Smart people…[a]re better than dumber people at coming up with reasons to justify their false beliefs. – Cathy Reisenwitz
Censors have learned to use “progressive” rhetoric to cloak prudery:
A 26-foot-tall sculpture of Marilyn Monroe playfully patting down her upblown skirt is the source of a [moronic] debate in Palm Springs, California. The town’s city council has approved the…recreation of the act[ress]’s iconic scene atop a blustery subway grate from…The Seven Year Itch—to be installed near the Palm Springs Art Museum for a three-year period. But…[prudes, busybodies and censors are dis]pleased with the decision…the museum’s executive director…Louis Grachos [made furtive movements in his pants while bloviating weird fantasies about underwear]…“school-age children”…and [how the]…statue [magically] objectifies women…[thereby] “hurt[ing] our whole community”…Steven H. Maloney, chair of the museum’s board of trustees, [opined that women are so stupid that a painted hunk of metal constitutes]…“an unhealthy encouragement of risqué behavior of women”…
I have a hard time imagining what a lower opinion of women than that displayed by these pompous weeds would look like.
Cathy Reisenwitz has further thoughts on the origin of whore-hatred in women:
As my friend and fellow sex worker Maggie McNeill points out, public polling suggests men are more likely to support sex work decrim than women…Maggie thinks that the main reason women oppose sex work decrim is that women tend to think of women’s individual behavior as reflecting on women as a whole and think sex work is a bad look…I think there’s truth to that, but it lacks an important class angle…middle-class white women began campaigning for laws against prostitution and defining any type of promiscuity as prostitution in the Progressive Era at the turn of the 20th century…Middle-class white women feared female economic independence threatened dominant middle-class values. By making prostitution dangerous and illegal, middle-class white women sought to force working-class women, women of color, and immigrant women into marriage, chastity, monogamy, hard work, and propriety lest they live independently of men and destroy the social order…
Rapist cops don’t only target women:
A man who [was raped by] a [typical and representative] South Carolina [cop]…is suing the city of Travelers Rest…The [cop], Shawn Jenkins, was fired from the [cop shop] last year after…[the] Sheriff’s Office…[only] charged [him] with second-degree sexual misconduct…The plaintiff, who filed the suit anonymously, told investigators Jenkins pointed a department-issued stun gun at him while he was visiting Jenkins’ residence on Aug. 5, 2019, and told him to “strip or be tased”…The [then-underage victm] tried to run away, but [Jenkins] locked [him] inside a room [and raped him]…
In Maine, voters in the state’s largest city recently enacted one of the toughest facial recognition bans in the country in the Nov. 3 elections, outlawing both use of the technology by local police and the city government…the measure codifies – [but adds only weak] enforcement teeth – to a ban…passed in August by the Portland City Council…The new law allows citizens to sue the city for illegal facial recognition surveillance by the city police or government. Citizens could get [a mere] $1,000 per violation plus legal fees, if they prevail in court. Municipal employees [but not cops] can be fired [but not criminally prosecuted] for violating the [law]…
Pasco County, Florida’s “predictive policing” scheme doesn’t spare minors:
The Pasco Sheriff’s Office keeps a secret list of kids it [pretend]s could “fall into a life of crime” based on factors like whether they’ve been abused or gotten a D or an F in school…the list [is created] by combining the rosters for most middle and high schools in the county with records so sensitive, they’re protected by state and federal law…Four hundred and twenty kids are [currently] on the list…[cops do]n’t tell the kids or their parents about the designation…an[d]…school…[administrators claim to have been] unaware…of [it as well]…The Department of Children and Families [refused to] answer…the Sheriff’s Office…use[s the list] to [target]…middle and high school…[students for surveillance and harassment euphemized as] “mentorship” and “resources”…Ten experts in law enforcement and student privacy…called the program…a clear misuse of children’s confidential information that stretched the limits of the law…
Why are Nevada brothel whores unable to open their mouths without vomiting out toxic whorearchy?
…[brothel whores unemployed] because of COVID-19…say they are being forced to make money in what they call dangerous, scary and illegal ways…the long shutdown is depleting their savings and they’re going broke waiting to work again. That is forcing some of them to turn to things they didn’t want to to make money, like illegal prostitution. One…says…”it’s so degrading and so scary”…Another…admits to illegally meeting with a Mustang Ranch regular…she trusted him but…he beat and choked her…two [say they] decided to turn a trick in Arizona…but…the…man…ended up holding them hostage in the bathroom at gun point…The madams also say they’re seeing some of their workers walking the streets now with…pimps…”If you walk into a casino, the floor is filled with illegal prostitutes and pimps”…
Apparently these whores are both incompetent and cursed, so that in a few months they’ve experienced more violence than every escort I know put together has experienced in years.
