"HELLO, CLEVELAND!!"

A month ago today, I lived out a peculiar life-long dream of standing on Cleveland's Public Square to deliver a speech.  The opportunity arose in conjunction with the Republican National Convention, when the City of Cleveland announced a "Speaker's Platform" would be constructed in the heart of downtown, to allow any citizen to pull a permit to speak for half an hour, respectable amplification provided.

A few days before, I received a phone message from a misguided Time Magazine reporter, asking to call back and talk about "what my group was protesting."  In truth,  I had no idea how I'd fill the time allotted, but my agenda was so nuanced and personal that I never called back; clearly, it would be a speech that did not conform to the reporter's preconceived notions.  Or anyone else's, for that matter.  My wife and several friends probed, but I was circumspect.  How could I explain a speech that I hadn't yet delivered?

Public speaking is, as they say, second nature to me.  Perhaps, it's first nature, if there is such a thing:  I deliver speeches in public nearly every day as a public defender in the courtrooms of Cleveland, often impassioned pleas for justice and/or mercy for the impoverished criminally accused, nuggets of persuasion crafted for a particular client and audience (i.e., a judge or jury).  Speeches with lofty purpose, emanating from Constitutional foundations, with a singular goal of effective Assistance of Counsel.  But the speech I would deliver at 10:15 a.m. on July 18, 2016, in the newly-transformed Public Square would, instead, be, singularly, for me.

I had in mind something grand and unusual: an oratory triptych composed of three distinguishable parts, like a garish Hieronymus Bosch painting sliced into thirds, filled with strange, novel ideas.  But while Bosch's crazed visages were tethered by spiritual awakenings, mine would be tethered by principles of free speech, of pubic service, and a love of Cleveland.

I began the speech as I promised myself I would: "HELLO, CLEVELAND!", a cinematic allusion that, to me, sounds preposterously funny though a public address system.  I improvised an introduction, calling for peace in the streets of Cleveland as the volatile Republican clown car passed through town. I talked of my admiration for the new layout of Public Square, emphasizing the placement of statues of Tom Johnson and Moses Cleaveland, now locked in an eternal staring contest (duel?), with two very distinct agendas of their own: Johnson, the beloved turn of the century mayor whose public service inspired, versus Cleaveland, the surveyor and private profiteer who "discovered" and founded the city on Lake Erie but took no part in its future.

Somehow, I started riffing on The Poseidon Adventure, and how Shelly Winters' Mrs. Rosen fulfills the same role as Bing Bong in Disney's Inside-Out. In retrospect, i think the point seemed to be that I was Gene Hackman leading a brave troupe through an upside down world.  ("Don't listen to that old priest who looks like Jack Albertson! He's headed the wrong way!")  HA!  Perhaps my words would right the Poseidon after all.

Then, I began the speech in earnest. (Borgnine?)  I promised a poetic benediction that would also offer riddles to hidden locations in Cleveland. I mentioned psychogeography and geocaching:  "It's like Pokemon Go, except with cool places for the clever listener to discover."  And so the first third of my oratory triptych began:

Annunciation: Clevelandia

The world is recreated

a billion times a day

by Google maps

and Jesus traps

and souls above the fray.

These words are scored in stone

upon the rocky shore:

"He is faithful."

"He is faithful,"

is what the words implore.

The water washes sins away

as hands and face we clean,

Annunciates

Greek palindrome

in church tiles' waxen glean.

The weighted Dame leans overburdn'd

by Clair and Lakeside door.

her scales are tipped,

unjustily gripped,

which makes her feel a whore.

The Thinker and his Shadow

are never far apart,

tho Shadow's feet

and his don't meet

upon the stairs to art.

The freedoms, four, are buried here

beneath this hallowed ground.

from: fear and want,

of: speech and faith,

feed flowers more profound.

I made clear to my audience that each of the five last stanzas leads to a very important place in Cleveland, "not a scavenger hunt, but a spiritual hunt" with rewards commensurate with their discovery.

