeed in Community Court. That's what this group is about. The group that doesn't succeed that keeps coming back. So while there's a great success rate as Judge Shadid talks about, how do we address the folks that don't fit? There is a dispute between the prosecutors and the public defenders - the prosecutor has discretion, judges have discretion as well. And I think over time we'll see that those folks will try to figure out more services that we can provide them with. But the reality is not everybody fits in Community Court and that group is the group we have to figure how to target. Thank you. [00:14:31] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat asked for some rebuttal time. [00:14:36] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. I just wanted to address the 80% of people who go into Community Court graduate. That number is very skewed because when you do review the court docket, there are also a number of people who fail to appear or don't even show up for court. So I believe that is a skewed number based on the fact that there are multiple Community Court offers, but a number of people who do not show up for court. Additionally, the City Attorney tried to negotiate and opt some people out because they felt they - [00:15:12] Crystal Fincher: That is time there and just another reminder - rebuttal is a 30-second period. Does anyone else want any rebuttal time, or are we good? We will move on to the next question. And we'll start with Judge Shadid. We have seen news of overcrowding in jails, asks from various jail employees - including corrections officers and public defenders - saying that they don't currently have the staffing to safely man the jails, asking to reduce the population. Should that be taken into account by judges when imposing sentences? [00:15:51] Judge Damon Shadid: Well the short answer is "No, but..." And there's a big but there - and that is that the criminal legal system should be steering away from incarceration because we know incarceration doesn't help people... the criminal legal system. And as a deterrent, it is very, very controversial of whether or not a jail deterrent is actually effective. What we need to do is be expanding programs for diversion, expanding programs for rehabilitation - that's what I've spent my career doing. That's why I created the new Community Court. That's why I brought together a Consolidated Calendar where people who are already working in the community with case workers can come on one-stop shopping to a court and can resolve their cases many times without the need of jail. That's why I've expanded Mental Health Court - so that we can create release plans for the most dangerous, most vulnerable in our community - people who need close supervision, and so we can release them with very close supervision with the aid of a court clinician. This is the direction the court should be going. Accountability should come from rehabilitation, from a person's willingness to engage with the social safety net services. I am proud to say that Seattle Municipal Court has not been booking people in jail up to the level of beds that we have available. We consistently come under that and we have lowered that number every year. And one of the big reasons, of course, is because of our diversion programs and I'm very proud of that fact. [00:17:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Next up is Nyjat. [00:17:26] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, there has been a lot of issues with King County Jail, and as Judge Shadid stated, the court is not in charge of the jail and can't necessarily tell the jail what to do. I do think the court does have to factor that in when people are trying to be admitted into the jail and the jail is closed. So I think those are definitely some considerations that should be made when you are looking to maybe sentence someone to jail or determine whether bail is warranted. But I think that is done on a case-by-case basis. [00:18:03] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg. [00:18:08] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. I think the reality is judges are very much aware of the crowding in the jail. The job that we have is to decide - in this particular case, is this person a safety threat to the community? And that's really what drives most of the decisions to whether someone is going to be in jail or not. Is there substantial likelihood they're going to commit a violent crime? Are they going to interfere with the administration of justice? And then to a lesser extent, whether they're going to show up to court or if they've failed to show up multiple times. We are very much aware of the limitations of the jail. And there's also issues with staffing in general - because of COVID, they're not able to staff as well. So it's very challenging. We are booking fewer people - we've been doing that ever since COVID started. So I think that that shows that judges are very much aware of it. But at the end of the day, it comes down to - in this particular case, is this person a danger to the community or not? That's the primary driver of why someone's held in jail. And the judge has to make a decision based on that. Thank you. [00:19:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Pooja. [00:19:09] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. I do agree with Judge Shadid. The court should be steering away from incarceration. And so while over-crowding for sentencing should not necessarily be taken into consideration, I do think that sentencing needs to be, that culture around sentencing needs to change dramatically. Studies have shown that public safety is not improved with increased rates of incarceration. In fact, a lot like what Judge Shadid was saying as well, studies have shown that diversion programs really do help to promote public safety. With the increased rate of incarceration, with the increased rate of jail sentences between 15 to 60 days - all it does to the individual is destabilize them. Their mental health deteriorates significantly when in jail. They're faced with the overcrowding problem. They're faced with dealing with individuals that they'd never encounter in the system. And they're also cut off from all resources. I've had clients that have had a lot of problems getting their mental health meds or any other kind of medical assistance while in jail. And all it does is cut them off from the resources that can help them re-enter society more effectively, that can help them not reoffend in the future. We should focus more on diversion programs. We should teach individuals who do touch the criminal justice system to reincorporate with society a little bit better. That is what improves public safety. [00:20:40] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. And for this next question, we will start with Adam Eisenberg. What factors do you consider in granting and setting bail amounts for defendants? Should it strictly be based on whether or not someone is dangerous to society or a safety risk, therefore kind of making bail irrelevant, or does bail have a role to play in your court? How do you evaluate that? [00:21:06] Judge Adam Eisenberg: So judges are guided by Criminal Rule 3.2, which does provide that the least restrictive means is what's appropriate. And in order to set bail, you have to decide that there's a substantial likelihood someone's going to commit a violent crime if they're released, substantial likelihood that they will interfere with the administration of justice or witnesses - which could be violate no-contact orders, or continue to drink and drive after they've been charged with a DUI, or fail to appear. That is the legal requirement that we have. We're also supposed to consider whether the person has the ability to pay or not. The bail system was created over 100 years ago in our state through statutes that seem very out-of-date and don't really apply to the modern world, because clearly people who have financial means are able to bail out easier than those who don't. Although there is the Northwest Bail Fund, which actually is able to bail people out who aren't able to afford it up to a certain level. As a judge, those factors are the factors that are the ones that I'm guided by. In looking at a particular case, is this person a danger to the community? That is the primary concern that I have. The bail system is not a perfect system. California is experimenting with a no bail or bail, so you either decide to hold someone or you release them and there's not an option to bail them out. I don't know if that's a better system or not, but I'm guided by the rules and I apply it in a case-by-case basis. Thank you. [00:22:32] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Next up will be Pooja. I'll just repeat the question. What factors are considered in granting and setting bail amounts for defendants and what do you believe should be the primary consideration? [00:22:46] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. So that's correct - the setting of bail is determined by CrRLJ 3.2. It is what needs to be considered when determining whether a person should be released or not, or what the terms of that release are. It does need to be the least restrictive means. What I believe that a lot of judges do frequently forget though, is that the presumption of all pretrial release is actually release. Bail is not at all presumed. What this means is that unless the prosecutor can meet a very high burden in proving that that person is either a danger to the community, at risk of interfering with the administration of justice, or a risk for failure to appear - that person needs to be released from jail. The problem with bail right now is that the danger seems to be - the level of whether that person is a risk to community safety seems to be driven by how much that person can afford. The bail system, as everybody knows, is not perfect. In fact, it is incredibly flawed and it seems to incarcerate more people who simply are poor rather than anybody else. The bail and the setting of bail is also guided by the constitution and it never should be excessive. A judge needs to consider whether the setting of bail is going to do more harm than good. I've seen a client that was bound for diversion and dismissal made homeless by a capricious application of unnecessary bail in this court and I do think that the individual needs to be taken into consideration with this. Thank you. [00:24:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon? [00:24:23] Judge Damon Shadid: The plain fact of the matter is that all cash bail discriminates against poor people. That is just a fact. There's no getting around it. If you set bail on somebody, a rich person can afford to pay to get out, but a poor person can't. And that's why judges need more tools when it comes to release. That's the whole point of the Community Court, the Mental Health Court, and the Consolidated Calendar - is to give us more tools to allow people to be released on structured release programs that help them connect with services - even predisposition - so that they're safer in the community. Now, I've also started a larger project called the Jail Release Toolkit that I plan to start in Seattle and provide - and that's to try to give judges more options for structured release plans that conform with Rule 3.2, to allow us to follow the laws. Now, it also can't be ignored that the Supreme Court, when COVID started, very much told the judges that we need to only hold people in jail pretrial if they are a substantial risk of committing a violent crime. And so we've been following that, and we've learned really important things from that - and that is we don't have to hold as many people in jail pretrial as maybe we thought we did. And I think a lot of judges have learned from that as well, and so we're really in a great place right now where I believe judges are open to alternative structured releases that can make the community safer instead of just using jail. [00:25:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Nyjat? [00:25:57] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yeah, so the presumption of release is where I start when reviewing a person's case. However, as everyone has said, the court is bound by looking at Rule 3.2. And other than whether or not someone is likely to commit a dangerous offense, you also will have to look at whether or not someone is actually going to come back to court. And if someone has a very high failure-to-appear rate, you have to maybe consider - if I release this person, will this person come back to court? For misdemeanor cases, the point of having alternatives and other types of programs is that these cases need to be addressed relatively quickly, and we can get the services to the people who need it. So in addition to maybe looking at someone's failure-to-appear history, maybe some other examples of things that can be done is maybe electronic home monitoring and/or day reporting, because the point is to make sure that people do not lose contact with the court. And how can we increase contact with people who are committing crimes in our community? [00:27:08] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. And we will start this with Pooja. If you observed a party in your courtroom being poorly represented by an unprepared or ineffective lawyer, how would you handle the situation? [00:27:22] Pooja Vaddadi: So a judge cannot get in between a client and their attorney. It's not my position to do that. All I can do is preside over the law. Now I'll have to rule, however - everything presents in there - and hopefully one of the attorneys speaks up in objection to the way that the representation is going on, but I can't let my personal bias get in there. Just because I think I might do the job differently doesn't mean that I would do it better than the attorney that's doing it right then and there. I should never be the one, as the judge, to substitute my own judgment for how an attorney is handling their case. They have the personal experience with their client. They have the personal experience with their particular case - the victim of the crime, the police officer, whatever it is that they're dealing with - they have that experience to know how to handle that case. Now if I do think that somebody is being unethical or anything like that, that might be a different situation where a judge might have the ability to rule on a particular ethical violation - something that is bound by the law. But again, I would never replace my own judgment nor question the authority of an attorney when they're dealing with their own case - that undermines the credibility of every attorney in that courtroom and it undermines people's confidence in the court. Thank you. [00:28:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Adam? [00:28:40] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. Well, I think that generally what Ms. Vaddadi has said is correct - the judges are not to interfere. However, there are certain circumstances - one day when I was a prosecutor actually, the defense attorney was drunk in the middle of a trial and her own attorney - the client is like, Your Honor, my attorney is drunk. And then the judge said, Judge Eisenberg - or sorry, Adam Eisenberg, I was his prosecutor - do you notice that she's drunk? Well, I'm sitting fairly close by and it put me in an awkward position, but the bottom line is that case resulted in a mistrial. And so there are circumstances where - and they're very rare, honestly - most attorneys that appear in front of us do a really good job. They may make tactical decisions that you might go, Why did you make that tactical decision - after the fact. But that's the area where the judge absolutely cannot invade. If you make a tactical decision to enter, submit evidence or not submit evidence - that's totally within the discretion of the attorney and the judge has to back away. If you have a situation where an attorney is obviously drunk in court or otherwise incapacitated in a way that's severe, you have to take some action. The nicest thing to do is reach out to the supervisor, ask the supervisor to come down, talk to the attorney, see if they can gauge what the situation is. In the case of the drunk attorney, that resulted in a mistrial. So that's an extreme case, I've only seen that once in the 30 years I've worked in the court system, but those things do happen. Thank you. [00:30:08] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat? [00:30:14] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yeah, I think if I see someone in the courtroom that is treating their client badly and I'm on the bench - and it seems as if it's more than just a tactical decision, maybe it just seems as if it is just treating someone inhumanely - I would likely take a sidebar or maybe take a recess and take both prosecutor and the defense attorney into chambers and just basically explain what I'm seeing because judges can't have ex parte contact. So I would probably make a note of it to the attorney - that this behavior is not appropriate - especially again, if it's outside of trial tactics and it's just behavior that's just inhumane or treating their client disrespectfully, I would likely address it in chambers. [00:31:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Damon? [00:31:22] Judge Damon Shadid: We are very lucky in Seattle Municipal Court to have a very high level of representation both from the private bar, the Department of Public Defense, and the City Attorney's Office. I never stop being impressed with the level of representation that we have, but that doesn't mean that sometimes there doesn't come an attorney who comes and is doing a poor job representing their client. And what we have to avoid here is we have to avoid - one, the client not getting a fair shake. And number two, a setup for ineffective assistance of counsel so that all the work that went into that trial, all the jurors, all the court staff, and everyone else who spent days trying to go through this trial only to have it overturned because there was ineffective assistance of counsel. Now, I'll tell you what I wouldn't do. I certainly wouldn't take them into my chambers - I think that would be unethical. It needs to be on the record - everything you say needs to be on the record so the public can hear it. I would very much try not to embarrass the attorney in front of their client, and that's when a sidebar may be appropriate as long as it's recorded. But if the attorney doesn't seem to be catching on, then the case has to be continued so that they can get prepared. Or, as Judge Eisenberg said, sometimes it will rise to the level of a mistrial. So while I would normally keep hands off as much as I can, I'm not going to let a defendant and my court be misrepresented by an attorney. [00:32:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. I now have a question submitted from the audience during this forum, and it's a two-part question really. One, do you consider any types of crimes to be victimless? And for those that aren't, how will you work to assure that victims are listened to and considered when imposing a sentence or adjudicating a case? And we will be starting with Nyjat. [00:33:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: I apologize. I didn't hear the last part. Do you consider any types of crimes victimless? And I didn't hear the last part of the question? [00:33:30] Crystal Fincher: Sure. How does each candidate work to assure that victims are listened to and considered when imposing a sentence or adjudicating a case? [00:33:42] Nyjat Rose-Akins: So do I think any crime is victimless? No, I do not. I think some cases are definitely going to be more impactful to victims. But I believe when people are committing crimes, even low-level crimes - if it's a crime that continues to be done every day, it is impacting the community. The community is the victim if people are calling the police or observing this behavior. So even though all crimes are not going to be created equal, some crimes are definitely going to be more severe than others and impact more people. But I think for - to make sure that victims are being listened to, I think the main thing is to make sure that they have a seat at the table, they understand the process, they understand what the court is doing. What I've realized over the last number of years is that a lot of people really don't understand how the court functions or how it works. So I think the prosecutor's office - they have victims advocates that - I think it's good for them to talk with the victims to make sure that they understand the system and what and how things are happening. And even make sure that they come to court to see the process. [00:35:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon Shadid? [00:35:13] Judge Damon Shadid: Sure, there are some victimless crimes - failure to transfer title, driving with license suspended in the third degree - I have trouble figuring out who would be a victim there. But I, in general, agree with my opponent that it's a matter of impacting - how does it impact the community? How does it impact the individual? Now in Washington, we have a Victims Bill of Rights. It used to only apply to felonies, but now it applies to misdemeanors as well. But I've always followed it, even before it applied to misdemeanors. If a victim comes into my court and wants to speak at any level of the prosecution, I will allow them to speak because it's difficult to come into court. It takes a lot of bravery to speak to the judge and to face the person who may have abused you. And so that person should be given a high amount of respect. But on the flip side of that, that person should be given a lot of respect if they, for instance, do not want to continue with prosecution. So you have to listen to both sides of it. As far as community crimes like that, there's a reason why we call it Community Court. And the way that we have people give back to the community is through things like community service work, or things like that that are going to actually give back to the community that's been taken from. So yes, victims will be listened to at all stages of the proceedings, and I have tried to do that. [00:36:40] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Pooja Vaddadi? [00:36:44] Pooja Vaddadi: By definition and in general, no crime is going to be completely victimless and especially not in a strictly criminal court. I do agree with Judge Shadid - there are certain crimes like driving while license suspended or any licensing-type situation that is a failure to pay fines - I find it hard to believe also that there would be a real victim attached to that. But property crimes, thefts, whatever - the ordinary administration of justice is the tool by which we address these wrongs. However, the temptation for any judge is to substitute their outrage for the narrow bounds of sentencing permitted under the laws - and it's a challenge that we must rise to be impartial. It's essential not to misapply the law or you do risk revictimizing everyone through a second trial. That includes oversentencing, because you as a judge may think that a certain crime is particularly outrageous, but the worst thing that can happen is for that case to come back to court for a second time for a retrial or a resentencing where the victim has to, again, readdress the court to get any kind of recourse. That's traumatizing for anybody involved in the system. I do think it's important to listen to victims as well, especially when the court is trying to help that individual. Sometimes there are victims that come into court that wish to have the no contact order lifted so that their partner can support their lifestyle and their children. And I've seen this court deny administratively those requests to rescind the no contact order. And I would like to prevent that. Thank you. [00:38:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg. [00:38:24] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. Yes, as everyone has mentioned, there are a few categories of crimes that perhaps are victimless, but most of the crimes that appear in front of us have some sort of victim. I'm most involved in the domestic violence cases. And one of the things that's unique about the Domestic Violence Intervention Project, which is the diversion program that I've described in my opening that is an alternative to jail for domestic violence offenders, is an individualized approach and a multidisciplinary team that includes victim advocates. So the voices of victims, not necessarily the victim of the particular crime, but victims - community victims or community advocates who are very familiar with the survivors of domestic violence are able to provide input into how to manage the intervention. The goal, of course, is to make it safer for the victims. We take victims very seriously - I know all my colleagues do when they come to court and wish to explain what they experienced. Sometimes they have to do it through the trial, sometimes they have to do it at sentencing. But I think even low-level crimes - if the victim wants to come to court and present, certainly the Revised Code of Washington provides for that - for them to be able to explain. And I think the court has to hear and consider their opinion, their concerns along with the other evidence that they've heard when they make a decision. So victims' voices are very, very important in our court. Thank you. [00:39:45] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And thank you to the audience for that question. This next