SANTA CRUZ - Gov. Jerry Brown's office announced Tuesday that local court commissioner Stephen S. Siegel has been appointed a Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge.With benefits, the salary is probably about $220,000.
Siegel, 63, has served as a commissioner since 2001. He lives in Eastside Santa Cruz. ...
Siegel has been hearing family law cases in Watsonville and said his assignment wouldn't change for now. He said he can hear any case if attorneys agree to it, but that now he will join a rotation to get calls from police needing search warrants.
Siegel said he sought the appointment in large part because he thought it would be better for someone with experience and a good relationship with others on the bench to fill the vacancy.
He fills a seat created by the 2010 retirement of Commissioner Irwin Joseph, whose seat was then converted to a judgeship. Court officials said they don't expect that Siegel's commissioner's position will be filled any time soon....
Siegel and Joseph were appointed commissioner in 2000. Both were described in a past Santa Cruz Sentinel story as loving golf and baseball and having married their high school sweethearts. Siegel once coached Santa Cruz High's mock trial team.
Other applicants for the judgeship included County Counsel Tamyra Rice, Public Defender Nancy de la Pena, Santa Cruz attorney Robert Patterson and San Jose appellate attorney Helen Williams.
The salary for the position is $178,789. The salary for a commissioner is $160,910.
Siegel and Joseph are both Jewish surnames. There is no reason a Jew cannot be a good judge if he follows the law, but the local family court judges do not follow the law. They apply their own personal anti-Christian prejudices, and tolerate unethical practices by lawyers and shrinks.
Funny that it says that Joseph "retired". He always wanted that judgeship, but was repeatedly passed over. I reported here that he was fired. Last I heard, he was a commissioner in the county over the hill.
Eugene Volokh writes:
Last year, I blogged about Moore v. Hoff, a Minnesota case in which a jury ordered a blogger to pay $60,000 to a university official because the blogger blogged the truth about the official, intending to get him fired. I am told that Monday morning, the Minnesota Court of Appeals will hand down a decision in the appeal of the verdict; I hope that it will reverse.If the Minnesota decision is upheld, Joseph might think that I owe him $60k. I did blog the truth about him, and I did hope that his superiors would stop him from carrying out his malicious personal vendettas from the court bench. And he was eventually removed. That just seems like American free speech for me to hold a public official accountable for the damage he was doing on the job.
Update: The Minnesota case was reversed. A victory for free speech.
19 comments:
Are Morse and Kelsay Jews ? Did they apply their own personal anti-Christian prejudices, and tolerate unethical practices by lawyers and shrinks ?
I don't know about Morse and Kelsay. If you know, go ahead and post it. They certainly do apply their prejudices.
Were their own personal prejudices anti-Christian ?, and did they tolerate unethical practices by lawyers and shrinks ?
They do not seem Christian to me. Yes, I hold them responsible for their personal prejudices.
Ok, they do not seem Christian to you. Were their own personal prejudices anti-Christian ?, like the Jews ? Did they tolerate unethical practices by lawyers and shrinks ?
I would like to have more info on their prejudices, because they sure have some big ones.
Ok, Were their prejudices anti-Christian ?, like the Jews ? Did they tolerate unethical practices by lawyers and shrinks ?
I posted my complaints about them. I have nothing good to say about them.
I understand. You posted your complaints about them and have nothing good to say about them.
Were their prejudices anti-Christian ?, like the Jews ? Did they tolerate unethical practices by lawyers and shrinks ?
A reader quotes:
Harvard Business School, Working Paper No. 09-048 ...
Question-dodging is a common tactic used by politicians and public relations officials. Here’s how it works: If you don’t like the question you were asked, answer the question you wish you had been asked. Politicians are notorious for using this strategy during public debates, ...
Question-dodging may go undetected when the answer is related to the question asked and is given with confidence and conviction.
I agree with this. Politicians regularly get asked questions of sort like: When will you stop beating your wife? Why do you hate poor people?
If the politician takes the loaded question literally, then he appears weak and incompetent. And rightfully so, because the question is not a serious question. It is just a slimy debate tactic.