*  *  *  *  *

I moved on to the centerpiece of my speech: a transcription of a favorite closing argument in what may be my only true "First Amendment win" in front of a jury:

Verbatim

"Closing argument, Mr. Bloomsday?" the judge asks.

Bloomsday pushes himself up from the chair next to his client, and asks to approach the bench. He quietly requests to take one of the individually wrapped peppermints she's been offering the jury throughout the trial. "Of, course," she says. He picks one out of the dish, holds it up, approaches the jury, and sets the mint down on the front of the juror's box with mysterious flourish.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I really have an eye toward the clock here. And if I've appeared to be long-winded, I'm going to do my best not to be, now. I'm not even going to bring in the dry erase board and do my famous Dick Goddard impression of doing my weather map, here. I'm just going to talk to you.

"I mean, what I want to do in the next -- I'd say, hopefully, 10 to 15 minutes, maybe less, is give you -- what's the word...a mental blueprint of how I think you should rule on what you endured for the past couple of days, here.

"Let's, first of all, start with the burden of proof. Understand, this is not a fender-bender, this is not a civil action where you listen to both sides and decide which one you like better. This is a criminal case. And in a criminal case, I have no burden of proof. The defendant has no burden of proof. I don't have to prove anything. All I have to do is convince you that the City has failed to meet their burden of proof. The defendant and I could sit over there, and look at pictures of herself, or do a crossword puzzle. If they haven't met their burden of proof, your verdict must be not guilty. So, I just want to be clear about that with you.

"I also want to be clear -- and we talked about it initially -- this notion of what is the burden of proof? And that burden, as the court has explained, is evidence of guilt that is beyond a reasonable doubt.  And what that means is that the City has to prove each and every essential element in a manner that satisfies you.  It's the nature and quality of evidence that you would rely upon in the most important of your own personal affairs.  That's the definition as you heard once before, and you'll probably hear again from the judge, that evidence of guilt is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

"So, that's the preliminaries.  If you don't follow those two steps, then you have violated your oath -- let's put it that way -- and you have sworn to God that you would, individually and collectively, follow those steps in your deliberations.

"There's really two broad points that I wanted to make here.  One is, I should say preliminarily, I don't pick my clients.  They come to me.  And you may find my client annoying, or whatever, or eccentric, but that's beside the point.  It really is. The point is, has the City met it's burden of proof?

"But I have to tell you that -- my personal situation leads me to say something went really, really wrong here.  And I think we could hinge that moment as the moment when someone from The Plain Dealer gives my client their home phone number.  No one is on trial for that.  I'm not suggesting that somehow she wasn't doing anything other than trying to be accomodating.  But it clearly unhinged the situation in a way that, you know, we've had to endure.  But for that moment, I think, maybe we wouldn't be here because as one of the prosecution witnesses testified to, there was a better way to do this, I suppose, in their mind, and that is to just delete the voicemail messages and not bother responding.

"It may come as a surpise to know that I've been involved in criminal cases even since I was a child, and that's because my father was a criminal defense lawyer, too.  And I would have to tell you something really peculiar about my childhood, and here we go.

"My father represented a horrible defendant, a rapist, who had raped little children.  And the mother of that defendant, circa 1970's or whatever, '76, 77, used to call our home, repeatedly, every night.  But back in the '70's if you remember, the way the phone worked was a lot different.  If someone called you, back in the 70's, and you hung up on them, if you picked up your phone again, you still couldn't make an outgoing call. You couldn't call out again until the other party hung up. At least, that's the way our phone worked.

"So, the only way, in our house, that we could deal with this problem with this lady calling, rambling  this, just, you know, hate infused speech toward my father, was to set the phone down on the kitchen counter, and just let her talk until she was done.  And, you know, it kind of became a joke, frankly, I'm seven or eight years old.  And here is this lady, screaming on the other end of this phone, you know, complete nonsense.  I mean, accusatory and saying horrible things about my father and family and whatever.  But the fact of the matter is that my father's response was just give her her due, let her speak, and she will get tired, and that's the end of that.