question will start with Judge Shadid. We've had several high profile incidents in Seattle where police officers' accounts of events may have differed from video evidence and other things turned up in subsequent investigations. Do judges have any responsibility or role in interrogating the honesty of police and law enforcement in the court? [00:40:12] Judge Damon Shadid: Well, that is a very difficult question because it depends on what stage of the proceedings that you're in - whether or not you're in a pretrial, a motion, or a trial - and what would be appropriate in each case. What I will say is this - if a police officer breaks the law by perjuring themselves in court, that police officer should be subject to the laws just like any other person who comes into the court and they should be prosecuted. I've never actually seen a police officer prosecuted for perjury, but I have seen police officers lie on the stand in my eight years. And that's pretty shocking to me - police officers not only should be held to the same standard as everyone else, but they should be held to a higher standard. And they should not be coming in to lie in order to get somebody convicted. They need to be able to prove their case just based upon the truth. What I will say is that - at least the prior administration of the City Attorney's Office regularly dismissed cases when they saw a discrepancy between the police officer's testimony and contravening evidence. I think that's the right move. But unless it meets a very high standard, a judge is not able to dismiss the case themselves, it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to do so. If there is a motion to dismiss, then the defense attorney would have to make their proof based upon the rules, particularly 8.3. [00:41:42] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:41:49] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Sorry. I agree with my opponent that everyone has a role when it comes to the court, and the court cannot necessarily just summarily dismiss a case that has been brought by the prosecution. I will say that the court can - there are many points in a case - for instance, if there is information about an officer, for instance, they call it Brady information - so it's information that the prosecution has to turn over and if they do not turn that over, then the court can entertain motions to dismiss because that is a huge violation. So if an officer has been found to have lied on the stand or any other behavior that has been deemed under Brady that needs to be disclosed to defense. So those are some ways that the court can, I guess, intervene when there is an issue with an officer specifically. But yeah, so that is the main thing - I would say that as I myself have actually prosecuted a police officer - because I truly believe that we all should be held to the same standard. [00:43:15] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Judge Eisenberg. [00:43:19] Judge Adam Eisenberg: So you asked the question, can judges interrogate? Well, it's not really our role to necessarily interrogate. However, in certain hearings, we do have the opportunity, as the fact finder of the hearing, to ask questions. I can give you an example of a stage where I did find there was not probable cause for arrest and it was based on how the officer behaved. The officer saw the defendant driving late at night at a high rate of speed - that was pretty clear. He pulled him over and he asked him to step out of the car and he said - I smell some alcohol, I would like you to do some field sobriety tests. The defendant was very polite - I don't want to do any field sobriety tests because I know what happens next. If I do field sobriety tests, you take me to jail. And the officer's like, No, I'm not going to do that, but I just need to know. And what happened was 15 minutes of the officer trying to cajole the defendant to take field sobriety tests and the defendant clearly didn't want to. The defendant was Black, the officer was not. There was some question as to whether this was racially biased or not - it wasn't 100% clear, but it was very suspicious. And at the end of the probable cause hearing, I determined there wasn't probable cause for the arrest - the officer did not have enough information and the case was dismissed. Unfortunately, the officer left the courtroom before he could hear my ruling, but it was a very troubling situation. And that's a circumstance where a judge can see what an officer is doing because my job is to determine whether there's probable cause. And at that point, I could say the officer was inappropriate in what he did. [00:44:46] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:44:50] Pooja Vaddadi: And so I agree with pretty much what everybody else has said already. It's not necessarily a judge's role to take it upon themselves to litigate a case where an officer maybe is lying or engaging in any misconduct. But I have seen, as a public defender, police officers engaging in racially biased policing, which in my opinion is bad and sometimes in a lot of cases worse than perjury in court. The judge is a gatekeeper for evidence and has the power to address Brady issues or entertain motions to dismiss under circumstances that Ms. Rose-Akins actually described. And they should. There must be some distance between judges and the police so that they don't enjoy a special relationship and show any kind of bias towards any officers that are in that court. I've taken a case to trial actually in which a white officer investigated a scene for 40 minutes before releasing one person and then pretty much deciding that he smelled alcohol on my client's breath. The officer in that situation was a white man. My client was a Black driver. Such a case would raise a suspicion for me, although there is not much I can do in that situation unless the defense attorney does raise a type of motion. And then we are then faced with the ability for me to make a decision on whether that officer should testify or whether there needs to be some other kind of hearing to exclude that kind of testimony. Judges are bound by the law and that is how they need to operate. But we shouldn't let people with a lot of authority just get away with blatant disregard for the law. [00:46:26] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. This next question, we're going to start with Adam Eisenberg. What do your endorsements say about you and what do you think your opponent's endorsements say about them? [00:46:41] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Well, I've been endorsed by The Seattle Times, eight of the nine sitting justices on the Supreme Court, retired Justice Bobbe Bridge, judges across the state who I've worked with on committees on statewide issues related to domestic violence, related to how do we have a jury trial in the middle of COVID - which I was assigned to be on the task force for that - on various rules that I have been engaged with. And I've also been endorsed by the union that supports our court clerks, I've been endorsed by public defenders, prosecutors, defense attorneys - male, female - and I've been rated Exceptionally Well Qualified by the bar associations I listed. I think that says that I try to do the best job I can and it seems like the legal community recognizes that. My opponent has been endorsed by a lot of the - I've been endorsed by some of the legislative districts, she's been endorsed by all of them. And she's been endorsed by, I believe, a lot of the progressive diversity groups. I don't really have a thought on what that says, but I'm very proud of the endorsements that I've gotten, including The Seattle Times - and including former Governor Christine Gregoire and many, many other Seattle City Councilmembers and County Councilmembers. So I feel like I have a pretty diverse background of support. Thank you. [00:48:07] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:48:11] Pooja Vaddadi: I believe that my endorsements, which are all of the Democratic organizational endorsements - I believe that they say that people are looking for a change in Seattle - they're dissatisfied with the way that the judiciary has been operating, they're dissatisfied with the way that the City is being policed right now. What they see is an increase in crime and a decrease in the amount of services that are there for the people of Seattle - there has been an increase of homeless people on the streets, there has been an increase of encampments. And the judiciary and the leadership in Seattle has been doing nothing about that. And people are ready for a change - people are ready for the type of perspective that I bring there. My campaign is staffed by dozens of defense attorneys who are actually afraid to publicly endorse, or who aren't permitted by their leadership to endorse. My opponent's endorsements do tell me that there are two versions of him. There's the version of my opponent that his personal friends see - I'm sure he is a great friend. But there is a version of my opponent that I know there. And unfortunately, a lot of people are not able to speak publicly about some of the behavior that they've seen on the court. And I have their support and their volunteer, I have their support in private. But I do have the support of a lot of organizations that are looking to make a change in Seattle right now and I plan on doing that. [00:49:44] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Judge Shadid. [00:49:48] Judge Damon Shadid: I am proud to be endorsed by every civil Democratic organization and every one of those are sole endorsements. I'm proud to have the endorsement of eight current and former Supreme Court Justices, and community leaders, elected officials like Larry Gossett - who is my personal hero - Girmay Zahilay, Representative Sharon Tomiko Santos, Senator Rebecca Saldaña, City Councilperson Teresa Mosqueda, Tammy Morales, Andrew Lewis, Debora Juarez. I'm very proud - I've also got community leaders, including the president of the statewide NAACP endorsing me, 75 judges - elected judges across the spectrum. And I've actually gotten The Seattle Times and the Progressive Voters guide to agree that they should endorse me solely, which I don't know how many of us can brag that. So I'm very, very pleased with my endorsements - I think it's great. My opponent's been working hard. She's gotten some endorsements from judges and from former Mayor Durkan - who was a former prosecutor - as well as former Governor Gregoire, another former prosecutor. Her support definitely comes from the prosecution - that is clear - and she's been a career prosecutor all her life and so that makes a lot of sense to me. You go to the people that you know and who you've worked with in the past. But my support comes from across the spectrum - it's not single-focused. [00:51:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:51:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: I think my endorsements say that I'm not a politician. My endorsements say that I decided to run for this office because I believe that I am qualified. I'm endorsed by people who know my work and know what I have done and what I've done for the City for the last 12 years. I've been basically behind the scenes for the last 12 years, and this is my first time saying - I am going to put myself out there and be in the forefront because I know that I can make Seattle Municipal Court better based on all the work that I've done over the last 12 years collaborating and partnering with communities and with government officials. So I believe that's what my endorsements say about me. In regards to my opponent, I believe - he's been a sitting judge for the last eight years, so he has made those relationships. And usually, in all honesty, judicial candidates have difficulty because judges do not like to endorse against a sitting judge. So I think the fact that I've been able to get some endorsements from judges and retired judges - and mainly some Seattle Municipal Court judges, retired Seattle Municipal Court judges - I think that shows that I am more than capable of fulfilling this position. [00:52:52] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Now, we also asked each candidate to submit a question to ask their opponent. We will cover some of those questions right now. We will begin with a question from Judge Adam Eisenberg to Pooja Vaddadi - and I will read it verbatim. Candidates for judicial positions usually get vetted by the King County Bar Association and the minority bar associations. It's a rigorous process in which each bar association reaches out to more than 30 attorneys familiar with your work on the bench, and conducts individual interviews with the candidates. I've gone through the vetting process and have been rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" for Seattle Municipal Court by a number of associations. Why have you chosen not to be vetted? [00:53:43] Pooja Vaddadi: So the answer to this question comes in two parts. I'm running a lot earlier than I meant to because it's urgent to bring change in the leadership in SMC. The court has been failing the people of Seattle. I saw that when I was a public defender in that court and I'm still seeing it right now. I enjoyed my career as a public defender and I was not planning on doing this quite this soon in my career, but here we are and I'm needed. Second, from what I've seen, judicial ratings seem to measure nothing more than tenure. Tenure and how often you've pro temmed in the court or tenure on how long you've been on a bench. They obviously don't look at practitioner surveys, they don't look at staff reviews and complaints, overturns on appeal for constitutional violations, or courtroom demeanor. I don't know if these bar associations have sat in my opponent's courtroom for a lengthy period of time. I don't think that I would have had a fair shake in front of these judicial ratings because they would have held my lack of tenure against me. I know I can do this job and I know I will be good at it. Thank you. [00:55:01] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now I'm going to ask a question for Judge Adam Eisenberg from Pooja - verbatim. There's nothing more stressful than representing a client who is innocent and falsely accused; or when an innocent defendant insists on pleading guilty to get out of jail or to avoid a penalty for going to trial. Can you tell me about a time that these have happened in your courtroom and how you were personally impacted?? [00:55:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: If someone's entered a guilty plea in front of me, I have to read the facts - and if there's a basis to support the plea, I have to accept the plea - so I'm not really sure there's - I understand the perspective of being a defense attorney and having a client who's doing something perhaps that you don't agree with or wish they would make a different choice. But people do make these choices to plead guilty for a variety of reasons and I don't often have - I very seldom have any understanding of why they're doing it specifically and their attorneys don't share that information with me. When someone enters a guilty plea, I try to give - if it involves a jail sentence, I try to give an appropriate sentence. If it's a guilty plea, the vast majority of times I agree with whatever the sentence is because it was a negotiated plea between the defense and the prosecution. If the defendant has agreed to a negotiated plea, I have no basis to disregard that. The perspective of a defense attorney isn't the same as the perspective on the bench when you hear someone entering a guilty plea. That's what I would say. Thank you. [00:57:07] Crystal Fincher: Pooja has asked for a rebuttal to that. [00:57:13] Pooja Vaddadi: Oh, sorry. I guess I needed to unmute. I just want to tell a brief story. I had a client in Snohomish County that was held on a DUI. It was a second lifetime DUI and he was held on a substantial amount of bail, a decision that a judge made. There was no blood test results yet and so we did not know what his Blood Alcohol Content was or if he had any drugs in his system. The prosecutor offered him a sentence that would have taken - and trial would have taken a lot longer to go. The point is - I'm running out of time - the point is he did have to plead guilty - [00:57:49] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Eisenberg has also asked for a rebuttal. [00:57:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: I just wanted to say that I'm really sorry about this situation that happened with her defendant that she represented in Snohomish County, but that doesn't really have anything to do with me or my court. [00:58:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now I'm going to ask a question from Nyjat Rose-Akins to Damon Shadid. How does the court monitor a participant's connection with meaningful services if multiple cases are dismissed within 14 days of entering into Community Court? [00:58:28] Judge Damon Shadid: Each individual who comes into Community Court is vetted by a judge for their appropriateness to enter the court. They have certain - we call them connections - that the person has to make in order to graduate from the court. There are different levels of connections - 2 weeks, 30 days, and 45 days that the person goes through. But here's what's really important to remember. This is a predisposition court. We connect people with services and then it's the City Attorney who moves to dismiss the case. This is what the City Attorney has agreed to. The City Attorney has never sought to change when they dismiss the case and it is their discretion to do so. We monitor to make sure they've made their connections, to make sure they've done a life skills class, to make sure they've done community service. We individually structure the program to make sure that we're addressing their specific barriers. But this is really important - it takes multiple connections to services for them to take. And so this criticism that - Oh, you're not holding them there long enough - well, how long do you expect someone to keep coming to court for a trespass or for a theft of socks? The actual rehabilitation has to match the crime has been committed and that's what we're trying to do. If a person's not willing to make those connections, they are prosecuted in mainstream court to the full extent of the law. [00:59:59] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. I now have a question for Nyjat Rose-Akins from Damon Shadid. When I ran for Judge 8 years ago, I ran with specific plans for expanding and revitalizing Seattle's Therapeutic Courts. Over the past 8 years, I've delivered on those promises. I've not seen or heard any specific policy proposals that you would enact if you became a judge. Please give specific details of a policy proposal you would enact if elected. [01:00:28] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. So - when elected, I plan to revamp Community Court - reset the standards of accountability and requirements, review individual case history to determine if they are currently a good fit, limit the number of cases that can be addressed at one time, review the types of cases that are eligible, and redefine what is considered low-level crime. With doing that, I'd like to incorporate more probation and social services support to track and assist with program progress and participant needs. Also collaborate with more social service providers to bring them to the court to create a one-stop shop for individuals. I also want to collaborate more with nonprofits, other government agencies to create a pipeline - a proper pipeline for housing, mental health treatment, and job placement. I also would like to work more with probation services and resources, renew day reporting options - which would allow maybe Zoom options for people to check in with probation and not always have to come into court. And also maybe get more funding - not maybe, really try to get more funding - on electronic home monitoring for indigent defendants. So those are a few of the things I plan to do once elected. Thank you. [01:01:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Shadid has asked for a rebuttal. [01:02:00] Judge Damon Shadid: Sure. So the one policy proposal my opponent has is to reform the court that I created, which is very interesting because she works for the City Attorney's Office and she has never come to a meeting [garbled] in court. She's never bothered to actually get to know what the court is. Instead, she's read a few dockets and she thinks she has an opinion on it. But why hasn't her boss ever asked for these changes? They haven't. So if she had been in the court for the past eight years, she'd know that we're already doing these things and that her policy is not policy. [01:02:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat, you have rebuttal time. [01:02:42] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to say that the City Attorney's Office has never asked to make some changes to Community Court. I believe the City Attorney's Office requested trying to opt some people out because they had way too many cases and my opponent said no. And that is why there was an issue with the high utilizers. Aditionally, revamping Community - we had 90 seconds to speak - I brought up one specific thing in regards to Community - [01:03:19] Crystal Fincher: I will allow a second round of rebuttals for both of you since we are in this conversation here. Judge Shadid. [01:03:26] Judge Damon Shadid: Community Court took two years to negotiate. My opponent doesn't seem to understand that all changes to Community Court have to come through negotiation. Her boss came to me with a requested change, which I disagreed with. That is how you negotiate. That requested change then went to the full bench and the bench voted to adopt the change. That's what negotiation is and that's how you create programs. [01:04:00] Crystal Fincher: And Nyjat. [01:04:01] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, thank you. I also had the opportunity to review Community Court outside of Seattle. I went to Auburn Community Court and that program is a model structure for what a community court should be - where individuals actually engage with resources - it's a one-stop shop where they can come in and actually get the services they need and actually check-in with the court, check-in with their defense attorney, and check-in with the prosecution on a weekly and sometimes bi-week, bi-monthly basis based on the type of court. [01:04:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now, these probably will be quick questions, but we'll see - two short ones - and we will begin with Nyjat Rose-Akins. Have you ever been disciplined by the bar association or state commission on judicial conduct? [01:04:53] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Have not. No, I have not. [01:04:56] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Damon Shadid? [01:05:00] Judge Damon Shadid: No. [01:05:02] Crystal Fincher: And Pooja? [01:05:05] Pooja Vaddadi: No. [01:05:07] Crystal Fincher: And Judge Eisenberg? [01:05:09] Judge Adam Eisenberg: No. [01:05:10] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Next question - are there any specific types of cases in which you know you'll have to find it necessary to disqualify or recuse yourself? We will start with Damon Shadid. [01:05:28] Judge Damon Shadid: There have been times when I've had to recuse myself. I was a public defender for quite some time before and I've had clients come into my courtroom who I represented in the past and I certainly recused myself from those cases. There have been times when I've made mistakes and I've agreed to recuse myself from a case. It happens to the best of us. It's very important to me that there is not only the fact of an impartial judge, but the appearance of one as well. And so if I even suspect that somebody is perceiving me as not being impartial, I'll recuse myself most of the time, unless I think that the attorney is forum shopping. So yes, a judge should be ready to recuse themselves whenever they feel that it's in the best interests of both the community and the defendant. [01:06:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat? [01:06:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, I think the fairness is very, very important in court, so I would likely - I have not had to recuse myself as I've been pro temming in court, but I believe I would likely recuse myself from friends and/or people that I have worked closely with in the City Attorney's Office or even in City government. [01:06:49] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg? [01:06:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: There have been some cases where I've had to recuse myself because I either knew some of the parties, or there was an incident with my neighbor that was reported to the police and I was actually a witness. So I made sure, right out of the gate, that when the case came to our court - because I suspected it would, based on the charge - I went and talked to the Presiding Judge and said, I can't have anything to do with this case because I saw the police arrive last night at the house. So those things happen - obviously, that happens very, very rarely. But otherwise, recusal is normal when you know parties or you have information about the case that you shouldn't have had, you heard - because of a neighbor talking or whatever. But there's not a particular type of case that I recuse myself from. It's really a - it's a case-by-case cir

