 | A Judge Lynching: How The Judicial Conduct Board Seeks To Attack Truth, Justice, And The American |
 How The Judicial Conduct Board Seeks To Attack Truth, Justice, And The American Constitution
[MENTAL HEALTH WARNING: Real minutiae here, mostly for obsessives. wmb]
Annotated Media Advisory
The annotations to Judge Boardman's media advisory below are to show
(A)what changes Vermont Standard editor Kevin Forrect had to make in the advisory to create the false impression that it was a letter to the editor;
(B)that the advisory was and is true in all meaningful aspects; and that
(C)to understand the advisory, one must understand its context -- personal attacks on Judge Boardman that have continued from December 2005 to the present..
The advisory appears in different forms and contexts in Exhibits 11, 11A, and 12, with 11A showing the re-written
advisory in its larger published context. The advisory as written and distributed by Judge Boardman appears
in Exhibit 12, together with a contemporaneous note trying to correct board counsel's early mischaracterization.
THE MEDIA ADVISORY AS DISTRIBUTED OCTOBER 21, 2006
[Below, in italics, is the full advisory, with footnotes at the left-hand margin.]
(1)(2)SELECTIVE SIGN STEALING STRIKES JUDGE BOARDMAN
(3)(4) So who would steal a campaign sign for "William Boardman, Assistant Judge"?
(5)(6) The sign was last seen at mid-week among seven signs for Democratic candidates along Rte 4 by the Fat Hat Factory in Quechee. By Friday, Judge Boardman's sign was gone, but the signs for six other candidates, including one of his challengers, remained in place.
(7)(8)(9) Judge Boardman has reported the theft to the Vermont Secretary of State, to the Windsor County State's Attorney, to the Hartford police department, and to the Windsor County Democratic Committee.
(10)(11)(12) Judge Boardman said there was no prime suspect for the theft, but that circumstantially the political dirty trick appeared to be a continuation of the internecine nastiness directed at him personally during the Democratic primary last summer.
(13) (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)
William Boardman
Assistant Judge
Windsor County
21 October 2006
NOTES ON THE MEDIA ADVISORY
[Below is the advisory section by section, followed by the notes for that section.]
(1)(2) SELECTIVE SIGN STEALING STRIKES JUDGE BOARDMAN
(1)As of October 21, 2006, when this was distributed, the caption was a fair inference from the circumstances - the sign (the only one of 6) was gone, Judge Boardman had no idea why, and no one explained it when he first inquired.
Vermont Standard editor Kevin Forrest provided his own caption, which would be standard journalistic practice if the advisory had, in fact, been a letter to the editor.
(2)"Selective" is the important word, which is why it's the first word. The signs were all for Democrats, Judge Boardman's opposition came primarily from a faction among the Windsor County Democrats (centered in Hartford), and now his was the only Democratic sign missing from the party-solidarity set.
(3)(4) So who would steal a campaign sign for "William Boardman, Assistant Judge"?
(3) The Vermont Standard editor added "To The Editor" to create the false appearance that this was a letter to the editor. Letters to the editor typically indicate their intent by beginning with "To the editor" or a similar salutation. Judge Boardman's always do, to the Standard and other publications. Judge Boardman's advisory had no such indication that it was a letter to the editor. Nor did it have the usual attributes of a press release, because it was not intended for publication.
(4) The question posed in this sentence is a fair question under the circumstances, which include personal attacks going back at least to December 2005. One of the question's answers could be "nobody." And maybe that's the right answer, maybe what was actually done was not "stealing" but only a "surreptitious removal."
(5)(6) The sign was last seen at mid-week among seven signs for Democratic candidates along Rte 4 by the Fat Hat Factory in Quechee. By Friday, Judge Boardman's sign was gone, but the signs for six other candidates, including one of his challengers, remained in place.
(5) The editor changed "mid-week" to "the week of Oct. 16" in order to make the "letter" appear to be contemporary, a falsification of a falsification. In an editor's note to a letter printed above this one [Exhibit 11A], the editor indicates that he has edited a genuine letter to the editor, which he did with the letter-writer's concurrence. The editor made no such disclosure about the edited and re-written advisory, and he did not seek the letter-writer's concurrence.
