Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Judge Fox is a person of great strength, maturity
Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:14 AM PDT
This letter is in reference to Mr. Wilson's letter about Judge Fox, and others who criticized her.
I am the detective who killed her attacker. I want to say that the opinions expressed here are mine. I have sat quietly reading the articles and comments about Judge Fox, but I cannot sit quietly anymore.
I doubt anyone who has criticized Judge Fox was there that day on March 4. I was. What I saw was a fast and violent prison yard-style attack on Judge Fox.
I would like to address Mr. Wilson's comments starting with, "the taxpayers provided a job for her." I will say she earned it. Taxpayers did not just wastefully create the position of Judge. Society created the need for a judge when society failed to behave civilly.
Next, about Judge Fox not doing trials right now, there are many ways judges serve outside jury trials; in fact, the majority are not assigned as strictly trial judges.
Finally, about "reasonable expectation," I think people should have a reasonable expectation of safety when in public or at work, regardless of their knowledge of predators in jails or on the streets. This is one of the main goals of law enforcement — to make society feel safe.
I can assure you Judge Fox is a person of great strength and maturity, and because she possesses these qualities, she is able to do her job. I know Judge Fox has moral fortitude and therefore she has given great thought to her actions. She will be able to continue to serve as a judge and provide intelligent and fair rulings.
Judge Fox's case, as with any case, is not carried out in the newspaper. There is a judicial procedure to present the totality of facts and circumstances. Let the system we as a society developed decide the merit of the case.
Regarding her "oversensitive nature," has anyone tried to kill you? Have you ever had gunfire within inches of your head? Maybe you have; then you should know everyone responds and recovers in a different way. Mortal combat is a terrifying experience to all involved.
Eric Bradley
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
danielh wrote on Oct 1, 2009 9:27 PM:
Living people (not fictional People), are tricked into contract in court, without knowing what happened to them.
As a "rule of thumb," I say that if the judge is happy, the defendant is losing. If I am standing there (behind the bar) and the judge is screaming at me, it is probably because I am winning.
Last night, I learned that a judge (in New York?) properly and lawfully stated in a foreclosure case, that he would not rule in favor of the bank, without a wet-ink proof-of-claim (promissory note).
(We know that the banks do not possess the promissory notes because they sell them on the international market.) "
danielh wrote on Oct 1, 2009 7:54 PM:
I agree that the law you are presenting is accepted, commonly-used, and enforced, but the law is broken; and, negative averments can be served which can't be answered.
Libelants are winning outside of court, and there are billions of dollars of international maritime liens on the public record, for example against some of Alabama's most reputable law firms. "
Lodian wrote on Sep 30, 2009 12:05 AM:
kwp: If the liquor store clerk had a security guard manning the store, that was supposed to guard and handle safety at the store, then the clerk most certainly can blame the security guard. And the clerk would sue the owner.
And the owner is... "us". "
kwp19 wrote on Sep 29, 2009 3:01 PM:
I am sure it was an awful experience for Judge Fox, and I feel for her, but I am not quite sure how her experience is necessarily different than say, a liquor store clerk who is held up at gunpoint. Is he entitled to reparations as well?
Perhaps he is, but at the current rate of deviant behavior, our country may just go broke paying all of these unfortunate victims. "
Aimee wrote on Sep 29, 2009 11:57 AM:
The law is rather hard to decipher...and there are many laws that have become obsolete in today's society. You always hear of the crazy law prohibiting eating something one shouldn't on a certain day in a certain part of town, yet the law is not observed nor enforced. It sounds like to me that many of the laws you cite (and legal principles) fall into the above-mentioned category. "
dyan wrote on Sep 28, 2009 8:08 PM:
danielh wrote on Sep 28, 2009 6:57 PM:
El Toro wrote on Sep 28, 2009 3:37 PM:
Aimee wrote on Sep 28, 2009 2:30 PM:
2. People may sue anonymously under certain situations in civil cases.
3. The People need not be joined with the injured party (the victim) in order to prosecute the defendant. Under the police power of the states granted by the U.S. Consitution, the People may redress wrongs against society. A crime against a person is considered to be a crime against the People, thus giving the DA standing to prosecute on behalf of the victim and the People of the State of California. This is why the DA may prosecute a man for beating his wife although the wife does not want to press charges and does not want to go to court. This is also further modified by State statute.