NCLA Files Brief in License Plate Data Collection Case NCLA has filed a reply brief in Raul Mas Canosa v. City of Coral Gables, Florida, et al., the lawsuit challenging the city's use of Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) to collect and store geographic location data of drivers. The city's warrantless surveillance infringes the privacy rights of residents like Raul Mas Canosa, who is suing over the use of ALPRs. 4 Ill-Considered Decision Revives Judicial Misconduct Complaint The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States revived a judicial misconduct complaint against 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' chief judge, William Pryor, and U.S. District Judge Corey Maze, over their hiring of a clerk accused of making discriminatory statements. Vec discusses the charges against Judges Pryor and Maze. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

El Aemer El Mujaddid Joined Mr. E via telephone interview and boy did he Blow the whistle on the the whole Judicial system.Standing on the frontlines of this war himself, he brings the evidence forth to prove his case against what we knew, but now can be proven, to be a corrupt system at play.From being denied the right to citizenship because of Race, National Origin and religious identity, to supression of key evidence that proves his case beyond a shadow of a doubt, this has been a tumultuous few years for this brother. But, with the yearning to be free and live how one pleases without stepping on someones rights or property, it will always be a fight. So join us to hear this brothers story and go to his websites that can teach you how to free your family from unjust policies, codes and color of law statutes.www.murakushsociety.org/books www.murakushsociety.org/research

