2011 Off to a Bad Start - for a Blawgger.

They settled the case, dammit.

Look, I'm not generally a rubbernecker.  I don't slow down to look at car wrecks on the other side of the highway.  I don't join the crowds jostling for a better look at the EMT giving CPR or hang around to watch firefighters at work.  But this is one I've had my eye on.  

What I'm talking about here is the $50 million lawsuit brought by Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold and her daughter Sidney against the Cleveland Plain Dealer for outing them as "Lawmiss" who comments on the paper's website on news stories about, among other things, cases before Saffold.

The judge claims she isn't the one who uses her e-address and registration as Lawmiss to do the commenting.  Sidney says she does some.  Ah, but the lawsuit meant depositions.  Which meant Shirley would be required actually to answer questions about it all.  Under oath.  

My neck was turning elastic merely from the thought.  

Maricopa? Phooey.  Killer Keller? Bah.  We had our own here in the Honorable SSS.  I'd already written some. I was virtually guaranteed copy for the new year.  (My son, then a columnist for his college newspaper, got the same sort of enthusiastic glimmer when Dick Cheney shot his friend:  Copy we've got copy.)

And then they went and settled the damn case.  

Let's review.  The Cleveland Plain Dealer publishes stories on line, and provides a mechanism for readers to post comments, but first they have to register.  The registration information is, under the PD's semi-contractual terms, confidential.  Saffold, a judge, was a registered commenter using the name Lawmiss.  When Lawmiss said some critical things about the PD and its reporters, they went and dug up the registration information and outed her.  And since Lawmiss has not only been commenting on Saffold's cases, but also offering racist and other offensive comments . . . . Well, Lawsuit, Ho as nobody says.

But 50 million smackeroos?  Of course, it wasn't about the money.  It was the principle of the thing.  As it always is.  Saffold explains in the PD.

"There are times in your life when no matter the odds or the size of your opponent, it is important to stand up for what you believe -- rights of privacy, defending yourself and your family, and the ability of judges to act independent of outside influence," Saffold said.

"Having done so, Sydney and I are very happy to end our litigation after reaching a positive resolution with Advance Internet, including the proactive steps taken by Advance Internet to better protect all its online posters' privacy." 

Sure.  Like I say, not about the money.  It was all about the principle.  Apparently, the principle could be best served with a settlement.

I don't know how much the PD forked over.  But Advanced Internet, which hosts the registration information and improperly allowed the PD to get access to it and then out SSS with it, kicked in some.  The PD reports that AI funded a charity.

"I would like to thank Advance Internet for also funding a charitable donation in my mother's name to the Olivet Institutional Baptist Church choir," Saffold said. "This episode was very difficult for my mother to deal with in her last days and the donation to a cause that she felt strongly about means a lot to my family and me. We appreciate everyone who has continued to stand by and support us, including our attorney, Brian Spitz, who provided us with quality representation to bring this case to resolution."

A settlement is probably the right ending for the lawsuit.  But not much fun for this Blawgger.

Oh well.  The new year is young.

Gifts That Keep On Giving

There's Maricopa County, of course, and frankly the whole state of Ariz (show-me-your-papers) ona.  But Andy hasn't made much fuss since the dead Rhino ad, and Joe chickened out of the run for Governor.

Sharon Keller's been lying low since she was fined $100,000 last week (though if they do prosecute her criminally for ethics violations that will be a circus worth attending) and while we wait for the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to decide what to do about the disciplinary charges against her (no links, it's everywhere, do your own homework).

John Bradley continues to do his best to ensure that the Texas Forensic Science Commission won't actually do a thing until at least 2011, and then will do it in secret and whitewash the whole Willingham fiasco.  Hell, I didn't even write about the last Commission meeting.

Fortunately, there's still Shirley Strickland Saffold and her not-so-secret identity as "lawmiss."

Saffold, of course, is the judge in Cuyahoga County who comments on stories on the Cleveland Plain Dealer web site - including on stories about the cases and before her.   (Oops, my bad.  It's probably not her.  I don't want to be sued for $50 million for a mistake like that.)