"Well, that's been sticking in my head through this trial.  And it's because of the newspaper's response to what happened here -- I have made no bones about the fact that I think that the editorial board of The Cleveland Plain Dealer that is, for all intents and purposes, collectively and/or individually and/or jointly and severally the victim in this case, that's important to this case.

"It's not someone calling any one of you, individually, hundreds of times.  It is someone who is calling what I think has been described as, you know, the last bastion of free speech in our society, at least in Cleveland, as it relates to a newspaper.  But the fact of the matter is she's calling the highest point in the dissemination of ideas in our society.  And I would say that that should go into your deliberations of whether she's guilty of harassing The Cleveland Plain Dealer by filling up their voicemail message boxes ranting about corruption, reform, and our city's only newspapers hand in those matters.  I don't know how, but I think it is relevant.  And I think that, somehow, this thing spiralled out of control for no other reason than somebody got scared that this lady was going to do something harmful.  Is it relevant to your determination that my client never once, according to the testimony of the prosecution, called that employee's home phone number that the employee gave my client in some strange attempt to coax my client to provide her own?  I think it is.

"I think it suddenly directs my client's efforts in a way that dovetails with the other part of this that I wanted to talk to you about.  And that is the elements of the offense.  I made it clear throughout this trial that, when you consider the elements of the offense of telephone harassment, the word "sole" or "solely" is important.  And I don't know if you are going to get any special definition of "sole," but as a practical matter, we're talking about "only."  Theonly purpose that she made those dozens, maybe hundreds of calls was to break the law.

"And I gotta tell you, I do have a dispute with my client about one point.  That is, she says that this statute that she's charged with is unconstitutional.  I say it's not.  I say it is constitutional.  I say this statute doesn't interfere with free speech.  This statute doesn't impact someone's First Amendment rights because of the word "sole."

"If I call you a hundred times to let you know that you sold me a lemon car, Mr. Used Car Salesman, and I want my money back, that's not for the sole purpose of harassing somebody. It's for another purpose, it's for an additional purpose.  And I'm not going to spend much more time trying to tell you what that purpose was.  You could divine whatever purposes you heard in this testimony from her.

"But I would submit to you that the City has failed in its burden of proof to prove each and every essential element, specifically, that she made these phone calls solely to harass these people.  She did it because she needed to express herself in a way that, you know, maybe a psychologist would say is deeply rooted in that letter to the editor that she sent to The Cleveland Press and got published way back in her childhood.  Who cares? That's beside the point.

"The point is that the City did not prove to you that the only reason she called these people was to harass them.

"Now, I think I'm about to make history here as it relates to my time limit, here.  And I believe it comes to this."  Bloomsday picks up the individually wrapped peppermint that he set on the jury box moments ago.  "Do you know what this is?"  He holds it up.  "This is a mint.  And I'm going to make a million dollars with a new idea called The First Amend Mint.  They give you fresh breath while you harass and annoy others around you!

"And I ask that when you return your verdict, that you have that First Amend Mint on your breath." Bloomsday sets the mint back down in front of the jurors.  "Thank you for your time."

He walks back to the defense table and falls into his chair.  The prosecutor gives his close, but Bloomsday isn't listening.  His work is done.  He closes his eyes as the judge instructs the jury.  As the jury leaves the courtroom to begin its deliberations, Bloomsday stands up and instructs his client to do the same.  He glances over and sees that the mint is now gone.

*  *  *  *  *

Finally, I took to the third and final part of the speech: a strange blend of literary analysis and confessional about my experiences in the courtrooms of Cleveland:

A Descent Into The Maelstrom

My favorite story by Edgar Allen Poe is a surprisingly harrowing tale about the force of Nature. No supernatural plot point, no plunging the depths of human depravity. It's a story about brothers caught in a whirlpool off the Norwegian coast. There's a narration trick, for starters. The initial protagonist becomes a mere listener for the remainder of the story, after he visits the site of a notorious recurring maelstrom with one of it's only survivors.