On this midweek show, Crystal has a delightful conversation with Washington Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu about her path to becoming the first Asian American, first Latina, first woman of color, and first LGBTQ+ justice on the court. They discuss the importance of state supreme courts in light of recent decisions that threaten people's rights on the national level, how that translates to why we should scrutinize judicial elections, and common misconceptions people have about the state Supreme Court. Justice Yu then shares about efforts to make courts more accessible and equitable to everyone, what she's most proud of in her career, and how people can be involved in restoring confidence in the justice system. Notes:  This episode was recorded before the end of filing week in May. The candidate filing deadline passed without any challenger filing to run against Justice Yu, so she will appear unopposed on the November ballot and serve another term on our state's highest court. This episode was also recorded before the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, hence the reference to the leaked draft about overturning Roe vs Wade. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii and Justice Yu at @JudgeMaryYu.   Resources Washington Supreme Court Bio - Justice Mary I. Yu: https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=Yu   Campaign Website - Justice Mary Yu: https://justicemaryyu.com/   “Who's Marrying the First Gay Couple? Judge Mary Yu” by Dominic Holden from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/blogs/2012/12/08/15483647/whos-marrying-the-first-gay-couple-judge-mary-yu   Justice Mary Yu On Jimmy Kimmel Show: https://vimeo.com/673039715   State of Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct: https://www.cjc.state.wa.us/   Washington State Court Rules: Code of Judicial Conduct: https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=ga&set=CJC   Civil Right to Counsel or “Civil Gideon”: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defense/civil_right_to_counsel1/   June 4th Letter - Washington Supreme Court: https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20News/Judiciary%20Legal%20Community%20SIGNED%20060420.pdf   Washington Leadership Institute: https://www.law.uw.edu/academics/continuing-education/wli Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I'm once again just so excited to welcome to the program another very distinguished State Supreme Court Justice - Justice Mary Yu is with us today. Thank you so much for joining us. [00:00:51] Justice Mary Yu: Oh, Crystal, thank you for the invitation. I really appreciate your interest and I'm looking forward to having a fun conversation. [00:01:00] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And so I just wanted to start off talking and ask you - what was your path to the Supreme Court? [00:01:08] Justice Mary Yu: Well, I came from the trial court - so I was a trial court judge in King County Superior Court for 14 years - that felt like a lifetime in many ways. And prior to that, I was a prosecutor in the King County Prosecutor's Office. And then before that, I was just frankly very proud to be working, doing some organizing work in social justice in Chicago. So a little crooked path, but nevertheless, it's what brought me to the court here. [00:01:38] Crystal Fincher: Well, and I have found that those crooked paths are sometimes the most useful and oftentimes give you such helpful perspectives because you're not just coming from one point of view, you've seen things from different perspectives, have walked in different shoes, and have been able to see that. And you're actually the first Asian American, first Latina, first woman of color, and first LGBTQ+ justice on our State Supreme Court. What has that meant to you and how do you think that impacts the work that you do? [00:02:08] Justice Mary Yu: Gosh, Crystal - being the first sometimes can be a real burden in the sense that I know that I worry about not messing it up for others. I'm worried that, really, my path will create more opportunities for others. And so I'm aware of the fact that when people see me, they see all of what you just described. And I think at one level for our community, there's a lot of expectations that others will be able to follow, that this has opened up the door for all of us. On the other hand, I know that with that comes a lot of assumptions about it - our community - some will be positive, some will be negative. I think some people in their own mind wonder or not - I have a packed agenda or am predisposed to do something or decide a case in a particular way because I'm first. And I don't think that that's true, other than I do bring a level of sensitivity to what it's like to not have resources, what it's like to be other, what it's like to be an outsider. And frankly, I see that that's an asset at our table because there are nine of us and it means nine different viewpoints. And frankly, I think the viewpoint that I bring of the other, the outsider, a person of color, a person with little economic resources growing up - they ought be at the table too, not to control, but to contribute. [00:03:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, that's such a great point. A lot of people are just now figuring out how important our courts are, our supreme courts are - not just at a national level, but especially if we lose rights at the national level, our states are really our firewall and the only thing standing between a lot of people and their rights. So right now, when we are basically looking at the overturning of Roe vs Wade - there was the leaked draft that looks like it's going to become official at some time soon. How do you view the state of not only abortion rights, but the ability to be covered by contraception and just access to healthcare for everyone. Where do we stand here in the state? And where do you stand, as a justice, in how you approach these issues? [00:04:33] Justice Mary Yu: Yeah, well, Crystal, I think you're right in the sense that a lot of these issues are going to be decided eventually by state supreme courts. And so state constitutions are pretty important and state supreme courts are important around the country. Each one of us is different, if you will, because our constitutions are different. So there really is no exact pattern of what this all means. In the State of Washington, I think we've already had the executive and the legislative branches indicate that they intend to protect the right to abortion, that they intend to protect healthcare rights for all people. And our branch - we don't declare policies, right? We will wait for a case to come to us. So at one level, it's inappropriate for me to comment on what are we gonna do when that happens. And yet at the same time, I can say is - our court is very protective of our own State Constitution. In our own state, we have had a long history of protecting privacy and individual rights. It's a long track record that our court's not gonna step in and undo. So I think Washingtonians can feel very comfortable that our court's going to follow precedent, our court's going to continue to protect the rights of Washingtonians as we have done for the last couple of hundred years, in some ways - even the territorial courts. So, it's right to be concerned. I can see the concern that people would have of what does this all mean when you look at the United States Supreme Court? But my understanding when I have reviewed the opinion - it really is seeming to indicate that these issues should be decided at the state level. And of course, I think they would be decided by the legislative branch. [00:06:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I think one thing that surprises people still sometimes - for as much as people who are involved in politics and who do this know all of the rules and policies and everything surrounding elections - I think a lot of people, talk to a lot of people who see our federal Supreme Court being appointed, and then being very surprised that we elect our Supreme Court justices in this state. How do you think that impacts just how we should be looking at the Supreme Court, how we should be looking at these elections, and what is at stake with our State Supreme Court elections. [00:07:01] Justice Mary Yu: First of all, I do think that everybody ought to scrutinize all judges in all judicial elections. I think it's really important that Washington State has retained the right to vote for their judges. Now, what's interesting is we have a hybrid because when there's a vacancy, someone is appointed to fill the vacancy before they're subject to election. For example, I was appointed initially by Governor Locke to the Superior Court. At the Supreme Court, I was appointed by Governor Inslee and then stood for election. So in many ways we have part of the same process in terms of an appointment, but the check on it, if you will, is elections. And elections are an opportunity for the electorate to really evaluate someone and decide whether or not they want to retain that individual as a justice in our state. Unfortunately, people drop right off in the sense that they don't vote all the way down ballot. We are always at the bottom of the ballot and most people would say - I don't know anything about judges. There is an interest this year - because of all these issues that you mentioned, people are suddenly looking and saying who's on our court and what does it mean? And what's their track record and who are they? I think that's a good thing. I think it's really important for people to educate themselves, take another class on civics, and understand who's on our court - how many, who are they, what have they written, what have they said? Because they will - ultimately may be the decision makers on these important matters. It's not only in terms of healthcare, perhaps abortion, but it really includes questions related to race, incarceration, the death penalty - all the things that are important to people and touch them in every single way. So, I hope that people will pay attention, that they will bother to actually invite us to come and speak, invite us to come into classrooms, into forums. All of us are always willing to answer questions about what we do. [00:08:59] Crystal Fincher: And I do have to say - in our interactions with you, you have been exceedingly willing to talk and to share and just wanting to help people understand how the process works, how they can access and be a part of the process. And I really do appreciate just talking about how critical it is to engage in judicial elections at all levels. And even when it comes to just same-sex marriage and rights that people have to love the person who they love without penalty or consequence - was looking back, it was super fun - back in 2012, after the long and hard fought battle for marriage equality was won, you were actually on Jimmy Kimmel doing [Perfectly Named People] and you officiated the first same sex marriages in Washington State. What does it feel like - just the euphoria of that time and winning rights that so many had fought for so long to secure, to landing back where we are right now, where that looks to be in jeopardy once again? [00:10:15] Justice Mary Yu: Yeah, it's really interesting because when we talk about crooked paths, it was a crooked path to get to the place where same-sex marriage would be legal in the State of Washington. Unfortunately our court went - it had the opportunity to decide the matter, decided it incorrectly - and then it went to the people and it was really the vote of the people. It was a popular vote that really granted us the right to marry the person that we love. Again, another check on all of our systems. For me, I have to admit that my bailiff, who was a young Japanese man whose parents had to go to someplace else to get married because they lived in DC and could not marry because they were an interracial couple, said to me - Judge, we shouldn't wait one more moment for people to marry who they wanna marry, so let's start to do weddings at midnight, as soon as the law takes effect. And it was, as you described, it was a joyous moment. It was something to celebrate because finally we had equal rights, right? The right to marry who you love. I would say, Crystal, I don't think that's in jeopardy in the State of Washington, given that it is the law and there hasn't been a challenge to that law. And regardless of what may happen at the federal level, that's not going to really jeopardize the law in the State of Washington as it exists now. Now, if there's a challenge to it because of some federal action, that's a whole different matter - then it would make its way through the legal system, and perhaps somebody might challenge the law that was enacted by the citizens somehow, but that's not the pattern everywhere in the country. And despite the fact that we have a little comfort in the State of Washington, I think we should be concerned because we care about other people, and we care about other people in other states where they don't have a state protection and they did rely on federal law to grant them the right to marry someone. So what we're developing, which should be a concern to everyone, is just this big checkerboard in the country of rights being different, depending on where you live. That's a serious concern, especially for people who are transient - for example, those who are in the military - should their families have certain rights in one state and yet when they move, not have those same rights in another state. And we know that those military personnel will be moving around to different states, so it's a real concern. [00:12:46] Crystal Fincher: It is an absolute concern. One other concern that I've heard a number of people raise is just looking at the quality and the qualification of judges - there being a number of concerns at some of the judges that have been appointed, particularly in the last administration, who aside from questions of partisanship, just on questions of - do you understand the law as it is, in order to protect it. And people may have different perspectives on how to protect the law, how to decide if a case is consistent with it, but truly understanding and being just qualified enough to sit there and make those judgements is a different issue than partisanship. You happen to be rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" by several bar associations, you're endorsed by all of the other State Supreme Court justices, and just so many people. I could spend, literally five minutes, just talking about all of the awards and accolades that you've been given. But when it comes to some of our local judicial elections that don't receive a lot of scrutiny, where a lot of times newspapers that used to cover those and that used to look into the backgrounds of judges - they've lost a lot of resources - and so there is a fear that there could be people who land in our courts here in this state that just aren't qualified, that are coming with an incorrect perspective of what the law is, who the law protects, and how it should operate. And that especially given this national climate and with some of the just extremism that we have been enduring, that that poses a real danger for local communities, potentially even when we do have a State Supreme Court that is doing its job correctly. How do you view that risk? [00:14:58] Justice Mary Yu: It's a real risk to begin with - what you described isn't something that's sort of a sci-fi movie. It's a real risk, but that's why people like you play an important role, as well as other media outlets. You do invite people to come and speak and talk with you. You have the opportunity to ask some questions and to help educate the electorate. As long as Washington remains a populous state where elections are important, you will always face the risk that there could be somebody who's not qualified or not competent to serve. It's the risk we take, it's the price we pay for the right to vote, the right to selection, the right to have a voice, and not to give up citizen power. But I would hope that the bar associations and other people would continue to try to make themselves available to rate judges, to ask questions, and to try to educate the broader community about who these people are. [00:15:54] Crystal Fincher: What do you think are the most common misconceptions that people have about the court? [00:15:58] Justice Mary Yu: Sometimes I wonder whether there are misconceptions or frankly realities, because I think a lot of people think that our courts are bureaucratic, insensitive, do not treat people of color fairly. And as much as I wanna be defensive about ourselves, I think some of that is very real - is we have to do a better job of becoming more accessible, of becoming a little less bureaucratic and simpler in our procedures. And we're trying to get there. I think some of the other unfortunate misconceptions are - is that we are groupthink or that we decide decisions together just to get along. And yet, if anybody studied our opinions, they would see that is hardly - hardly - the reality is it's hard fought, we sometimes will split 5-4 on some cases. We do our job best when we are in disagreement. So we're not a groupthink entity - none of our courts really, I would hope, are just stamping just to go along and create an assembly line. Every so often you might have a judicial officer that brings shame on the rest of us - somebody who has done something imprudent. I know there are a couple in terms of some sexual assault allegations and that's harmful because it hurts the whole judiciary when something like that occurs. But I think overall, we have a really functional system in the State of Washington and it may be because we're very transparent and open, and people can walk into our courtrooms anytime and watch the proceedings. [00:17:31] Crystal Fincher: You do bring up an interesting issue where there are a couple of judges that are the subjects of investigations or controversies, currently. There was just a recent situation where a judge had used the N-word and had some other behavior that their colleagues thought was inappropriate. Do you think our system of discipline and accountability for judges at all levels is sufficient? [00:17:59] Justice Mary Yu: I do. I do think it is. The Judicial Conduct Commission has the ability to investigate if there is a complaint. And I can say from personal experience, they are robust in scrutinizing judges and trying to really enhance confidence in terms of what we do. I think it's pretty robust and it's a very open process - anybody can file a complaint - that person's identity is protected, so there's no risk to them because judges can - right - they can punish, they can be coercive, they can manipulate. I think it's really important to protect people who would file a complaint, and we have that process. I think probably publicizing the rules might be a good thing in the sense of more people should know that in the State of Washington, we have a code of judicial conduct. We do have a code that governs how we should do what we do. We have a code that really guides us in terms of when we should recuse or not. We have a really strong board of ethics that will provide an opinion if a judge needs specific advice on a particular circumstance and probably the public does not know that. And I would say we might do a better job of letting people know. [00:19:16] Crystal Fincher: That is certainly very helpful. I do think a lot of people don't know. I'm also wondering what more can be done to help people, even if they don't come with a lot of resources, to participate in our judicial system and to be protected by it at all levels in our state. There are so many situations where - not so much at the Supreme Court, even though people are still trying to figure some stuff out there - but where a defendant may be up for eviction and they're in a tough situation, and coming in and they don't know all the rules, their landlord knows all the rules, seems to be very chummy with everyone else in there, 'cause they own a lot of properties and it seems like the system is working for them. They're all familiar with it, they're doing the same song and dance that they do all the time to the detriment of someone who still has rights and protections under the law. What more can be done to help people, especially those who are not familiar with the system or who don't have the money to hire people who are, to be able to receive all of their protections that they're entitled to. [00:20:30] Justice Mary Yu: We've been working really hard to try to increase civil legal aid. And that is to try to ensure that people have representation on the civil side as well. We've received a lot of money from the Legislature this past year to really offer representation to individuals who are being evicted. That's just one particular circumstance, but I have to admit that I'm very sensitive to the fact that there are a lot of hearings where people not only are at a loss in terms of housing, but their jobs, benefits, the inability to access healthcare at times. There are a host of issues where people need representation, so I have to admit that I'm a fan of civil representation 100%. I would love to have a case come to us that gives us the opportunity to do the same thing we did on a criminal side. And that is "Civil Gideon" - is to say that everyone deserves the right to be represented by an attorney, regardless of your income. I know it would be expensive, and yet the rights that are at risk in the civil arena are great, right? It is to be homeless, to be without a job, to be without benefits - are very real things for individuals. So we're trying, I think - our court and along with others are big advocates of trying to ensure that there is civil legal aid available to individuals. [00:21:54] Crystal Fincher: That would be tremendously helpful, and certainly would cost more. I do hope that we get better as a society. And as we - we're having legislative elections and conversations right now, but that we also examine the cost of going without it and what it means to potentially push someone into homelessness, or out of a job, or into financial crisis because they don't have healthcare or the services that they need - it is so costly. And often in ways that can't be compensated or reimbursed. So I just - I completely agree with you and thank you so much for bringing that up. What are other challenges you think the Court is suited to address within the justice system? [00:22:48] Justice Mary Yu: Well, I would say two areas I know that I have spent a lot of energy on that I think are very important is - one, has to do with funding of our courts. As you may know, our courts charge for everything, and you have to pay a filing fee, we also use monetary sanctions. And why do we do that? Because we have to fund ourselves. So I'm a big advocate that some day - there has to be some heavy lifting - and our courts really should be part of the general fund, so that we are not the cash registers. So we don't have to collect the funds in order to pay for the services that we're providing. We're a branch of government that ought to be, again, accessible and available to everyone. I know of no other branch where you have to pay before you get served, and yet that's what happens in our court systems. I know the judges, who are in our municipal courts or in our district courts, feel awful about having to constantly collect money in order to sustain therapeutic courts or any other kind of court that serves people. So that's one that I think is really important and we're working very hard on. The second is we're really wrestling with how do we eradicate racism from our system? It's systemic, it's institutional, and it's taking a lot of work to invite everyone to say - how do we do this better? How do we examine ourselves and our practices and how do we change? So we look at jury diversity, we've looked at legal financial obligations. We are trying very hard at every level to say - this is our responsibility, it is our duty to ensure that every single person can be guaranteed truly not only access, but a fair process. So we're doing a lot of education at this point. And as you may know, in 2020, our court issued a letter to the entire legal community inviting everyone to join us in examining our systems and to eradicating racism at every level. So we're doing that heavy work - those are the two things that I have as a priority, and that I think are important. [00:24:54] Crystal Fincher: And I appreciate that in our recent conversation with Justice Whitener, we talked about that letter and just how important it was in the role that our court took in leading the country, really and acknowledging that and stating plainly this is a problem that we are responsible to solve. It is widely acknowledged - I certainly believe we can't start to solve problems until we acknowledge them, and so having that acknowledgement and having people who are, who seem to be doing the work to fix it is something that I appreciate and I'm thankful for. You - again. I could go on about all of the accolades that you've received for quite some time. You received the 2019 Crosscut Courage in Elected Office award. You recently, just late last year, had your portrait unveiled at Seattle University. You have - my goodness, there's so much - you received the 2020 Latino Bar Association Trailblazer Award, the "Established Leader" Pride Award from Mayor Jenny Durkan in the City of Seattle, the 2018 "Voice of Social Justice" from the Greater Seattle Business Association, the 2017 "Lifetime Achievement" - and I'm telling you, I - this is literally about a sixth of the things that I could list from you. As you look at your career, what are you most proud of? [00:26:34] Justice Mary Yu: It's a hard question. It's hard because when I think about my life and not just a career, I think I am most proud that I think I fulfilled my parents' dream. And that's because both of my parents came to this country very, very poor with nothing. My mother was a farm worker. My father grew up on a ship that just floated around the world for years - he was a boy without a parent. And their dream when they came together, I think, was simply to provide an opportunity for their children to have food on the table, to have a decent job, and to maybe have an education. So when I look back and I look at my life, I think I'm most proud that I fulfilled their dream of in one generation, having the opportunity to be successful. When I look at my career, I would say the thing that I'm most proud of is having been a mentor to so many young people of color who have grown up and who are now judges. I am proud to be the co-chair of the Leadership Institute with Mr. James Williams, where we have graduated 196 lawyers from our leadership program and our focus is on underrepresented lawyers. And what we do is just really enable and empower them to see their gifts and talents. And we have a lot of them who have become judges. And we have one who is the US Attorney for Western Washington - Nick Brown was one of our graduates. So I would say I'm most proud of those acts because it's about giving back and it's about enabling others to do this work, so I would be very happy to rest on those laurels, is to say - you paid it back, Mary, and that's what it's all about. [00:28:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and they would be so proud and that you are also helping to enable that for so many other people in this state - I certainly appreciate. And I guess as we are looking forward and your continuing service on the court, assuming you're going to be re-elected, assuming all of us get out there and vote to make sure that happens. What do you most want to accomplish moving forward? [00:29:06] Justice Mary Yu: I wanna continue to do what I am doing, 'cause I think that's really important. And I'd like to put some more energy into restoring confidence in our courts. I'm trying to respond to Eric Liu's call to be concerned about the health of our democracy. His call has really resonated with me that we can't live with just accepting polarization - this is not the future of our country and the future of who we are. And that all of us, as judges and lawyers, we should be very, very concerned about keeping our democracy alive, keeping it healthy, and frankly being engaged. [00:29:47] Crystal Fincher: And if you give people some advice on how they can help ensure that within our judicial system, what would you say? [00:29:57] Justice Mary Yu: Crystal, can you pose that question again? I'm sorry. [00:29:59] Crystal Fincher: Oh, sure - no problem. If you were to give folks, one piece of advice for how they could engage with our judicial system, or something that they could do to help it be more equitable and healthier and to restore that trust - what advice would you get for people for what they could do to help that? [00:30:19] Justice Mary Yu: I'd say come to jury service - come to jury service and be a part of the decision making. Restore confidence in what we do - when I was a trial judge, I remember talking to the whole pool of jurors, 70 people who were just dying to get outta there. And I would just say before you raise your hand and ask to leave, I just want you to imagine and think about this - that if it were you, would you not want somebody like yourself to be sitting there to be the decision maker? Because all the people who come into our court system, they're there because there's something really important to them. The things that they hold most near and dear - and it could be innocence in a criminal trial, injury that they haven't been compensated for, some unfair contract, whatever it might be - it's something important to those individuals. And who would you want to be seated, sitting there, listening to this. Would you not want somebody like yourself? And I'd just say - just pause and think about that. And I'd have to say hands went down and people became a little embarrassed and thought - well, yeah, I guess I could do this. I can't do it for 10 weeks, I could do it for two days or three days. So I would say to everyone is - please, if you have the opportunity to serve as a juror, do so. You become the fact finder, which is the most important part of a trial - is somebody who determines what is true and what is not, or what you wanna believe or what you don't wanna believe. It doesn't even matter if it's truthful or not. What do you believe and how do you determine credibility should rest in the hands of other people? So I would say that's something everyone can do - is please come to jury service when you can. And if you get that summons, that's the beginning. From there, you'll be able to see the rest of the flaws and then maybe you can help us figure out the rest. [00:32:17] Crystal Fincher: Great advice. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today - sincerely appreciate this conversation and all of the work you've done and continue to do. Thank you so much, Justice Yu. [00:32:29] Justice Mary Yu: Crystal, thank you so much. [00:32:31] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

