T1B

Jsc810 wrote:Mr. Pearson is losing a job.

"The first switcheroo came as a result of the commission notifying Butler that he had not complied with the law that requires the chief judge to submit a yes or no recommendation to the commission that decides whether judges' performance merits an extension of their time on the bench. ALJs sit on cases involving disputes between city agencies and between citizens and those agencies.

But after Butler came back with a pro-Pearson letter, Pearson sent a series of emails within the ALJ staff disparaging the chief judge, calling him "evil" and mean-spirited. That helped sway Butler to switch yet again, to a recommendation against reappointment."



In other words, he got played by politics........... because he didn't play the political game well, himself. Dude should have kept those emails off the company server; I do wonder who he sent those to, and how they also responded, because he might not have been the only one to use the words or may have been encouraged to do so. Depends on what else was in those emails.

But he should have kept them off the company server, and kept his mouth shut until the reappointment was a done deal.

The reason for not granting the reappointment in the first place reeks of bullshit, though.







And welcome back, JSC. I hope you're able to keep food down, now.

I think the legal terminology for removing him from the bench is "Fuck him'. I could be wrong.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

88 wrote:

XXXL wrote:I never could find a reason to accept what she allegedly did...

What she did really pisses me off. And there is no doubt she did do it. The allegedly part of your post is a bit misleading. She was caught on video and audio tape. She just didn't think the government could get a conviction against her for breaking rules she didn't agree with.

Defending the accused is a tough job. And there are lots of good people who work their ass off making sure that the accused get their Due Process and a fair trial. Shit stains like Lynne Stewart give the good lawyers a bad reputation.

I have to confess that when I first heard about this case, I was a little chilled. I believe that everyone is entitled to his or her day in court, and that lawyers as a result have an ethical obligation to represent unpopular clients at times. I'm not a big fan of this Administration (sin, Marcus), and the prosecution of Stewart initially struck me as a shot across the bow by the Administration against criminal defense lawyers, at least when it came to representing terrorism suspects. As the case went on, however, it became clear that Stewart's actions were reprehensible.

Oh my gosh Terry, don't you think "reprehensible" is a little rough. Dear goodness, next thing you know they'll be calling it treasonous. I'd hate for that poor fat bitch to be subjected to foot baths and subtitled Muslim soap operas.