Happy 3rd Blogiversary to Me!

I started this blog 3 years ago today. Hard to believe that I have been doing this that long. Even harder to believe that people are actually still visiting and reading it! ;)

Today was the debate between Judge Wanger and Mayor Autry. I'm not even sure where to start commenting on it, other than to say it was most entertaining and definitely worth the $15! I guess I will just make some random observations because there is too much that could be said, and I, unlike my boyfriend, did not take any notes.

The first thing that was obvious is how little most people, who are not lawyers, know about the courts, the Constitution, the law and the way all of those function. I am sure Autry had been briefed by his legal team, but he still seemed to have little to no understanding of any of this. He claimed that the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, was the document guiding our country and courts and that the Declaration's words hold a superior position to anything else said anywhere.

Autry also has no clue what "judicial notice" is, but seemed to think it was a magical phrase that was going to get him the win in this debate. He spoke about it as if this allows judges to do outside research on cases, and bring in anything they find, along with their own opinions and common sense, and get those into evidence under "judicial notice". Um, that is not how it works, but he brought it up at least a dozen times, seeming to hope each time that that would be the time it would click in his audiences' heads and they would see the value in this argument. Nope. Never did.

And then there were points he made that contradicted himself. He said that judges should be able to bring in common sense and outside knowledge (Autry's "judicial notice") and use that in deciding cases. However, when Judge Wanger made a comment in the homeless case, which prompted this debate, that the actions of the city of Fresno were "demeaning" to homeless people (their personal belongings were seized and destroyed, without notice- a common sense observation???), Autry claimed that the judge already had an attitude about the case. How can you say judges should bring in their common sense and outside knowledge on one hand, and then criticize them on the other when they do just that?

Autry tried to create visuals through his stories. The problem was that they seemed just that- like stories, doubtfully enhanced by his desire to create a certain perception in the media. One of his stories was that the ACLU lawyers who filed the class action on behalf of the homeless did not really care about these people, and could not get away from them fast enough. I believe his quote was something to the effect, "As the homeless pulled on the arm of the ACLU lawyer, the lawyer quickly left, hopped into his limo and drove out of town. The view of Fresno in his rearview mirror was the best thing he'd ever seen." Ok, please. Can he get any more dramatic?

Actually, he did. As he described the homeless encampment, which he claimed to have visited, you would have thought he spent quite an amount of time there. According to him, the place had a coffee pot used as a urinal that was filled with disease and mattresses infected with hepatitis. Homeless people there fouled their pants with diarrhea, were openly using and selling drugs, and having sex. Autry topped off this story saying that this entire scene was visible to a little girl who lived across the street. For good measure, he also threw in that around the corner from this encampment was the Rescue Mission, with "food, shelter, medicine and hope." Ok, that was just corny.

When the topic of the settlement on the homeless case was brought up, Autry was asked why he signed it if he did not agree with it. He brought up the difference between the world we live in and the world we wished we lived in. He signed it because he didn't want to risk the future of the city with the possibility of losing a lot more if the case went to trial, and he hoped the judge would step in and alter the agreement to make it more "reasonable". Ok, so the world Autry wishes he lives in is the world where judges think like he does, but that is not the world he actually lives in, so why didn't he realize that difference before he signed the thing?

I'm wondering how the paper will portray this event in tomorrow's paper. I'm sure Autry probably thinks he did a good job. I'm equally sure that the lawyers (and soon-to-be lawyers) in the room probably cringed, seeing in person exactly how much our mayor does not know.