Being a victim of discrimination and harassment at the hands of an employer is hard enough, but what happens when your employer is a judge? On episode 39 of the California Appellate Law Podcast, Aliza Shatzman discusses her personal experience and why it was not only personally horrifying, but damaging to her career.Aliza also shares how the experience motivated her to create the first-of-its-kind Legal Accountability Project, a resource for aspiring law clerks and other judicial employees.We also cover with Aliza:Why the Judicial Conduct & Disability Act (28 USC § 358) is not working;Why judges tend to be unwilling to police the misconduct of their colleagues;Courts seem different from normal workplaces, and clerkships seem different from normal jobs. Should they be treated differently?In the U.S. Supreme Court's investigation of a recent draft opinion leak, clerks are being asked to turn over the cell phones and call data. Is this over the line?Aliza Shatzman's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed @AlizaShatzman.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Tim Kowal's Weekly Legal Update, or view his blog of recent cases.Use this link to get a 25% lifetime discount on Casetext.Other items discussed in the episode:Aliza Shatzman's Statement for the Record.The Legal Accountability Project's website.Aliza Shatman's article with the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law, entitled "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it."Former SCOTUS clerks command signing bonuses in the stratosphere of $400,000 or more.Over 80 former staffers in Senate maj. leader Chuck Schumer's office are now working in Big Tech.Neal Katyal's $2,465 an hour billable rate.

Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema lambasted Chief Justice Raymond Zondo on Monday, saying he used the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture to further the interests of one African National Congress (ANC) faction against the other. ANC National Executive Committee member Tony Yengeni has written to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) asking for an investigation into Zondo's conduct for alleged breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct related to comments made in the fourth part of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into State Capture report. Zondo stated in the report that Cyril Ramaphosa's election as ANC president at the party's 54th national elective conference in December 2017, in Nasrec, had saved the party from more damage. Malema said judges are respected for their legal judgments and not their political views or their political activity. “We are fully behind Mr Tony Yengeni. We think chief justice Zondo is too forward and has got no limit. We think that he thinks that judges are untouchable that's why he has given himself a responsibility to enter even the political terrain. What do judges have to do or say with regards to the outcomes of political conferences of political parties? Judges must know the limit and Zondo has got no limit,” Malema said. He went on to accuse Zondo of being a factionalist that supports Ramaphosa's second term. “He is effectively saying if we do not elect Ramaphosa in this December conference we are going to be in trouble,” Malema said. He called on the JSC's conduct committee to ensure that Zondo is disciplined the same way former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng was disciplined when he descended into the terrain of politics. Public Protector's Impeachment Meanwhile, Malema explained that the Section 194 Committee conducting the impeachment inquiry against the Public Protector should postpone its work, as Busisiwe Mkhwebane is still involved with court applications. Mkhwebane is trying to halt impeachment proceedings against her. “It is important that every little aspect is satisfied so that the outcome of that Parliament process is not questioned by anyone. If the Public Protector is delaying deliberately trying to make sure that her term of office expires before Parliament could hear the matter, she is denying herself justice because through that process she can be able to deal with some of the allegations that are put against her,” Malema said. He said Mkhwebane must be taken on review and her reports must be set aside and they must be sustained by courts if the reports are properly researched and investigated.