In other words, the editor notified Judge Boardman about changes in his actual
letter and Judge Boardman agreed to them. In the same time frame, in advance of
the same publication, the editor did not communicate at all with Judge Boardman
about converting the advisory into a letter to the editor. Because the editor had
told him, Judge Boardman knew that his actual letter to the editor would appear in
edited form. Judge Boardman had no advance knowledge that his by then
outdated advisory, containing by then stale news, would be changed and made to
appear as a letter to the editor. Judge Boardman would not have approved the
publication of the advisory, never mind any changes, because the advisory was
never intended for publication and by that time the dispute was moot.
(6) This paragraph, as originally written, accurately recites the facts at the time (October 21, 2006).
(7)(8)(9) Judge Boardman has reported the theft to the Vermont Secretary of State, to the Windsor County State's Attorney, to the Hartford police department, and to the Windsor County Democratic Committee.
(7) The editor changed the advisory into the passive voice here for reasons not apparent. The original is more direct and more clear.
(8) The editor omitted "to the Hartford police department" for no apparent reason. By the time the editor re-wrote the advisory to make it seem to be a letter to the editor, Judge Boardman had long since reported the recovery of the sign to the Hartford police department and others in that list.
(9) This paragraph, as originally written, accurately recited the facts at the time (October 21)
(10)(11)(12) Judge Boardman said there was no prime suspect for the theft, but that circumstantially the political dirty trick appeared to be a continuation of the internecine nastiness directed at him personally during the Democratic primary last summer.
(13) (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)
(10)Contrary to the board's finding, Judge Boardman makes NO specific accusation whatsoever. He did now know at that time who was responsible. Judge Boardman carefully and consciously wrote "no prime suspect" because that was what he knew at the time. Judge Boardman carefully and consciously used the word "circumstantially" to characterize his opinion. Given the ten months of incessant and false attacks by his opponents, the circumstances were not subtle. The circumstantial nature of Judge Boardman's conditional opinion is further emphasized by the word "appeared."
(11)Judge Boardman called the sign removal a "political dirty trick," because that's what it was, albeit a minor dirty trick, more typical of Donald Segretti than Lee Atwater or Karl Rove.
(12)The suggestion that the sign removal "appeared to be a continuation of the internecine nastiness directed at him during the Democratic primary last summer" is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. Also it turns out to be true, as the sign was removed under pressure on the Fat Hat owner, as she told Judge Boardman, by people who opposed him.
(13)The internecine nastiness directed at me personally continued even after the election, with the judicial conduct complaint addendum including the sign removal incident as well as a letter from then Judge-elect Singer, offering false assertions about the former radio station owned by the county.
(14)The editor acknowledged under oath that he re-wrote the advisory.
(15)By the time the Vermont Standard ran the advisory as a falsified letter to the editor, Judge Boardman had learned that his sign was removed by the Fat Hat owner, under pressure. Judge Boardman promptly called the Valley News reporter he had talked to about this story to give him the latest development. This "news" appeared in the Valley News on October 26.
(16)Under oath, the Vermont Standard editor acknowledged that he was unaware of the accurate story printed in the Valley News. The editor also acknowledged that he should have run Judge Boardman's actual letter to the editor (that appeared in the Rutland Herald October 26) rather than re-writing and running the advisory. The editor testified: "I'm sure I printed the wrong one."
(17)Judge Boardman sent his advisory to many news media, including many newspapers. Only the Valley News followed up with Judge Boardman on the story.
(18)No newspaper, other than the Vermont Standard, re-worked Judge Boardman's advisory and ran it as a "letter to the editor."
(19)Only Vermont Standard editor Kevin Forrest and the board misapprehended the intent of Judge Boardman's advisory.
(20)Only Kevin Forrest has recognized and acknowledged his error.
(21)The board, based on its misapprehension, seeks to punish Judge Boardman for his advisory, which is not merely truthful, but is an exercise of his right to free speech under the Constitution's First Amendment.
Discuss this article in our forums.
Listen To SPOXTalk.
|
|
|
|
| |
| Related Links |  |
| Article Rating | |
| Options | |
|