The description of the watery destruction scrapes my psyche for some reason. Perhaps it's the absence of villain, the futility of escape, the visage of ships and brothers disappearing into the vast, unstoppable watery swirl. It's unlike any other scary story I've ever read.

But there's more. There's a solution to a puzzle, a mystery solved, that saves the life of the storyteller. Suffice to say that modern concepts of pattern recognition and situational awareness are keys to survival. That, and choosing the right piece of wood in the churning sea to hold onto.

I often think of the story as I stand in the center of the crowded, seething, stinking courtrooms of the Poverty Capital of America, where I beg for justice and mercy for the poor, as my father did before me before he died of a liquor-soaked, broken heart. I clutch the podium provided, and hang on for survival.

I watch for patterns in the behaviors of judges and prosecutors and cops and clients. I pay attention to the cameras and microphones and watch my every word. I note the presence of people in the gallery behind me, I expect they are gauging my persuasion, my character, with each poor meat patty in the prison/industrial complex fast food restaurant I represent, until it's their turn to stand with me at the podium.

I think of my own solution to the puzzle, my own mystery solved, that grants me an almost beatific buoyancy amid the swirling eddy of despair and prejudice and ignorance and addiction and incompetence and corruption that nearly engulfs me each day.

The solution is this: Courtroom Classroom Theater Church. And I have wisely chosen the right piece of wood.

*  *  *  *  *

So, that was the speech I delivered on Public Square, a dream fulfilled.  Let the record books note, I was the first speaker scheduled to address the crowd during those tense and tumultuous days in Cleveland.  At least, the first speaker scheduled who wasn't arrested.

I hope both Hieronymus and Hackman would be proud.

Harboring Contempt, Changing the Channel

A few weeks ago, those paying attention noticed a strangely familiar dispute brewing amidst the navigable waters of our Cuyahoga.  Despite a reasoned opinion by a federal judge issued last Spring (and just shy of the full steam of the 2015 shipping season), the Buffalo-headquartered US Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency charged with dredging and disposal of potenially/allegedly/probably/partially toxic sediments along The Cleveland Harbor Federal Navigational Channel opted to say "No Thanks!" to 2016 funds allotted to dispose of these sediments into CDF's (confined disposal facilities) and, instead, reduced its own budget.  The Buffalo Corps brass asserted that current standards allow them to dump these sediments in the open waters of Lake Erie as fish food.

It's difficult to see how this unilateral decision to decline funds allotted for CDF disposal is not in direct contravention of Judge Donald Nugent's preliminary injunction order of last year, which specifically foretold the recurring nature of this dispute.  (Here's a PDF of the opinion: (Link to Judge Nugent's OPINION).  It's even more difficult to find rationale for the Corps' intransigence on the matter.  Surely, it's not a matter of money.  A variety of funding streams are available to pay.  Could it be something else?

Perhaps the answer lies (!?) at the bottom of all the other navigable waters, both fresh and oceanic, where the Corps has been steadily dumping toxic sediment for years. Perhaps no one but Cleveland has made it an issue.  Perhaps, if the Corps must concede that administrative/environmental regulations compel CDF disposal here, it must concede that it must do so elsewhere.

The shameful degradation of the Cuyahoga was once a catalyst for major environmental changes across the nation, but it's clear the regulatory waters have been muddied again, at the expense of clean water and a fishable food chain.  I, for one, plan on doing something about it.  Perhaps you'll join me as I shuffle off to Buffalo, this Spring(field), for what it's worth.

Welcome to #TheBloomsdayDevice.