lovethylawyer.comA transcript of this podcast is available at lovethylawyer.com.Go to https://www.lovethylawyer.com/blog for transcripts. In collaboration with the Alameda County Bar Association, Love Thy Lawyer presents an interview with:  Hon. Tamiza HockenhullMy current employment as a Commissioner requires that I apply my knowledge of the law concerning family, criminal, juvenile and civil matters. I must also apply my knowledge of specific California codes including the Vehicle, Penal, Evidence, Civil, Civil Procedure and the Code of Judicial Conduct.  I currently handle general civil and traffic assignments and I regularly cover our court's child support calendar.  On a daily basis, I exercise judicial temperament and demeanor whether I am presiding over general civil cases including Law and Motion, Small Claims, Unlawful Detainer, Civil Harassment and Domestic Violence Restraining Orders as well as child support or traffic cases.  I am also responsible for issuing Emergency Protective Orders in domestic violence matters. Each of these assignments require me to analyze the law and evidence and issue either a written or an oral decision.  Each of the calendars I preside over include a mix of litigants who represent themselves as well as those who have retained counsel.  A larger percentage of the litigants who appear before me represent themselves.  Thus, I apply my knowledge of the various areas of law and I advise the litigants of their rights and the court's procedure in each of the different case types.  I regularly analyze and interpret legal issues, principles and arguments; direct and control courtroom proceedings in a decisive, orderly and equitable manner and communicate in a concise and effective manner.   Chair, Law Day Subcommittee, Alameda County Superior Court (2021)Chair, Traffic Committee, Alameda County Superior Court (2018-2020)Member, Law Day and Community Outreach Committee, Alameda County Superior Court (2017- Present)Alameda County Bar AssociationThe Alameda County Bar Association (ACBA) is a professional membership association for lawyers and other members of the legal profession. The ACBA provides access to ongoing legal education; and promotes diversity and civil rights in the Alameda County legal community. Our mission is to promote excellence in the legal profession and to facilitate equal access to justice. Louis Goodman www.louisgoodman.com louisgoodman2010@gmail.com 510.582.9090  Special thanks to ACBA staff and members: Cailin Dahlin, Saeed Randle, Hadassah Hayashi, Vincent Tong and Anne Beles. (https://www.acbanet.org/) Musical theme by Joel Katz, Seaside Recording, Maui Technical support: Bryan Matheson, Skyline Studios, OaklandAudiograms & Transcripts: Paul Roberts  genievirtualassistant@gmail.com  We'd love to hear from you.  Send us an email at louisgoodman2010@gmail.com. Please subscribe and listen. Then tell us who you want to hear and what areas of interest you'd like us to cover.  Please rate us and review us on Apple Podcasts.   

This episode of the All Things Judicial podcast focuses on the Judicial Standards Commission, which serves as an arm of the Supreme Court of North Carolina to give advice regarding the Code of Judicial Conduct, provide training to judges on their ethical duties, and to evaluate and investigate complaints of judicial misconduct. In appropriate cases, the Commission initiates disciplinary proceedings against judges for the purpose of making disciplinary recommendations to the Supreme Court. "Judges have to have the attitude that we are here to serve and not to be served," said Judge Chris Dillion on the podcast. "Just because (a judicial complaint) gets dismissed, doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't of some value, because they're all invaluable, because it helps us create better practices for that judge to make sure they are being perceived well by the public."Guests are Judge Chris Dillon, chair of the Judicial Standards Commission, Carolyn Dubay, executive director of the Commission, and Commission members Allison Mullins and Donald Porter. They discuss the importance of the Commission in preserving public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the Judicial Branch, the unique role that judges, lawyers, and citizens play in evaluating questions of judicial conduct, and some of the most common and concerning issues that come to the Commission's attention. This episode was released in recognition of National Ethics Awareness Month, which is celebrated this year during the month of March.

March 15, 2022 - For more than 40 years the state Commission on Judicial Conduct has been responsible for holding judges in New York responsible for their conduct on and off the bench. The commission's administrator and counsel, Robert Tembeckjian, joins the show to talk about the origin of this state entity, how their oversight function and what they focused on in 2021.

In this episode, Sean Carter introduces four new nominees, including the first ever group nomination for an entire organization. (1) DOWNTOWN (Worst Love Scene) A New Jersey lawyer was merely censured for graphically offering a divorce client oral sex at the conclusion of his representation in the matter. (2) CADDY SHACK (Judge Dredd) A Tennessee lawyer was publicly reprimanded for his funny social media posts, which were deemed "neither dignified nor appropriate for a judge" by the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct. (3) PUBLIC ACCESS (Hitchcock Award) A New Jersey lawyer working as a cop was reprimanded for running his daughter's plates and license in an effort to check up on her whereabouts and activities. (4) THE CRYING GAME (Archie Bunker Award) An Illinois lawyer is suing the state disciplinary authority for its refusal to discipline lawyers who have engaged in acts of discrimination against her on the basis of her transgender status. To become a patron of the podcast, please visit our Patreon page at: https://www.patreon.com/ethyawards

Excerpt from the October 13, 2021 JP Roundtable conversation with Executive Director April Elliot and Staff Attorney Michael Deveraux of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct. Not available for COJET credit.

Dr. Crenshaw-Logal has advocated for judicial reform nationally and internationally. Her work has been recognized throughout the United States and the United Nations. She is the country's leading voice for judicial accountability - and she is taking on human rights violations against healthcare professionals. To learn more about her work in deriving objectively discernible patterns of judicial misconduct, please see the link below: https://www.thethirddegree.net/the-patterns

From the Sunday Times and New York Times bestselling author, a new legal thriller about a man who might be the most criminal sitting judge in American history. In The Whistler, Lacy Stoltz investigated a corrupt judge who was taking millions in bribes from a crime syndicate. She put the criminals away, but only after being attacked and nearly killed. Three years later, and approaching forty, she is tired of her work for the Florida Board on Judicial Conduct and ready for a change. Then she meets a mysterious woman who is so frightened she uses a number of aliases. Jeri Crosby's father was murdered twenty years earlier in a case that remains unsolved and that has grown stone cold. But Jeri has a suspect whom she has become obsessed with and has stalked for two decades. Along the way, she has discovered other victims. Suspicions are easy enough, but proof seems impossible. The man is brilliant, patient, and always one step ahead of law enforcement. He is the most cunning of all serial killers. He knows forensics, police procedure, and most important: he knows the law. He is a judge, in Florida - under Lacy's jurisdiction. He has a list, with the names of his victims and targets, all unsuspecting people unlucky enough to have crossed his path and wronged him in some way. How can Lacy pursue him, without becoming the next name on his list? The Judge's List is by any measure John Grisham's most surprising, chilling novel yet.