I get comments on why I hate gays and Jews, and make personal attacks on them. I do not. Gays and Jews are only about 2% each of the USA population. I do not care what they do, as long as it does not bother me.
It's not loaded questions that you dodge, it's simple direct questions that you dodge. the commenter said he wasn't defending Perlmutter, he said the opposite, and just asked repetedly, how you KNEW that Perlmutter was Jewish and that the Judge was Jewish right ? You never answered. Will you ever ? Do you plan to keep dodging the question in favor of making speeches, and giving answers that avoid the question ?
I haven't dodged any questions. I posted the info that I have. If you have more info about these creeps, then go ahead and post it. I do not have the opportunity to quiz them about their prejudices.
How do you know about the Jews' prejudices that you wrote about ? Did you quiz the Jews ? Where did you get the info that you have and posted ?
Were the non Jews' prejudices anti-Christian ?, like the Jews ? Did they tolerate unethical practices by lawyers and shrinks ?
When I post info, I usually post the source. When the source is my personal experience, I say so.
There are non-Jews with anti-Christian prejudices. I have complained about them also.
Are you suggesting that I stop pointing out the prejudices of others? What is your point?
"When the source is my personal experience, I say so."
Didn't you write that your experience is that you never quizzed Perlmutter or Joseph about religion or Judaism, etc. although you had the opportunity to do so with Perlmutter ?
" There are non-Jews with anti-Christian prejudices."
Were the non Jews' such as Morse and Kelsay's prejudices anti-Christian ?, like the Jews ? Did they tolerate unethical practices by lawyers and shrinks ?
"I have complained about them also."
When you complained about them... Why did you only point out that the Judges with Jewish surnames were anti Christian, and not point out that the Judges with non Jewish surnames were anti Christian ?
Why do you acknowledge that Perlmutter and Joseph don't necessarily have Jewish surnames, but continue to insist that they do ? Why don't you acknowledge that it's been pointed out to you that Morse can be a Jewish surname ? Does it not fit in with your prejudices ?
Are your only points in determining that Perlmutter is a Jew still that it's because he's in a profession that has a majority of non Jews in it and he lives in an area that has a majority of non Jews living in the area ?
My point is that you have no basis for knowing what anybody's prejudices are ? All that seems clear is that you have some prejudices and they are completely unfounded.
It's not surprising that you dodge questions. You don't have any legitimate answers.
It is not true that I "have no basis". I do have a basis and I posted it. You point out that I could be wrong. Okay, I accept that. I could be wrong. I wish I asked Perlmutter directly when I had him under oath. But I am not going to withhold my criticisms just because I do not have 100% proof of the source of their prejudices. Perlmutter, Joseph, and Morse are evil people and they deserve all the criticism they get.
You don't have any legitimate answers.
" There are non-Jews with anti-Christian prejudices."
Were the non Jews' such as Morse and Kelsay's prejudices anti-Christian ?, like the Jews ? Did they tolerate unethical practices by lawyers and shrinks ?
"I have complained about them also."
When you complained about them... Why did you only point out that the Judges with Jewish surnames were anti Christian, and not point out that the Judges with non Jewish surnames were anti Christian ?
Why do you acknowledge that Perlmutter and Joseph don't necessarily have Jewish surnames, but continue to insist that they do ? Why don't you acknowledge that it's been pointed out to you that Morse can be a Jewish surname ? Does it not fit in with your prejudices ?
Are your only points in determining that Perlmutter is a Jew still that it's because he's in a profession that has a majority of non Jews in it and he lives in an area that has a majority of non Jews living in the area ?
I posted my reasons for thinking that Joseph and Perlmutter are Jewish, and that Morse is not. They are not listed on Jew or Not Jew. If you have some info, go ahead and post it. If you have some point to make, go ahead and make it.
You dodge questions.
Judge Siegel is such an awesome and partial judge. I wish he was a judge in Santa Clara County. Santa Cruz County is lucky to have him.
Post a Comment