Dyan: I'm not sure about that one - good question! Any worker's comp atty's out there? "
Robb wrote on Sep 28, 2009 11:40 AM:
El Toro wrote on Sep 28, 2009 10:43 AM:
dyan wrote on Sep 27, 2009 3:20 PM:
Lee wrote on Sep 27, 2009 11:13 AM:
danielh wrote on Sep 27, 2009 11:12 AM:
1) do you realize that statutes are not law? I believe they are contract terms.
2) Are you telling me that California statues do not require that a case shall be prosecuted in the name of the party that has the claim?
In cases where someone is injured, I agree that PEOPLE can prosecute, if it is joined with the injured party. "
Lee wrote on Sep 27, 2009 11:04 AM:
Aimee wrote on Sep 27, 2009 12:34 AM:
Not all wrongs are criminal and not all are civil. There is a delineation between the two for good reason. In the criminal arena, a crime against one citizen is viewed as a crime against all - hence giving the People the right to prosecute the case under the Police Power of the State and all applicable state statutes.
Because states have been granted sovereignty within their borders, out of necessity we have both the California Rules of Civil/Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal/Civil Procedure. Regardless of Bills of Exchange you mentioned (which has no application here), these rules are almost exclusively used within their respective jurisdictions (Federal and State), with few exceptions (Erie Doctrine). "
Aimee wrote on Sep 27, 2009 12:24 AM:
danielh wrote on Sep 26, 2009 1:26 PM:
danielh wrote on Sep 25, 2009 6:46 PM:
In every crime there must be an injured party. "
danielh wrote on Sep 25, 2009 6:45 PM:
danielh wrote on Sep 25, 2009 6:43 PM:
danielh wrote on Sep 25, 2009 6:41 PM:
If the accused is found guilty, and if the living man / woman stands up as surety for the charges, and willfully accepts the punishment, this accused living man/woman is voluntarily going to jail or prison, for the benefit privelge of paying the debt. "
danielh wrote on Sep 25, 2009 6:38 PM:
Can we close the books (on the charging instrument) by 5:00 PM today? That is, can it be paid today?
If not, I presume that the procedure is to post it as an asset within accounts payable.
The Payee is known by the clerk. The only thing that remains to be determined is the Payor.
If the accused is found "not guilty," or the District Attorney is the Payor, and if he does not produced his "check book" or authorization to access the retirement account, by 5:00 PM, the DA will go to jail as the Payor. "
danielh wrote on Sep 25, 2009 6:32 PM:
Aimee wrote on Sep 25, 2009 1:07 PM:
There is also Federal Criminal Procedure. Here's what its Section 1 states:
"These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the United States district courts, the United States courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States." "
Aimee wrote on Sep 25, 2009 1:00 PM:
The right to bring an action on behalf of the People is authorized by statute, specifically California Penal Code. "
Aimee wrote on Sep 25, 2009 12:50 PM:
FRCP 17 would not apply in a suit brought against the County, nor an action initiated on the part of the People of the State of California. "
danielh wrote on Sep 24, 2009 10:31 PM:
That's how it works. "
danielh wrote on Sep 24, 2009 10:28 PM:
There are very effective procedures to strike facts and circumstances from evidence where the jury cannot see them.
FYI: "jury trial" and "trial by jury" are not the same thing. "
dogs4you wrote on Sep 24, 2009 8:49 PM:
danielh wrote on Sep 24, 2009 8:31 PM:
danielh wrote on Sep 24, 2009 8:27 PM:
Eric Bradley: This letter, coming from you, is serious, and respectable.
I'm impressed that you believe you are protecting society; but:
I have never heard a judge say that they are protecting actual living people, except where PEOPLE is spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, and in this case, PEOPLE is a PUBLIC fiction.
