| By the www.meriteducation.com website. |
We have a plethora of individuals running for the open seat in Sutter County Superior Court. This is the first time, in close to 32 years that an opening has been created in which the people get to vote for the Judicial Branch. God only knows we did not get a chance to vote for Chris Chandler (the son of, and himself a corrupt politician). I never remember Brian Aronson's, Perry Parker, or Susan Green's name being on a ballot either. This is an historic opportunity to actually vote for a Judgeship.
Rather than make one long page with the different candidates, I linked their names of each candidate, to their own web pages (after all they are running for Judge an important position requires their own page). Your faithful narrator, Uncle Cato, will chime in with regards to the Yuba Race as well. As of this update, March 31, candidates for Sutter County include (in alphabetical order), Al J. Carrion, John M. Edwards, Sarah Heckman, Mike Johnston, Nancy A. Southworth, Richard Stout, Michael J. Sullinger, Michael Trezza and Jud Waggoman. Originally a local attorney Courtney McAlister, was considering a run for the Sutter County race, then decided to enter the less crowded field in the Yuba County race.
Important questions regarding candidates for Judge:
1.Are they affiliated with some other branch of the government, either Legislative or Executive? The knock on rural counties like Sutter and Yuba is the bench is populated with ex-employees of D. A.'s offices. This is dangerous. Whenever you have a sanctimonious pea brain like Carl Adams hand picking one of his own for Judge, any impartiality, in my opinion, is thrown out the door. Members of our group have wittnessed, first hand in Tuolumne County when an ex-District Attorney (Eric DuTemple) became Judge. The conviction rate went up dramatically. It appeared all his ruling from the bench favored the District Attorney's office from hence he came. Meanwhile, back on the ranch, Chris Chandler was, at one time a State Senator and a county Supervisor and drinking buddies (and fellow congregant) with Carl Adams. You can't tell me there is not a lot of ex parte conversations happening. An ex parte hearing means one sided, usually benefiting the party present, in this case the District Attorney Carl Adams.
2. Original intent: Sometimes, we at Sutter Lies do not like this term. In our opinion, it is what is written. Example, "Congress shall make no law....." Pretty simple, right? Wrong, we have a myriad of 'Case Law" which simply exists to erode the inalienable rights codified by the Constitution. In fact the Constitution is not taught in law schools. Instead, the endless barrage of case law is taught to twist the original words, or as some like to say, the original intent. A good example is the government's bending of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment says, " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This has it roots in English common law which held that " The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose." This is the famous Semayne's Case. The King of England's agents/lackeys/bootlicks were famous for obtaining general warrants walking in and just searching and seizing everything in sight. Our Founding Father's wanted its agents to describe the place to be searched and what is to be seized. Enter the Constitutional Law Professor and current President oBama al-Mombasa. oBama's Solicitor General, Elena Kagan argued that "The fourth Amendment does not protect individuals if they have shared information with third parties." That means, gentle reader, your local police can, without warrant, obtain your bank records, phone records and e-mail, under the statues of the Patriot Act, and not obtain a warrant. In other words, the government can simply introduce evidence, which cannot be challenged at trial. Kegan was also a Law Professor and Dean. This does not bode will for us. It is also fair to add, Ms.. Kagan's under-graduate degree was in History where her research project was Socialism in New York. At least Kagan's makes no bones or apology about being a Socialist.
3. Judicial Activism: At the Tea Party/Sutter Tax Payers Association candidates night, the question was asked about "Judicial Activism." Each candidates stated, more or less, either at the previously mentioned forum, or in the local rag, they are not going to be Judicial Activists. Some even went so far as to say they are bound to case law. The Constitution is, to use a modern term, a fire wall to protect individuals against the government. How else can a citizen protect their liberty or freedom from the government, except to seek remedy through the courts? If we do not have judges stand up to an out of control Executive or Legislative branch, where else can we go? I dare say if the Fourth Amendment had as many fans as the Second Amendment, we would not have laws like the Patriot Act on the books. Judges need to be independent. That is one reason why we do not need judges endorsed by members of the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch. So be wary of any candidate that has the endorsement of an ex-Sheriff (or sitting Sheriff), members of the State Legislature (Assembly or Senate), Congressmen, Senators, County Boards of Supervisors, City Councilmen. We can almost, almost buy, so to speak, and endorsement of a sitting or retiring Judge. These Judges have seen these candidates in action.
