What’s that brown stuff on your nose?

Posted on May 13, 2011

72


Mr. Herman obviously didn’t get the “speak with one voice” memo. If he had gotten the “speak with one voice” memo he wouldn’t have drafted the enclosed letter on CJA letterhead.

 

 

Mr. Herman wanted to demonstrate that he delivered his CJA district on the CJA survey like a good little judicial council soldier. District eight was properly brought into line and that the results from his district show overwhelming trust, support and confidence in all that the Judicial Council and the AOC is and undertakes. Mr. Herman is and always has been a blind supporter of the Judicial Council and of the AOC. As to if the entire district eight supports the Judicial Council and the AOC quite like Mr. Herman does… we’re going to guess by some of our previous communications from individuals in district eight courts… not so much. 

Are you from Mr. Herman’s district eight? Do you agree with his “speak with two voices” letter being composed on CJA letterhead? Did he utilize statistics to promote mistruths and his own angle? Did he write the letter with the clear intention of undermining the previous CJA letter? We want to hear what you think about Mr. Herman’s letter. We only have one additional question for Mr. Herman.

What’s that brown stuff on your nose?

Mr. Herman’s own view of his letter can be found on MetNews

New – Courthouse News:  L.A. Judges fire back at Santa Barbara letter

_____________________________________________________ 

And thanks to Mrs. Kramer, we have another question. Were CJA rules violated?

 
page 20 Rules of Procedure
 
7. Except by specific authorization of the Association or of the Executive Board no
committee, officer or member of the Association (a) shall act, or purport to act, speak or purport to speak for the Association; (b) shall publicly announce, publish, cause to be published, or release for publication any statement or declaration purporting to be the intent, position or policy of the Association.
 
_____________________________________________________

ABC News 10 San Diego questions the use of the Ralph Shapiro Administration of Justice fund. You know, the one that buys the booze at the judicial social gatherings instead of using taxpayer dollars for bar tabs?