Courtesy of the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, I give yousome of the candidates for Superior Court Judge in Los Angeles. First, their endorsement, and a hint of their regard for the other candidates:
Deputy District Attorney Jared Moses is “very well qualified and credentialed” for the post of Los Angeles Superior Court judge.
Those words come from the only one of his three rivals in the contest whose candidacy can be taken at all seriously, attorney Pattricia Vienna.We agree with her assessment of Moses.
"Hooray! The paper implied my candidacy can be taken at least somewhat seriously!"
And now, let the faint-praise-damning commence:
But in contrast to Moses, Vienna does not have an ideal background. Admitted to practice in 1996, she has not made a court appearance since December, 2004. She has never handled a jury trial. She had had only one client in a criminal case—one that involved a misdemeanor—which was disposed of.
Her career in law, prior to that final appearance three years ago, had been comprised primarily of handling unlawful detainers. She estimates having made court appearances on about 85 UDs, as well as about 15 other cases, including a two-week trial.
Since becoming an attorney, she has remained active in her pre-law career as a flight attendant for United Airlines. On her campaign website, she remarks: “Practicing law full-time and working as a flight attendant did have some drawbacks – some mornings I would wake up and say, Do I serve coffee or a subpoena today!”
Ah, the majesty of the law.
Who else is running? Glad you asked.
The candidacy of realtor Douglas Weitzman cannot seriously be regarded. Two years ago when he ran, we commented that he was “ill-equipped for the office he seeks.” The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. rated him “not qualified.” We know of nothing that has caused him to gain fitness for the Superior Court over the past two years, and suspect he will draw the same LACBA rating as before.
This is the same Weitzman who was a respondent on People ex rel. Allstate Insurance Company v. Weitzman (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 534 which reinstated a complaint that had been dismissed. The insurance company asserted in the action that it had received “false and fraudulent claims from the staged accident ring operated” by Weitzman and others. The case was eventually settled; Weitzman won’t discuss the terms.
This candidate is ill-equipped for the position; he is slippery and evasive. In running again, he either thinks he can win, meaning that he dwells in a dream world, or derives masochistic pleasure from being lashed by the County Bar and by newspapers.
Which is nothing compared to the sadistic pleasure the journalist took in writing that sentence.
Well, surely the field must improve from here. Right? Right?
Robert Davenport—the only contender in the race who has perfected his candidacy by filing nominating papers—is a sorry individual. Rather than achieving to the extent of his abilities, he stays in his small Westwood apartment, achieving naught. Based on having developed a foot fungus while he was in the Navy, he has secured a disability pension. In seeking benefits, he declared that he is, despite his law license, hindered from performing in the field of law. If untrue, he’s a malingerer and a liar, unworthy of the post he seeks. But taking him at his word, as we choose to do, we see that he has confessed an inability to function as a judge.
Two years ago when he ran, we observed:
“As best as we can tell, he is unemployed, notwithstanding his law license and two master’s degrees. His education has been largely subsidized by taxpayers, yet he is not a contributing member of society.”
Well, when you put it THAT way.
Now, I know what you are thinking. These are joke candidacies, you will say, and it's silly to bring them up because there is no chance that any of these people would ever be elected.
Did I not mention that this is California?
Followers of California politics might recall the 2006 election in which a 20-year veteran of the bench, rated exceptionally well qualified by the bar association, was defeated by a bagel store proprietor who had barely practiced law for a decade and who had been rated "not qualified." This probably happened because the veteran judge was named "Janavs" and the bagel store owner "Olson."
So if I were "Jared Moses", I would not discount Mr. Davenport.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Hate Speech Debate on More Perfect Live - September 5th, 2017
- Popehat Goes To The Opera: Un ballo in maschera - August 19th, 2017
- Department of Justice Uses Search Warrant To Get Data On Visitors to Anti-Trump Site - August 14th, 2017
- America At The End of All Hypotheticals - August 14th, 2017
- Lawsplainer: Why John Oliver Is Anti-Diversity Now - August 11th, 2017