It’s symptomatic of the government’s deep moral rot that she wasn’t automatically disqualified:
On Nov. 18, veteran newspapermen Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin took the extraordinary step of filing a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking it to intervene in their ongoing criminal case and order Judge Susan Brnovich to recuse herself from all future proceedings…her husband, Arizona Attorney General Mark…Brnovich, others on his behalf and organizations with which he is associated…have vilified Backpage, assumed its complicity in sex trafficking, and drawn conclusions about facts that will be at issue in the trial of Lacey, Larkin and their four co-defendants…[although] the AG’s inaccurate assumptions about Backpage go to the heart of the case and raise the specter of potential bias on behalf of the judge[, she has stubbornly refused to recuse herself]…
Dangerous Speech (#1087)
You see these corrupt patterns baked into the entire US criminal system designed to ensure convictions at all costs.
Few know this, but the law states that a judge must recuse themselves from a case if there is a “mere appearance” of a conflict of interest. Note that on paper the defendant does not need to prove an actual conflict of interest, but simply the “mere appearance” of a conflict of interest to have the judge recuse themselves.
Like so much of the US criminal code designed to create a false appearance of fairness, such high minded language is there so when you challenge a judge on proscutor on a key point they can point imperiously at the wording of the law as proof just how blind and fair our justice system is.
What they never tell you unless your turn comes up is that this determination of the “mere appearance” of a conflict of interest like so many other things is determined solely by the judge being challenged with no external oversight. Not surprisingly, judges regularly find there is not even an appearance of a conflict of interest for themselves no matter how obvious that conflict is to everyone in the courtroom at the time.
And the prosecutor who knows that judge will always deliver the judicial decisions that will favor them once again smiles at the judge. When there are no cameras around you get to see the judge smile back.
This is a common pattern baked into the American legal code. You find these wonderful, high minded rules on the books for those in power they can always point to (and Hollywood procedurals are typically based on) of what a fair and wonderful system me have. Then when you get to court, you realize they are always the people who determine when the rules apply and if they are breaking their own rules. When you point to the obvious conflict of interest, you hear things like “judges/prosecutors/police have wide discretion in this area.” A high minded way for them to once again tell you they operate with no oversight, or accountability for their decisions or behavior.
What could possibly go wrong?
How, or with what judicial reasoning the 9th Federal DCA will rule on the petition for mandamus is a guess I can’t make, for lack of knowledge about the case law or the 9th DCA’s tendencies in such cases.
But there are some other points that do have solid basis:
First, if the 9th DCA declines to order recusal so the case proceeds to trial under Judge Susan Brnovich, and evidence of an actual conflict of interest (not just an appearance of a conflict) arises during trial, the consequences could be catastrophic for her.
If an actual conflict arises at trial, the petition for mandamus has already been filed. So Judge Brnovich is aware of that assertion of conflict. She can not later claim to be unaware of any appearance of conflict from the outset.
Second, if the blogosphere erupts with widespread factually based articles stating outrage at her conflict of interest, there might be even more basis for the claim that there is an “appearance” of a conflict.
Third, and not least. Some state criminal courts permit defense (and sometimes prosecution) one “free” recusal. Attorney just files a petition to assign another judge and it is automatically granted. But that can be dangerous.
The next judge can be worse. Chief Judge says, in effect, “You don’t want Judge A**hole. OK. I’ll assign Judge Batsh*t Crazy A**hole.”
Great perspective En Passant. Thank you for the legal take.
On that last point of a “free” recusal, so much of that depends on the presiding chief judge, doesn’t it? They get to choose the replacement and if they are invested in a victory for the prosecutor, the next judge will certainly be worse than the judge you replaced. Once again, an example of giving the appearance of fairness on paper while they place their foot on the scale in practice.
As a laymen with limited experience, the only guiding principle I can find in our criminal system is that innocence is perhaps the weakest defense you can have at trial. If those in power decide you are to be punished, nothing as ephemeral as the rule of law is going to stop them from carrying out that punishment.