Turns out that, like all serial commentators, lawmiss doesn't have just one place at which she mouths off.  Per yesterday's Plain Dealer:

Now, a search of Web sites visited by Saffold's courthouse computer has turned up lawmiss usernames on at least 10 other Internet domains. Lawmiss comments on sites other than cleveland.com attack Arabs, disparage Asians and vilify white men. They sneer at inter-racial relations, condemn homosexuals and rail against police.

The PD doesn't exactly say that Saffold is lawmiss, but they sure make clear that it's likely.  And they give us plenty of examples of just what - too much fun.  I'll reprint the offensive stuff from the paper.

Lawmiss called Asians "flat face morons" when remarking on a story about the Chinese volleyball team.

And a story about a racist remark against the president prompted lawmiss to rail against whites: "how can white men be christan's, it's impossible. Their nature is to be nasty, convining, and decietful. They lie, they cheat, and they steal. And, they do it in a suit."

Lawmiss on AOL also insults people based on religion.

After France proposed banning burqas, lawmiss wrote "yeah, they ought to ban them, and if the muslims don't like it, then go home. you can't see their faces, you can't tell if they're men or women and they're criminals. if they want to wear that crap, then they ought to stay in saudi arabia, where it's acceptable and they have no intention of blowing anyone up."

An article about Ellen DeGeneres prompted Lawmiss to attack gays.

"She's s dyke, and that's all she's competent at. She's no dancer. Nest think you'll know the gays will take over."

Lawmiss attacks law enforcement, too.

A story about a police shooting in New Orleans induced lawmiss to comment
"Add this incident as another reason that Black people can NOT trust the police," lawmiss states. "What pigs---and what made them think they could get away. I suppose they considered that they could put on white hoods and ride in the middle of the night and scare the be-jesus out of people, so no one would tell." 

The story appeared yesterday.  Perhaps as a Mother's Day present, her daughter will take responsibility for all these comments, too.

And perhaps we ought to reconsider how people get to be judges in the great state of Ohio.

h/t Terry G

The Assumption of Truth, The Appearance of Impropriety

Let's just assume she's telling the truth.

After all, it takes a certain dangerous chutzpah to accuse a judge of flat-out lying when all you have is gut feeling and what seems self-evident to the sentient.  And when the judge is prone to suing for $50 million when she feels dissed.  Besides, there's the Mark Gardner rule still for Ohio lawyers (you can't accuse a judge of dishonesty or misconduct even if it's true because the test is whether it's true and the way we decide if it's true is to examine what reasonable lawyers believe, and reasonable lawyers believe that judges are incapable of dishonesty or misconduct - don't confuse truth objective reality).

So let's assume she's telling the truth.

I'm talking, of course, about Shirley Strickland Saffold, the Honorable.  Judge of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.  Judge Assigned the case of State of Ohio v. Anthony Sowell (alleged rapist and serial killer of at least 11 women whose bodies, it's said, were found in his home).  Judge from whose registered account with the Cleveland Plain Dealer on line, comments from one "lawmiss" concerned some of Saffold's cases (including Sowell) and were extremely derisive about one of Sowell's lawyers (Rufus Sims).  Judge who refused to recuse herself from Sims' cases because she sure didn't make those comments; her daughter did.

And we have to assume she's telling the truth.

Still, Sims and his co-counsel John Parker still thought she should get off the case.  There was the lawmiss business, but there was also her ex parte communication about the case with Judge McGinty.  And there is that $50 million dollar law suit.

Of course, we're assuming she told the truth.  But Parker and Sims filed what's called an "affidavit of disqualification" anyway.  It's what kicks off a special procedure, established by Section 2701.03 of the Revised Code which entrusts the decision about whether to remove the allegedly disqualified judge from a case entirely to the discretion of the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court.

Parker and Sims argued that regardless of the truth (and of course we have to assume she was telling the truth), there was an appearance of impropriety from all of this.  Saffold denied that.  Since she was innocent of all wrongdoing, there could be no appearance of impropriety, she said (apparently assuming that if someone is innocent, it's impossible for anyone to imagine otherwise - which perhaps bodes ill for anyone in her courtroom who's accused of wrongdoing, but I digress).

