I got an interesting e-mail this morning and would like some input on it.

[Tod]

I recently was added to an e-mail list that consists of evidently mostly left, Occupy types. They are unaware of my own political beliefs. Anyway, this morning I got an e-mail from the group leader, who is a retired associate linguistics professor. It included this paragraph (names redacted and a few other non-material changes made so that this post does not come up in a google search of the paragraph)

I ask everyone to delete the name of K_______. Her father, W_______, is a Justice on the state hi cort. Since our case is likely to end up there, it would be best for everyone that K_______ should work with us in the background---which she is happy to do. Accordingly, with K______'s approval, I am removing her name from all official lists....

Do you think that this situation is grounds for this Justice recusing himself from this case (if the sender is correct and the case ends up before the court)? I'm thinking he should, and that this information should be made public (again, if the sender is correct and the case ends up before the court).

[Natural Citizen]

I'd say that it would be grounds for this Justice to recuse, Tod.

Of course, this means that you have to bust that sombitch open and get a ball rolling. You know?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[moostraks]

Uh, yeah, that ain't right. Seems pretty shady and he should recuse himself if they are going to such lengths as deleting an identity that can be directly tied to him in hopes of getting him to oversee the case.

[euphemia]

Absolutely. Liberty doesn't happen in the absence of courage.

Use your internet savvy to explore the source of that email to determine authenticity. Then, do some homework on the group and go to town. Write to anyone and everyone who will listen. Post on relavent blogs, and make sure you talk to the media.

[sparebulb]

the state hi cort

I guess we know why he's only an associate linguistics professor.

[FrancisMarion]

The case isn't even before W yet.

Could also be that daughter doesn't want daddy to know of her association.

[Tod]

I guess we know why he's only an associate linguistics professor.

hahaha....it was spelled correctly; I edited it.

[Tod]

The case isn't even before W yet.

Could also be that daughter doesn't want daddy to know of her association.

Yes, and until it does, the connection is not of significance, so for now I figure I'll just keep mum, sit on it, and see if anything further of interest is said.

It is possible the daughter doesn't want daddy to know, but that is not the impression I came away with.



As for the e-mail's authenticity, I have no questions about that. There has been previous correspondence and I've even talked on the phone with the sender.

[euphemia]

If you are positive the email is authentic, then I think you should certainly get your proof together and go to the media and whatever jurisdiction the judge is in. If judge and daughter are both willing to corrupt the process, then they are both wrong.

Get busy.

[specsaregood]

If you are positive the email is authentic, then I think you should certainly get your proof together and go to the media and whatever jurisdiction the judge is in. If judge and daughter are both willing to corrupt the process, then they are both wrong.

Get busy.

I don't think there is any need for all that since no corruption or laws have been broken so far.

What I'd do is print out the email and snail-mail it to the lawyers on both sides of the case anonymously. Along with a little note about it with context. Then just keep an eye on it.


edit: Tod, if you ever want to post a thread that wont get indexed by google, just put it in the "hot topics" subforum. Guests/bots can't read it so it wont end up in any search engines.

[angelatc]

I recently was added to an e-mail list that consists of evidently mostly left, Occupy types. They are unaware of my own political beliefs. Anyway, this morning I got an e-mail from the group leader, who is a retired associate linguistics professor. It included this paragraph (names redacted and a few other non-material changes made so that this post does not come up in a google search of the paragraph)



Do you think that this situation is grounds for this Justice recusing himself from this case (if the sender is correct and the case ends up before the court)? I'm thinking he should, and that this information should be made public (again, if the sender is correct and the case ends up before the court).

I"d watch the case, and if it looked like it was going to make it to the court in question, I would send get Ben Swann and one of the guys on The Daily Caller involved. Maybe Michelle Malkin too. She's done a lot of actual reporting in the past.

[kcchiefs6465]

Talking to Ben Swann is a great idea.

He's from Ohio and as well a great journalist.

As it stands, there are ethical concerns simply through appearance.

You are the one in a position to know the specifics of the case. If a monkey wrench should be tossed into their circus ring of gears, you'd be the one to know.