Former Trump official reveals National Guard troops were offered prior to the events of January 6th but were rebuffed due to political concerns. Ohio judge forces COVID vaccines on Defendants during sentencing. Former Federal Prosecutor relishes in Avenatti's sentence and slams defense lawyers, rude! ​And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

In this episode Jethro and Fred talk with Quinton B. Dale, who investigates teachers who are applying for licensure in Massachussetts. Quinton B. Dale Is currently the Chief of Investigations for the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Office of Professional Practices Investigations.  He previously served as Director of the Investigation Division, Deputy Director of the Investigation Division and as an Investigator for the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office. Mr. Dale also previously served as a Corrections Counselor for the Massachusetts Department of Corrections.  Mr. Dale has also served as a Commissioner for the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct and on the Board of Directors for St. Francis House.   Mr. Dale is a graduate of Northeastern University, where he received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice. What inspired Q to get in to education from Criminal Justice Slipperly slopes for new educators coming into the profession. Trouble with being the “cool teachder” We're not here to be your friend, we're here to be your teachers! How social media has impacted inappropriate student-teacher relationships. It's much more blatant than it was before. How to keep boundaries in tact. Set boundaries for time and what you talk about. Stay in your lane. Use school equipment in all communications. As long as it is good for the student, it's fine. As soon as it goes awry, they're going to use the information against you. How to maintain boundaries on social media with students. How to support teachers who have made some mistakes. Be sure to check out NASDTEC

In this episode I speak with Robert Tembeckjian, the Administrator and Counsel at the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission is the independent state agency responsible for reviewing complaints of ethical misconduct against the more than 3,000 judges and justices in the New York Unified Court System. As the Chief Judicial Ethics Enforcement Officer in New York, he runs the day-to-day operations for the commission and leads a team of more than 40 based in New York City, Albany and Rochester. He is also an important leader in the field of judicial ethics having worked for the Commission for more than 40 years. In our conversation we discuss the importance of judicial ethics enforcement, the process for conducting investigations, and some of the common ethical mistakes that judges make. We also discuss the types of skills and experiences that lend themselves to effective judicial enforcement lawyers. If you enjoy this episode, make sure to sign up for future episodes at www.howilawyer.com or to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Guest:: Karyn Maughan  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Reaction has been mixed about the decision of the Judicial Conduct Committee against Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng. The JCC has ordered the Chief Justice to apologise unconditionally and retract statements relating to SA's stance on Israel he made during a webinar hosted by the Jerusaleum Post, in June last year. While the local chapter of the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement and the SACP welcomed the ruling -- others such as the South African Zionist Federation and the South African Friends of Israel have rejected it -- as Busi Chimombe reports....

The 2021 Jurist in Residence Lecture, A Second Chance: Rehabilitation, Reform and Reentry, sponsored by the Law and Government Institute, was held on Thursday, February 4. The lecture will be presented by The Honorable Royce L. Morris, Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. Featured Panelists Hon. Scott A. Evans, Criminal Calendar Judge, Dauphin County Kelly Evans, Deputy Secretary, Office of Reentry, PA Board of Probation and Parole Daniel Karhnak, Senior U.S. Probation Officer Douglas Hollis, Mentoring Coordinator, Sound Community Solutions (former juvenile lifer) Judge Morris's Biography After more than 25 years of distinguished service as an attorney and civic service to his community, Royce Morris was elected to serve as a Judge on the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas in 2018. Judge Morris has provided numerous Continuing Legal Education Seminars for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, having previously served that organization as president, vice president and treasurer. He was an adjunct professor at Harrisburg Area Community College teaching criminal law and criminal evidence for more than ten years. Judge Morris received a gubernatorial appointment to serve on the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and served on the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Task Force on the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Morris serves on the House of Delegates for the Pennsylvania Bar Association and is the former chair of the Equal Professional Opportunity Committee for the Dauphin County Bar Association and the Capital Area Managing Partners Diversity Initiative. Named by Philadelphia Magazine as a “Pennsylvania Super Lawyer” from 2008-2017, he rated at the highest level of professional excellence, AV preeminent, by his peers at Martindale Hubbell. Widener University Commonwealth Law School is the Pennsylvania capital’s only law school, with three specialized centers of legal scholarship through its Law & Government Institute, Environmental Law and Sustainability Center, and Business Advising Program. Widener Law Commonwealth offers an exceptional learning experience that is personal, practical, and professional. Visit commonwealthlaw.widener.edu for more information. Follow the Law and Government Institute on Twitter @WidenerLG.   Music Credit: LeChuckz

Evidence leader, Advocate Ivy Thenga. says there's strong evidence that Western Cape Judge President, John Hlophe, had tried to influence Constitutional Court judges to rule in favour of former president Jacob Zuma in a matter before the court 12 years ago. Thenga was one of the lawyers to make their closing arguments at the Judicial Conduct Tribunal probing gross misconduct charges against Hlophe. The tribunal, which was held in Kempton Park, east of Johannesburg, concluded its hearings on Friday. The charge against Hlophe stems from separate meetings he held with Justices Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta in 2008. Hlophe's defence team says he has no case to answer. Wisani Makhubele reports....

On November 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Freedom of Association in the Legal Profession."The Code of Judicial Conduct for federal judges and the Code of Judicial Conduct template for state judges, as modified by the States, both recognize the propriety of judges engaging in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with their role as judges, and counsel judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in those activities. The federal and state templates differ, at least in part, because federal and state judges are selected in different ways. Put simply, we do not want our judges to hide in an ivory tower, but we also want them to behave as judges when providing the benefit of their experience. And, while we want judges to interact with the bar and the public, lawyers must be aware on the limitations on such judicial contacts. As a result, the notion of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary will be evaluated and enforced in different ways in each arena.In January 2020, a draft advisory opinion from the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct suggesting that federal judges ought not to be members of the Federalist Society or the American Constitution Society, but may be members of the American Bar Association, became public. That draft advisory opinion was based less on the actual activities of those organizations than on a belief that the public participation of judges in those organizations would further contribute to a public perception that judges are not non-partisan actors. The draft opinion was withdrawn, but its effects have lingered as lawyers, judges, law clerks, and law students have had to tiptoe around its implications.This panel will consider some fundamental questions that swirl around the extrajudicial activities of judges, including those raised by the now withdrawn draft advisory opinion. For example, what are the core values that support the federal and state rules, and how do they differ? To the extent that we focus on public confidence in the judiciary, how should we evaluate it? Is public confidence in the judiciary capable of empirical evaluation or a matter of a priori judgment? Whose judgment matters: That of an average person? A reasonable person? A reasonable lawyer? A regulator applying one of those artificial constructs? What rules apply to a judge’s membership, holding office in, or participation in an organization, or writing and speaking?Featuring:Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (ret.)Mr. W. William Hodes, Owner and President, The William Hodes Law FirmHon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitModerator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

YouTube has demonitized the Corsi Nation channel; yet we will never be silence, we will never surrender, we will continue to fight on to the final victory in God's name. Stay tuned for expansion of other platforms and an entirely new way for us all to speak with one voice. The Democrat convention is a total Communist clown show. Meanwhile, President Trump is taking action to prevent mail-in ballot fraud. COVID-19 vaccines in development may be using fetal cells from aborted babies. Rapid test kits designed by FMS Glodal Services enable accurate testing for COVID-19, and FMS has developed ways for businesses and schools to reopen safely. Now it makes sense...did disgraced former CIA Director John Brennan engineer the arrest of Julian Assange, along with his accomplices at MI6 & GHQ in the UK in order to prevent the truth from coming out regarding all of the Deep State operations? Precious metals continue to roller coaster as the markets, investors, and the powers that be react to the economic collapse and decline of fiat currency, but the trajectory for both gold and silver appear to be up. The Institute of Judicial Conduct, www,judicialconduct.org has exposed judicial misconduct up to and including Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Visit https://www.corsination.com where passionate patriots gather to learn and share the truth. Livestream Monday - Friday 11:00am Eastern

United States Attorney General William Barr is taking action. Realizing that the Left is now full on Communist, willing to burn the entire country down to get its way, and pulling out all the stops to take down the Trump Administration, Barr appears to be making this month as the critical nexus of his legal activity to restore law and order at all levels in our nation. If Barr does not act this week, the Conservative Treehouse has information that it has compiled over several months, that if released will make it impossible to the DOJ to not act. The medical establishment, having abandoned science entirely and putting the profits of BIG PHARMA and their own power ahead of the lives of the people, has gone all in on the Leftist agenda, now openly attacking even distinguished Yale Epidemiologist, Dr. Harvey A. Risch for his support of Hydroxychloroquine for prevention and early treatment of the Communist Chinese Party Wuhan Coronavirus. The Institute of Judicial Conduct continues to uncover and make public the abuses of decision makers within the judicial system. At the same time, the abuses of the overseers within the child "protective" services system appear to be gearing up to expand their already enormous subjective application of the law regarding the children if the traditional lifestyle beliefs of the parents collide with the leftist direction of much of the culture. Dr. Corsi interviews black activists Dr. Randy Short and Mark Carter as they expose the "Chicago Machine" - the decades old system of nepotism, cronyism, and patronage that plagues our inner cities. Support for President Trump in the black community is a closely held secret. Trump's "First Step Act," reversing actions by the Clintons to ensure "Super Predator" blacks are incarcerated, signaled to the black community that Trump is on their side, as thousands of blacks sentenced to lengthy terms of hard bondage for minor offenses enabled early release of non-violent offenders. Carter pleads with President Trump to meet with black community leaders on the ground in cities like Chicago to hear the truth about what is happening, and possible solutions. Ten supposed "expert" members of an NIH COVID-19 panel have financial ties to companies like Gilead Sciences, the maker of Fauci's favorite expensive yet often ineffective late stage treatment drug Remdesivir, that will profit from anything but Hydroxychloroquine. On a brighter note, Dr. Scott Atlas, who puts real science over fear, and saving lives over defeating Trump, has been added to the Chinese Communist Party Wuhan Virus task force. Sidney Powell, General Flynn's outstanding attorney, is presenting her oral arguments today before the en banc court to finally end the persecution of the man who knows where the Obama Administration bodies are buried. The Institute of Judicial Conduct continues to expose the wrong doing of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts concerning abuses involving the Domestic Relations and Violence Exception to the Judicial Conduct Act of 1980. Sleepy Joe Biden poked his head out of his basement just long enough to pronounce woman of color Kamala Harris, failed 2020 Presidential candidate (2% Democrat support), as his running mate. Bill Stevenson, Jill Biden's ex-husband, is authoring a tell-all describing how Joe and Jill became romantically entwined while Jill was still married to Bill. That affair led to the end of the Stevenson's marriage. A Texas court has granted a mother's lunatic fantasy of forcing her son into life as a girl she wants to name "Luna" even though the estranged husband and the male child know that he is a boy, and does not want to be groomed into pretending to be female. Congressman Loui Gohmert is adamant that a Hydroxychloroquine protocol enabled him to survive COVID-19 and he was symptom free in four days.