Thursday, Justice Pfeifer, acting as Chief Justice in place of the late Tom Moyer and despite the appointment of Eric Brown, removed Saffold from the case.  There's no indication, he said, that she did anything wrong.  (After all, we assume that she told the truth.)  But some misguided souls might imagine otherwise.  The appearance of impropriety, after all (which he, at least, recognizes can exist in the absence of impropriety itself). 

The record before me does not support a finding of actual bias or prejudice on Judge Saffold's part.  Nevertheless, her removal is necessary "to avoid even an appearance of bias, prejudice, or impropriety, and to ensure the parties, their counsel, and the public the unquestioned neutrality of an impartial judge."

I'm leaving out the citation.

There's a basic rule that someone brings up when anyone asks if there's a conflict of interest requiring one to get off a case:  If you have to ask, get off.  So here.  Pfeifer quotes "the venerable Judge John V. Corrigan."

When the case becomes about the judge rather than the facts of the case and the law, it is time for the judge to step aside.

Yep.  Even assuming she's telling the truth.

Cleveland - Where the Fun Never Stops

So we wait to see what happens in Maricopa County now that Joe no longer has his lapdog Andy Thomas handy. What, you didn't know Thomas resigned as County Attorney so he could run for state Attorney General?

Arpaio said he was not surprised by Thomas' resignation, though he admitted that his departure could jeopardize the prosecution of illegal immigrants in Maricopa County.

"I still have the authority to arrest people," Arpaio said. "We'll see if they prosecute them."

Arizona law says the County Supervisors appoint Andy's successor, but he wants the Governor to make the pick. Who draws the short straw may go some toward answering Joe's question.

Meanwhile Adam Stoddard waits to find out whether he'll have to ask Joe to pay his fine or he'll have to write 500 times, "I will no longer read privileged attorney-client communications when I might get caught."

Up in Connecticut, Steve Hayes has decided not to ask the state to assist him in a suicide attempt, which moots for the time being the question of whether his lawyers' obligation is to assist him in the endeavor or intervene to prevent their client from getting his wish. So the trial can proceed - actually jury selection. The trial is scheduled in the fall.

Then there's Juneau County, Wisconsin where District Attorney Scott Southworth sent a letter warning school boards that he stands ready and willing to prosecute teachers who obey the state law and teach sex education including instruction in contraception. Further, he warns that since the ACLU will be monitoring compliance with the law, teachers should consult counsel.*

So with that set of constitutional crises on hold for the moment, and with another week yet before

So let us drop in again on the ever curious happenings in and around the common pleas courtroom of Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. You remember her.

She's the one who, back in 1995, was lecturing a woman who'd entered a guilty plea credit card fraud as part of an effort to find a good man. From the bench, in open court, Saffold told the woman:

Men are easy. You can go sit at the bus stop, put on a short skirt, cross your legs and pick up 25. Ten of them will give you their money. It's the truth. If you don't pick up the first 10, then all you got to do is open your legs a little bit and cross them at the bottom and then they'll stop.

But I just retell that story because, well, because I can't resist. What's relevant about her now is that she's the judge (at least for the moment) to whom Anthony Sowell's death penalty case has been assigned. And she's the judge who, it turns out, holds the AOL account from which "lawmiss" posts comments to news stories, including those about cases of hers, on the website of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Saffold, you'll recall, denied that she did the posting. It was all the work of her daughter Sydney, she (and Sydney) said.

To which I, for reasons, that may be apparent a few paragraphs from now, say merely, "No comment."

Anyway, there have been, as they say, developments.

First, she's been asked to recuse herself from the Sowell case. In fact, she's being asked to recuse herself from every case in which Rufus Sims is counsel. As the Plain Dealer reports:

One lawmiss post, regarding a 2009 trial of an RTA bus driver, accused Sims of doing a disservice to a client.

"If only he could shut his Amos and Andy style mouth," the post reads. " What makes him think that is [sic] he insults and acts like buffon [sic] that it will cause the judge to think and see it his way. There are so many lawyers that could've done a much better job. This was not a tough case, folks. She should've hired a lawyer with the experience to truly handle her needs. Amos and Andy, shuffling around did not do it."

She's declined to do that, though she has a hearing scheduled for next week on recusal from the Sowell case.

But, of course, that's not the end of things. Because there's the principle of the thing. That's a $50,000,000 principle, if you were wondering. Or at least, the judge thinks it is.

