When a call from a friend came requesting some coaching on the topic of how to bring the questionable conduct of a judge to the attention of a reporter from the New York Times, we replied that it would be best to take some preliminary fact finding steps and to try to use some community resources first. Our pal of about three and a half decades then asked additional questions about how precisely that phase of her attempt to bring things out in the open should be conducted. We replied that we would have to do a bit of our own research to answer those questions and suggested that she call back on the weekend.
We intended to relay her questions to some of the journalists and lawyers we know in the Los Angeles area. The next morning, we received a call from the President of the Marina (del Rey) Tenants Association (MTA) and indulged in some small talk about political issues in both the San Francisco bay area and the greater "Hollyweird" metropolitan urban sprawl. Before we could ask what our friend back East should do, we were asked if we would like to get away from the numerous issues of concern in the Berkeley activists community and take a working vacation closer to the MTA offices where their efforts to focus on rent control and defining "fair rate of return" and refining the definition of "grounds for recusal " are continuing. Thus we can provide them with a new installment of our ability to perform volunteer work.
Maybe, if we get some extra free time in L. A., we could start a blog for the MTA organization.
While we are in the L. A. area, maybe we can get some tips and information from the Ful Disclosure Network about doing journalism concerned with judicial matters and then relay that information to our friend in New York.
We have been noticing a series of editorials in the New York Times about aspects of the judicial branch of government and we have been sending the links to those editorials to the MTA and Full Disclosure's management, so maybe the New York Times would be open to a story suggestion from a New York state resident.
Earlier this year, we had noticed a large amount of political punditry that questioned the potential for conflict of interest regarding U. S. Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas and his wife who is active in some national political issues. We didn't think that there was any possibility that we could add a substantive column to the debate and sat on the sidelines for that topic.
We noted a recent flurry of political commentary about the news updates on the West Memphis Three.
Doing a round-up of the prisoners who have been freed by DNA evidence is way beyond our limited resources. Isn't that also an example of outdated news?
If we do go down to Los Angeles, we would be positioned to write a column about the latest developments concerning the saga of Richard Fine.
Some pundits who specialize in writing about legal issues have been questioning the wisdom of a recent Supreme Court decision which declared that companies are persons. There are some complex aspects to this decision such as: "Are companies likely to be drafted if the draft boards are re-activated any time soon?" Pundits have wondered: "Do companies need a passport to go overseas to do business?" What about this question: "Should companies that intend to do a merger be subjected to the legislation which regulates marriages?" If one of the companies involved isn't clearly a male and the other obviously female, would such a merge be a stealth example of gay marriage?
At this point, it seemed like a relaxing night at the movies would have some therapeutic value.
We went to see a documentary titled "Crime after Crime." It tells the story of the legal struggles of Deborah Peagler's effort to get out of prison. The film raises questions about the conduct of Los Angeles' District Attorney Steve Cooley and his staff in the handling of the case and the long series of appeals. The filmmakers are trying to comply with the rules of eligibility so that the film can compete for the Best Documentary Oscar - for 2011. Her legal team got some support from the Habeas Project Coalition and they are now trying to get legislation passed in the state of New York which will be similar to a measure in California which helped Ms. Peagler's case.
Isn't there more than one movie that featured the line: "First we'll give you a trial -- judge, jury, everything -- then we'll hang you!"?
Recently radio talk show host Mike Malloy has been pointing out that there seems to be some hypocrisy involved in the fact that both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama have administered some national policy that seems to contradict the very principles of conduct established by the United States and other countries at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials.
In another item of irony, the Supreme Court of Germany ruled that the results from the electronic voting machines were unreliable and subsequently those machines were disqualified for use in elections in that country.
In the United States, only Brad Friedman (of the Bradblog website) is challenging the contention that those machines are unhackable and highly reliable. Is Friedman asserting that questionable election results are being fast-tracked to become a hallowed American tradition? Is Brad afraid that America's Supreme Court isn't as liberal as the Germany's seems to be?