A Scalia Story

         A dozen or so years ago, the Cleveland Bar Association started a great program that sent lawyers into inner city classrooms to teach kids about The Constitution.  It was a fitting compliment to my work defending the poor, and a welcome departure from often depressing role as advocate for the criminally accused in a crowded, chaotic court system.  Of course, inner-city schools in Cleveland have their own crowded, chaotic problems, but I was eager to see if I could spark the students' interest in the law as a haven, rather than a hammer.

        I was assigned to JFK High School, a school with a rougher reputation than most. The student body was all black, all poor, and their familiarity with the criminal justice system was haunting:  moms and dads arrested, incarcerated, churned through the courts at an alarming rate.  But most of the kids I taught were eager and respectful as I tried to educate them about their constitutional rights, and the mechanics of the criminal justice system.

       Early on in the series of my weekly appearances for the class, I made a deal with them.  If, for the final session, anyone accurately memorized and recited the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, I'd give them twenty bucks.  I added that those who took the bet would have to "dress professionally, like a lawyer" for their recitation.

     When the final session arrived, I had a couple hundred bucks in my pocket, just in case.  Ultimately, it was the best $60 I've ever spent, to this day.  The three who tried and succeeded looked more like they were dressed for junior prom than court, but I was moved by their effort, and hearing them eagerly, clearly recite the words from The Bill of Rights interrupted my composure.

     Later, I would learn that this preposterous stunt of mine gained legs.  The bar association programmers found out, and decided to incorporate a "public performance" component to the project.  The following year, two girls who took my $20 bucks would be invited to a luncheon at Cleveland's Intercontinental Hotel to sit at a table with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

     I imagine a conversation occurred, in which the Honorable man, knifing his chicken and green beans, asked what notoriety gained them their auspicious seating. Perhaps, mid swallow, one of the girls informed him:  "Mr. Hurley paid us twenty bucks to memorize the Fourth Amendment."

May Day! May Day!

I love May Day, May 1st, for several reasons.

First, it's a commie/socialist/labor/democrat/worker/proletariat holiday, of course. Yay, Bernie Sanders!
As a member of a labor union, I stand #UnionProud in the courtrooms of Cleveland, begging for justice and mercy for the poor in The Poverty Capital of America, as my father did before me before he died of a liquor-soaked, broken heart.

Second, and more integral to my point, It #LawDay! Created by Eisenhower or an act of Congress, or something.  I coach a mock trial team at a school for gifted kids here in Cleveland. I think that more than honors the spirit of teaching young people about The Constitution, the value of the law to society, and a philosophy integral to my life: that you judge a society by how it treats the least among its citizens.

When I look out for the rights of the #LeastAmongUs in society, poor people, mentally ill people, addicted, broken, homeless, etc. people, I'm fulfilling a legacy.  When I look out for the rights of the poor, I'm looking out for the rights of everybody.  When I look out for the rights of the rich, I ain't,

But I really love #MayDay because of this:

It's a date integral to the plot of my favorite horror movie of all time:  #TheWickerMan!




As Christian copper, Sergeant Howie (Edward Woodward) unfolds a mystery surrounding the disappearance of young Rowan Morrison on a Scottish Isle that knows no Christianity, wackiness ensues!

Career topping performances by Britt Ekland and Christopher Lee. And it's a musical.

Peel the Label

It's a frequent refrain during intakes at the public defender's office.  Despite clear and overwhelming evidence that facts, if proven at trial, would result in a conviction, despite the security or dashcam video that would likely persuade a jury that a client's conduct satisfies the elements of a crime, despite the actual truth of the matter, some clients can't get over labeling themselves something that they abhor: a criminal.  They may not dispute the facts at all, but they sure dispute the label.

I strive to offer no moral judgement in my capacity, only legal advice.  I, literally, presume everyone innocent. But the moment the conversation turns to a person's conception of themselves, ("I'm not a criminal...I'm not like the rest of these people in your lobby...") I have to rethink the advisement.