Yesterday Shirley and Sydney filed suit (copy of complaint here) against the Plain Dealer and related entities and 990

currently unknown individuals that published defamatory and attacking statements against Plaintiffs under anonymous User Names on Cleveland.com that Plaintiffs will be able to locate once Defendants provide their Registration Information.

As I say, Shirley and Sydney want a cool 50 million - 25 in actual damages and 25 in punitive damages. Their complaint? Six counts:

Breach of Contract
Tortious Interference with a Contract
Promissory Estoppel
Fraud
Invasion of Privacy/False Light
Defamation

OK, the various forms of contract claims make some sense. Lawmiss signed up as a commentor with the promise of privacy and anonymity, a promise the PD broke. But the false light claims seems to rest mostly on the fact that the PD described the lawmiss e-mail address as the judge's personal address when she claims it's a family address used jointly by she and her daughter. As for defamation? That's all those folks who read the story and think the judge is a . . . . I don't want to say it lest I be sued.

Then there's the small matter of 25 million in actual damages. Hard to see how they came up with that figure. (Actually, it's not hard at all. Shirley, Sydney, and their lawyer pulled it out of their collective asses; that's how it's done.)

Here's what I do know.

They just ensured a whole lot more people would read the words of "lawmiss." And it seems that their lawyer, at least according to the PD, has conceded what neither Sydney nor Shirley would: The judge is responsible for at least some of what "lawmiss" said.

Cleveland. Someplace special.

-----------------

*I haven't a clue why he thinks ACLU monitoring will be a problem for teachers who obey the law, but I can see that he might think just flinging the words ACLU around will scare the bejesus out of the Juneau County locals.

Carnival in Cleveland

As it happens, last week read Eric Larson's nonfiction story of the 1893 Chicago World's Fair and the serial killer who haunted the area, The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America.  I'm not giving anything away when I tell you that the serial-killer "Devil" of the title, H.H. Holmes (nee Herman Mudgett) is responsible for the "Murder" and that he killed, according to Larson, somewhere between 9 and 200 people.


It's a hell of a story (and a remarkably gripping book despite some narrative clumsiness and annoyances), but this isn't a review.  It's really an introduction to the truth is stranger than fiction story of our own alleged serial killer here in Ohio.


They sometimes call Cleveland "The Mistake on the Lake."  I kind of like the city.   I like Cuyahoga County, too.  But sometimes you gotta wonder.


It seems that nobody was paying too much attention to the strange smells that some folks said were coming from Anthony Sowell's home in Cleveland.  Frankly, it seems that nobody was paying too much attention to Sowell.  At least, nobody was until - well, the story is that the bodies started piling up.  First there was this.

Police found two decomposing bodies Thursday night in a duplex on the city's southeast side when they went to arrest a registered sex offender wanted for an attack inside the home last month. 

Then this.

Scores of law enforcement officers continued their search for convicted sex offender Anthony Sowell Friday night, while investigators temporarily ended their work at Sowell's home after finding the bodies of possibly six people inside and outside the house. 

Finally, this.

Coroner's officials now confirm that they have found 11 bodies at Sowell's home. All of them are black women. At least five of them were strangled.

OK, it's horrific.  And maybe Anthony Sowell is responsible for all that and maybe not (and maybe there's not all that).*  Oh, sure, it turns out that the niece of Cleveland's mayor "moved in with Sowell in 2005 about a month after he was released from a 15-year prison sentence for attempted rape."  There's lots of stuff for the tabloids.  But, and maybe I've been in this business too long, what's really interesting about the case isn't the number of people Sowell is alleged to have killed or the frankly sordid particulars on which the media has focused.  What's really interesting is the sideshow that's been the combination of court and press.


It doesn't take an expert to know that the press will have a field day when a guy who's served significant time for a sex offense is charged with killing 11 women over a period of years and storing the bodies in and around his home, when he was arrested on charges of choking and raping a woman in December 2008 but released two days later, and when he's actually charged in an 85 count indictment containing numerous charges of aggravated murder, kidnapping, rape, abuse of a corpse, and other offenses.


But really, there's stuff here you can't make up.


Let's begin with the judge who tried to have a reporter arrested.


