Willful Blindness – a condition experienced by most of the judicial branch

Posted on August 13, 2013


Willful blindness is a method to subconsciously write your own epitaph when the weight of the ignored eventually takes its toll. It also serves as a legal term in which you should have known, you ought to have known but you willfully disregarded all of the signs as they presented themselves. Most everyone who reads this site is involved with the law in one capacity or another. Most of our comments are originated by those that don’t suffer from willful blindness. Many of our legislators suffer from willful blindness which is why little has changed at the judicial council and the AOC.

Attorneys statewide also are suffering from willful blindness when AOC funded local bars spread the word to other attorneys while avoiding glossing over the issues we discuss here openly and candidly.

Nearly every courthouse and county court system from the Oregon border to the Mexican Border is taking an official position of willful blindness while many of the judges in those same courthouses either fall on the “you must be blind and trust leadership” side of the fence which appears to be the prevalent official position or “there is a foul smell emanating from Baghdad by the bay that warrants further attention” which consists largely of those who choose to not be willfully blind. Choosing not to be willfully blind does not necessarily make you a whistleblower but it can go miles into addressing the issues that concern us most. A perfect example of a group that chooses to not be willfully blind can be found in the Alliance of California Judges. But because the fine line of judicial ethics comes into play, these voices are muted from what they really want to say to what they’re permitted to say or suggest within the boundaries of judicial ethics. Even if there were a crook among us caught red-handed, legal ethics precludes them from expressing that conclusion.  And herein lies a quandry.

Submitted for your consideration: I submit that those who advocate willful blindness do so not because it is best for the branch but because they fear the truth being known. This represents the judicial council power brokers who out of fear keep re-appointing cronies that will tow the party line to leadership positions. This fear of the truth being known was expressed by Ronald George when he considered a democratically elected judicial council an act of war. And war it is, ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake about it. It is a war for the truth. It is a war to keep our justice system alive. It is a war to preserve your job serving the public. It is a war to restore the dignity of the California courts not  through willful blindness but through transparency and accountability.

Years ago we did a post on the The AOC, Enron & Dr. Stanley Milgram that we consider one of the most important articles in assisting you in understanding the magnitude of willful blindness in all of us. Today, Sharon Kramer sent us a link to a speech about willful blindness that is sobering and continues this conversation while being entirely accurate.