In its simplest terms, the problem is a quasi-Cartesean confusion of behavior with identity.  "I [behaved badly], therefore, I am [a bad person]," goes common logic. Or, when judging others, "You [behaved badly], therefore, you are [a bad person]." I believe that's a common mistake.  Our actions define us in the minds of others, of course. But, there is still a flaw in the decision to define a person solely by their negative behaviors. It's an all too easy moral shortcut.

People do terrible, despicable things.  People may behave with appalling disregard for the consequences of their actions. People may require punishment in a just society for their victimization of others. But, I have always viewed behavior and identity unrelated terms in the lexicon of moral responsibility, as connected as apples and oranges. Each of us is more than the sum of the worst things we've done. Those simplistic definitions we have of one another diminish the other, as well as ourselves.  Each of us deserves the dignity of a thoughtful, multivariate analysis of our actions, and the events that led to them.  "Label not, lest ye be labeled," I suppose.

But there is something more at stake here:  If we define people, label them this way or that, then the capacity to change fades away.  "This is who you are, and we're all stuck with you, because people never change," goes conventional wisdom.  But what if conventional wisdom uses the wrong lexicon?  People change their behaviors all the time.  Behavior modification is no mere cottage industry; it's a staple of our economy.  Call it what you will...advertising, the power of suggestion, propaganda, persuasion, we are its audience.  And as the world we live in changes at an accelerated rate, we must adapt to it.  Change our behaviors to succeed or survive.

I suspect those who find defining themselves unpleasant, if truth be told, are also those who all too often use the aforementioned all too easy moral shortcut.  Go easy on them, though. They haven't, yet, comprehended their own capacity for change.

Courtroom Classroom Theater Church

The Infant of Prague Versus The Easter Bunny

Infant of Prague v. Easter Bunny pic.twitter.com/DU0sgskgWw

— Ulysses Bloomsday (@BloomsdayDevice) April 20, 2014

What is "Tele-Justice"?

Lost in nearly every public conversation about the criminal justice system is the actual business of ensuring the Constitutional rights of individuals.  You can't fix a problem you don't understand, and unless you've actually tried to breathe live into the rights of others, at a podium, in a holding cell, before a judge or jury, you don't understand.

When you enter today's courtroom, you'll find surprises.  Judges often conduct matters over a television, with cameras and microphones and recordations that preserve it all. Sometimes, the criminally accused is "present" remotely, over a screen in the courtroom, watching proceedings on a screen of his own while he sits in a cell in a jail.

Such proceedings pose far more concerns for the basic, constitutional rights of the criminally accused than anyone is willing to admit.  It's a far cry from "the olden days" when, at least, everyone was in the same room, and a court reporter paid rapt attention to your every word.

The ability to read your client's behavior, as a doctor would a patient, is out the window.  So is the notion that anything you say to a client isn't being recorded.  Forget about whispering an important point in his ear during proceedings. Forget about the way it was always done, before.

Tele-Justice is the name of this realm of inquiry.  It's aim is to expose the variety of constitutional concerns present when all of the parties aren't physically present.  Now that our local governments plan on regionalizing our jail populations, more and more courtrooms will use this technology, especially for those unable to post a bond and secure release.

Tele-Justice also serve another purpose: to educate lawyers how to use courtroom technologies in ways that serve their clients' needs and rights.  Tens of thousands of hours of video exists - every minute a public record - in which I stand in court, advising and defending people against criminal charges.  Perhaps many lawyering lessons exist in that record, amid my successes, mistakes and failures would serve the next generation of lawyers sworn to serve the Constitution as I have.

Tele-Justice also points out the many benefits of using such technologies, to courts, police, jailers, victims, and, yes, defendants.  Such technologies must be used wisely, without corrupt influence or malice aforethought toward the rights of the criminally accused.

The Portal, The Jut & The Flame

The Portal, The Jut & The Flame Revealeth alchemical game. Do findeth the spot Where 2 join with hot And discover a womb through true aim.
— Ulysses Bloomsday (@BloomsdayDevice) December 15, 2013

We Muddled Through, Somehow...