The judge is Shirley Strickland Saffold.  She took over the case after Judge Thomas McGinty recused himself citing a possible conflict of interest.


Anyway, back in November, the Cleveland Plain Dealer (it's the PD's website from which I'm taking all the news links in this post) ran a story by Gabriel Baird about how a court-ordered psychological evaluation of Sowell in 2005 (after he'd served his 15 year prison term) revealed that he wasn't likely to pose a danger to anyone.  The thing is, those evaluations aren't typically public.  Where did Baird get a copy?  Saffold wanted to know, so she ordered him arrested and brought to court.


Ultimately, Baird didn't have to reveal his source.  Why?  Not a matter of reporter privilege (on which he was prepared to stand).  Rather, it's because the source outed himself.  And the source was none other than, wait for it, Judge Timothy McGinty.  Saffold didn't see much point in having McGinty arrested since, she said, he had a right to release the report.  (Yep.  Baird could be arrested for not telling who gave him the report, but the actual source had not liability.  Reporter v. Judge in court?  Who wins?  Oh, yeah.)


Saffold herself is an interesting judge with a, let's say, checkered past on the bench.  In pretty much everyone's favorite story, back in 1995 a woman had entered a plea of guilty to credit card fraud as part of an effort to find a good man.  From the bench, in open court, Saffold told the woman:

Men are easy.  You can go sit at the bus stop, put on a short skirt, cross your legs and pick up 25. Ten of them will give you their money. It's the truth.  If you don't pick up the first 10, then all you got to do is open your legs a little bit and cross them at the bottom and then they'll stop.

But I digress.


She's now talking about banning the media from the trial altogether.  Not at anyone's request, mind you, just because . . . well, it's not all that clear because what.  There's an issue about that psych report from 2005.  And she thinks the Plain Dealer is trying to intimidate her.  And somehow she's concerned that allowing press coverage will delay the trial past June 2 (don't hold your breath on that date counting).  But you know, the thing is that trials are public for a reason, and it takes a lot to close them to the press.  Consider the mess in Henry County where the judge wants not to ban the press from a trial but to delay its coverage.


It seems, though, that Judge Saffold has a curious relationship with the PD - at least the on-line version.
The on-line edition of the paper has, as such things do, a mechanism for commenting on stories.  Those who wish to comment must register with a valid e-mail address.  One of those registered commenters is someone using the screen name "lawmiss." Lawmiss has posted, as I write this, 80 comments on PD stories, easily the majority of them have to do with local court and court-related matters.  Several are responses to stories connected to Anthony Sowell.  Another is a fairly vicious attack, in response to a story on another case, on the competence and manner one of Sowell's lawyers.


Oh, did I mention that lawmiss has Judge Saffold's e-mail address?

The judge's 23-year-old daughter, Sydney Saffold, said Thursday that she posted the comments as "lawmiss" on cleveland.com., a Web site affiliated with The Plain Dealer. But in a conference call with her lawyer and a reporter, the onetime law school student could not recall the number of comments she posted. The newspaper found more than 80 comments posted by lawmiss.

The judge said in an interview Wednesday that she had nothing to do with any comments posted by lawmiss.

An examination of Saffold's court-issued computer, obtained Thursday by The Plain Dealer with a public records request, shows someone used the computer to access cleveland.com at the exact times and dates of three comments posted under the username lawmiss. A lawyer representing the judge's daughter challenged the accuracy of the times shown in the listing.

Saffold's daughter declined to talk about the specifics of her postings.

"I don't think the content of my posts is necessarily pertinent," she said from her home in Columbus. "I know all of the people I spoke about . . . I don't see why I owe any explanations about my blogging activities."

Her disclosure came a day after the newspaper questioned her mother about the comments posted as lawmiss, a moniker created by someone using the judge's personal America Online account. Saffold confirmed that the e-mail account linked to lawmiss is her own. But she said she would never make comments about cases before her.

"Never," the judge said in an interview in her Justice Center chambers. "I have not. My daughter may have, but I have not."

Nobody, I suspect, much believes the judge (or her daughter).  Still, I don't imagine any ethics investigation will go anywhere.  It's mighty tough to get a judge.


