Justice is Served

Juli Mazi

Last July we noted the arrest of Napa homeopathic doctor Juli A. Mazi for selling fake vaccination cards and "homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets." She has now pleaded guilty.

Juli Mazi accepted a plea agreement in February and pleaded guilty this week to one count of wire fraud and one count of making false statements related to health care matters, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California...

Her sentencing is scheduled for July 29. She faces the possibility of up to 20 years in prison for the wire fraud charge and up to 5 years in prison for the false statements charge, as well as a fine of up to $250,000 and three years of supervised release for each charge, officials said.

Given the relaxation of COVID-19 protocols, vaccination cards are rapidly depreciating, both legally and medically (vaccine efficacy diminishes rapidly over time). Juli Mazi will be sentenced one year after arrest, a time when even legitimate vaccination cards will have little value. Justice, though slow, is served.

Depends on Who's Doing the Asking

Fake census form--can you tell? (cleveland.com)

Too intrusive: A New York Federal judge has ruled that the census cannot ask about citizenship: [bold added]

“Secretary Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census—even if it did not violate the Constitution itself—was unlawful for a multitude of independent reasons and must be set aside,” wrote U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, who had presided over a trial about the question last year.

The decision comes as a result of two lawsuits filed by cities, states and left-leaning advocacy groups. The plaintiffs had argued adding the question ignored the Census Bureau’s own research, would lead to a significant undercount and was motivated by discrimination against immigrants.

There's a lot of mind-reading going on here, because there are no direct quotes, audiotapes, or videos of Census officials being "motivated by discrimination against immigrants", but as one who deplores the government's intrusion into our lives I like the ruling. I am in favor of satisfying the Constitutional requirement for a census ("Enumeration") and no more:

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct,----Article I, Section 2

Not intrusive: the Democratic Governor of Oregon wants officials to visit the home of every newborn:

One of the more ambitious items tucked into Gov. Kate Brown's agenda for 2019 is a home-visitation program for the families of new infants.

All new infants.

Of course, it's for the welfare of the babies and their families.

The census may not ask a question, but Oregon may enter your home. An intrusion is okay if the right people are doing it.

Before A Word Has Been Uttered

(Image from info254.com)

In a hypothetical criminal case developed for an experiment, judges went easier on a "remorseful" defendant who was trying to make amends. (Their decisions should have been based on the law and the facts, not the defendant's characteristics.)

While 87% of the judges upheld the conviction of the extremist Serb, no matter what the precedent, only 41% did for the remorseful Croat. In other words, rulings were driven by the defendant’s personal attributes rather than by legal precedent.

Even more interesting were the judges’ explanations for their decisions. Did they write about how legal precedent is one thing, but at the end of the day the most important thing is the individual on trial? No. Most cited the precedent if it supported their decision. Others discussed legal or policy matters.

In other words they made their decision based on emotion or other non-legal factors, then used legal reasoning to support the decision.

There's a strong suspicion that that is how most of us behave: base a decision on whether we like a person (sometimes merely whether he is in or out of our "tribe"), then justify the decision based on "facts", "reason", and "logic." That is why we usually know what a politician, reporter, or judge will say on a subject before a word has been uttered.

Pressure Play

(Napa Valley Register photo)

Sometimes a small news item catches my attention because it seems like there's more to the story. Napa Judge Michael Williams attended a March, 2016 dinner and lifted two (2) fancy business-card holders worth $50 each. "Several weeks later, a lawyer told Williams he had been seen on video taking the holders and suggested that he return them", which the judge did the next day accompanied by a letter of apology.

Now the Commission on Judicial Performance is looking into the matter: [bold added]

Williams has been charged with willful misconduct, prejudicial conduct that brings disrepute to the judicial office, and improper action. He could be admonished, censured, or even dismissed from the bench for his conduct.

Possibly ending a person's career for what is surely a very minor lapse, since rectified, is extreme overkill.

Michael Williams became a judge in 2012 at the age of 66(!) when he was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown to serve out the term of another judge who resigned for health reasons. Judge Williams was unopposed for re-election in 2014 and his current term expires in 2021, when he will be 74.

There are a multitude of reasons--ranging from the professionally valid to the nefarious---why someone could be lowering the boom on Judge Williams. It won't be surprising at all if he resigns, the charges are dropped, and the public never learns what's truly going on. I hope he enjoys his retirement.