PEOPLE does not breath air, pump blood, eat, got to the bathroom or have sex.
PEOPLE is deader than David Paradiso.
Every time a case is filed as PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs. DEFENDANT, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a) is violated; and, there are probably a long list of other violations.
It is the duty and responsibility of JUDGE FOX to uphold and defend PEOPLE in violation of FRCP 17(a), and for that I do not have any respect, whatsoever. "
danielh wrote on Sep 24, 2009 8:18 PM:
t jefferson wrote on Sep 24, 2009 8:11 PM:
tosh conn wrote on Sep 24, 2009 7:11 PM:
Aimee wrote on Sep 24, 2009 4:08 PM:
Max: Would this be in a locale of Danish origin? "
LodiReaderFromStockton wrote on Sep 24, 2009 3:18 PM:
Obviously the people who allowed this to happen aren't facing up to the fact that it could happen again. Someone really should have been held accountable for this situation and they weren't. "
max stanfield wrote on Sep 24, 2009 1:43 PM:
El Toro wrote on Sep 24, 2009 12:43 PM:
Aimee wrote on Sep 24, 2009 11:39 AM:
Judges make over $100,000 per year; jurors are only minorly compensated for their services.
Judges take a job on the bench by choice; jurors are REQUIRED by law to serve when called.
Judges are usually more aware of the intimate details of the case at bar than jurors are. Were the jurors aware that the suspect could have possibly had a weapon on him?
Are they aware of the procedure followed to restrain defendants? I can assure you that the judges are.
Judges are more familiar with court staff and law enforcement personnel,as well as workplace procedure and rules - it is a tight-knit community within the court house. Jurors are strangers to staff and other personnel. Most jurors are intimidated by the whole trial process. "
Aimee wrote on Sep 24, 2009 11:29 AM:
"..Judge Fox's case, as with any case, is not carried out in the newspaper. There is a judicial procedure to present the totality of facts and circumstances. Let the system we as a society developed decide the merit of the case."
It is true that the court is the proper venue to decide the merits of this case. However, the public should be able to comment on this case in a public forum such as the LNS. Since a lawsuit against the County is essentially a lawsuit involving the people that read this paper (as residents of San Joaquin County and taxpayers), we should not discourage their comments, regardless of their views. "
lodidian wrote on Sep 24, 2009 11:25 AM:
Thanks to officer Bradley for doing what he had to do in the courtroom that day. "
OTH wrote on Sep 24, 2009 11:16 AM:
Let's say you were called to jury duty, chosen and in the performance of your duties was injured. Who would you sue? And please don't tell me you wouldn't sue. The criminal? The county? If unsafe conditions exist in courtrooms then they need to be corrected for everyones safety. Thank God Det. Bradley was there and acted quickly. It could have been much worse.
EL TORO is right. Defendants cannot be uncessarily restrained. Some pin headed judge decided that. Truth be told he probably never saw a felon in his life. "
Neo wrote on Sep 24, 2009 10:59 AM:
citizen wrote on Sep 24, 2009 9:12 AM:
gray cloud wrote on Sep 24, 2009 8:56 AM:
El Toro wrote on Sep 24, 2009 8:29 AM:
3-2. AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice. "
t jefferson wrote on Sep 24, 2009 6:35 AM:
This does not change the fact that this judge could have ordered this animal brought to her in a cage. So, she is not blameless. Society did not create the need for judges, animals like this did. This was a tragic situation but when you coddle criminals and they have no fear of repercussions this is the outcome.
There was a time in this country when people took care of themselves. Unfortunately that is no longer the case and the government exempts itself from protecting people.
Here is a direct question for you....Is law enforcement responsible for the protection of any individual? Before you answer go read Government Code 845.
As far as this Judge. She has more rights than the average citizen when it comes to protecting herself, I just hope her lawsuit gets the same outcome as Warren did in her case versus DC. "
stella wrote on Sep 24, 2009 5:59 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.