Meanwhile, the PD has sunk into its own ethical quagmire by conducting an investigation into just who's leaving comments it doesn't like and then outing the commenter.  (My take on that, for what it's worth, is that they shouldn't have investigated, but once they happened to find that comments on the Sowell case were coming from the e-mail of the judge on the Sowell case, they were right to report it.)


I don't know what follows.  If she had any sense, Saffold would recuse herself from the Sowell case.  That would effectively remove her as an issue in the case and, inevitably, in any post-trial litigation should Sowell be convicted of anything.  My guess is that she won't.  


Will Sowell's lawyers try to have her removed?  They do that by asking Tom Moyer, Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court to take her off the case.  If they file the papers, what happens next?  Typically, the judge explains why it's not necessary that she be removed.  "I'm fair and unbiased and nothing indicates otherwise,"she'd say.  Most of the time, she'd be believed, however much fantasy that belief would require.  But most of the time, there's not an 85 count indictment with 11 dead bodies and death specifications.


Mr. Dooley recognized that "the Supreme Court follows th'election returns." Ohio's Chief Justice, we can be fairly sure, follows the court news.


The city and county are pure rust belt.  They haven't really recovered from the loss of heavy manufacturing.  Cleveland is routinely listed among the poorest cities in the nation.  But they do know something about how to attract attention.

Cuyahoga County is one of those places where half the public officials are under indictment or investigation and the other half might be at any moment.  Don't believe me?  Do a google search for "cuyahoga county corruption."  I just got 40,500 hits.  The same search on Bing got me 82,500.  The cops shoot the citizens at an alarming rate.  The prosecutor's office gives an award for ethics that they named after a prosecutor famed for cheating - and getting convictions reversed for it.  It's the place where the Cuyahoga River caught fire back in 1969.  

And, maybe more to the point, it's the place where Sam Sheppard was tried for the murder of his wife.  What's noteworthy isn't that the case spawned The Fugitive, the TV show and later the film.  What's noteworthy is that Sheppard's conviction was reversed because of the "carnival atmosphere" where "bedlam reigned" and the court could and should have controlled it. The Supreme Court explained (I've omitted footnotes and citations):

The carnival atmosphere at trial could easily have been avoided since the courtroom and courthouse premises are subject to the control of the court. As we stressed in Estes, the presence of the press at judicial proceedings must be limited when it is apparent that the accused might otherwise be prejudiced or disadvantaged. Bearing in mind the massive pretrial publicity, the judge should have adopted stricter rules governing the use of the courtroom by newsmen, as Sheppard's counsel requested. The number of reporters in the courtroom itself could have been limited at the first sign that their presence would disrupt the trial. They certainly should not have been placed inside the bar. Furthermore, the judge should have more closely regulated the conduct of newsmen in the courtroom. For instance, the judge belatedly asked them not to handle and photograph trial exhibits lying on the counsel table during recesses.

Secondly, the court should have insulated the witnesses. All of the newspapers and radio stations apparently interviewed prospective witnesses at will, and in many instances disclosed their testimony. A typical example was the publication of numerous statements by Susan Hayes, before her appearance in court, regarding her love affair with Sheppard. Although the witnesses were barred from the courtroom during the trial the full verbatim testimony was available to them in the press. This completely nullified the judge's imposition of the rule.

Thirdly, the court should have made some effort to control the release of leads, information, and gossip to the press by police officers, witnesses, and the counsel for both sides. Much of the information thus disclosed was inaccurate, leading to groundless rumors and confusion. That the judge was aware of his responsibility in this respect may be seen from his warning to Steve Sheppard, the accused's brother, who had apparently made public statements in an attempt to discredit testimony for the prosecution. . . .

From the moment the first body was found, the Sowell case threatened to turn into another  media circus.  Rather than preventing it, though I'd bet she'd tell you she's trying, Saffold is becoming a media circus all by herself.  Unlikely as it may have been just a few months ago, Sowell may just be along for the ride.









---------------------
*Don't go calling me naive.  The cops and the press have a nasty habit of getting things wrong.  I have no idea if they did in this case, but once you start talking about decomoposing bodies, it's easy to get carried away and claim to find the Lindbergh baby in the attic and maybe evidence connecting Sowell to OJ and the killer of JonBenet Ramsey.  We'll see what happens.