4. Trial Experience: All lawyers/attorneys are not equal. Example: Turn on any television station and you will get a steady stream of lawyers (usually accident/injury law firms), who promise, "No fee unless we win!" If you were to show a lawyer in such a firm a Judge that says, "Shall we begin," with a jury in the box and the first thing that attorney does is run into a back room and try and settle. I call them "settlers." They settle cases, not try them. A litigator will take a case from start to a jury verdict. I realize this is simply semantics, but your faithful narrator, Uncle Cato, sees a difference. In order to be an effective Judge, you need to have at least filed some briefs, gone through discovery, depositions, interviews made opening statements, examined or cross examined witnesses, picked a jury and stuck it out through a verdict. Many of the above candidates have actual trial experience.
5. Where did they come from? A couple of candidates mentioned above have simply been 'book worms.' They sat in comfortable offices, read a few briefs, maybe even filed one themselves, but have never been in a real adversarial forum like a court room. Several candidates have been former deputy-District Attorney's. Being a deputy D.A. is not a preclusion.Did they work for the D.A. (or the Public Defender's Office) their entire career? The last thing we need in Sutter or Yuba County is someone from either the District Attorney's office or the Public Defender's office as a Judge. I dare say, despite one candidates pubic statements to the contrary, their prior affiliation will prejudice the bench for a specific side. Does a candidate for Judge have any civil litigation experience? Business law experience? The knock on Courts in these rural northern counties is the Judges slide over from the D. A.'s office and have to depend upon the lawyers at the Bar for guidance in Civil/Business/Probate or Tort law. Or they have to do research and training in a field where they may have had law school classes (20 to 30 years ago) and no courtroom experience. Were they an elected official? Outgoing Senators and Assemblymen (either termed out or booted out) will go to the governor in power, if they belong to the same party, and curry some vacant judicial appointment. This is just wrong!!!!! This is how we ended up with a corrupt Republicrat Chris Chandler on the bench. I personally never vote for incumbents and would be less likely to vote for a candidate that is endorsed by, or appointed by or through his ties to politicians (Governor's/Assemblymen/State Senators). The same rings true for candidates that are endorsed by these people. Stop the insanity and keep the Judicial Branch seperated from the Executive or Legislative branch.
6. The question that was never asked. During the candidates night at the Moose Lodge there was an opportunity to ask the candidates questions from what was a friendly audience. Your faithful narrator, Uncle Cato asked the following. "As an attorney, have you ever considered to argued a point of law before a jury and advocated the law is unjust and the jury should nullify a law by returning a verdict of "Not Guilty?" As a Judge, would you allow a defense attorney to make such an argument?" This is a fair question. Jury nullification was a common practice during the time of the Founding Fathers. John Jay, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers penned,
Jury nullification has always been a tactic advocated to send a clear message to the Legislature that laws were unjust. The Fugitive Slave law of 1850 and Volstead Act (i.e., Prohibition), were two prime examples of laws where juries returned not guilty verdicts, even though the laws were no doubt clearly violated by defendants.
Since this question was not asked, one should assume either the questions were supplied by the candidates ahead of time, or two, the Tea Party (disclaimer: I belong to the Sutter Buttes Tea Party) and the Sutter County Taxpayers Association really did not want to put candidates on the spot. Jury Nullification questions to Federal Judicial appointments (and Supreme Court nominees) are fair game in U.S. Senate hearing. Why should this issue be 'fair game' in a Superior Court candidate? Most of the questions were real softball. Very little controversay. In our opinion, the Candidates forum did little to separate one or more above a crowded field. On the other hand, the way a couple of candidates deported themselves in public led us to pick one candidate, which will be discussed in our Election Pick print out (comming in third week in May).
Love us.....hate us.....send us an e-mail