(click here for merriment)

A Man of Letters

To see Scott's Hurley for Judge Facebook page, click here.

To read Scott's Statement of Candidacy, click here

To compare Scott's answers in the Voter's Guide, click here

To view Scott's bio submitted to Judge4Yourself, click here

Dear Cleveland Voter:

I promise to give you plenty of reasons to vote for me in a moment, but first, I must address the electoral process for judges in Cuyahoga County and Cleveland Municipal Court.

For many years, the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party held sway over a judicial selection process that nearly always prevailed.  You only won if you paid them to put you on a sample ballot, bought yard signs through their merchants, paid for their billboards, etc.  Us Democrats who thought that process repugnant and corrupt were labeled "lower than Republican" in the party caste system.  Party politics and money skewed the process, and it showed in the quality of candidates for judge.

If a candidate could remove money and politics from the equation, running only on his reputation in the legal community, and WIN? That would change the process for the better.

And so, I'm trying to change the process for the better. I'm running for a seat on the bench of Cleveland Municipal Court, where I practice each day, breathing life into the constitutional rights of the least among us.

1. I received the highest score of all the candidates in my race from the four legal associations that comprise the Judicial Candidates Ratings Coalition. The website, Judge4Yourself.com, provides their ratings.

2.  I stand in contrast with my opponents as an AFSCME union member.

3.  I am not accepting campaign contributions. I believe we should all rethink the wisdom of handing money to people to help them win a seat on the bench. The current political process guarantees corruption and incompetence in the judiciary.

4. As an assistant public defender working the busiest municipal courtrooms in the state, I practice mass indigent defense before every member of the bench, regularly.  I have witnessed -- or been asked to help solve -- every conceivable problem the court confronts.

5.  I bring a familiar demeanor to the courtroom, one that assures judges that I respect the rule of law, gives me credibility to my skeptical clients, and educates spectators about court matters and decorum.  I use the microphones and cameras set upon me to make a good record.  It's something I call "Courtroom Classroom Theater Church" lawyering.

Running for judge has been an enjoyable, enlightening experience.  Perhaps many will be surprised to see my name on the ballot on Nov. 5.  I hope those that do recognize my name think about my peculiar devotion to public service, my rejection of judicial campaign contributions and party politics, and my service to the "least among us" as a measure of my qualifications for judge.

Thanks,

Scott

Dear Rob & Stu:

Please know that it's nothing personal.  I'm sure you are both nice guys. But the question, now, is: are you men of your word?

Neither of you have made promises to me.  Indeed, I don't believe I've spoken to either of you on this or any subject.  But if you look back just a few years, you'll see that you both made bipartisan promises to serve the integrity of the judiciary.  You both promised to take money and politics out of judicial races, with the help of the Judicial Candidates Ratings Coalition, the JCRC.

I remember reading Leila Attasi's article on the point, thinking, "Wow. That's great! Waive the stink away from judicial elections, once and for all!  Leave endorsement decisions to the bar associations!  No more terrible candidates!"

And then, it occured to me: I could win.

If BOTH parties supported the highest rated candidates, vetted by the rigorous interview process of Cleveland's four bar associations, then I could win an election without party support, without campaign contributions.

And then, it occured to me:  I'd have to be the highest rated candidate in a judicial race that had no incumbent.

Which brings us to today, you see, because now, a week before election day, I happen to be the highest rated candidate in a judicial race that has no incumbent.  So I believe both the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party and the Cuyahoga County Republican Party should publicly support me.  Today.

Neither one of you is under cross-examination. (Lucky for you!) Neither one of you signed an affidavit as such. Neither one of you gave me your word.  But you told the citizens of Cleveland and Cuyahoga that things would change, that you'd seen the error of the old system of money and politics, and that you would support candidates vetted by the JCRC.

If either of you want to talk, I'll be in the Justice Center, begging for justice and mercy for the poor as my father did before he died of a liquor-soaked, broken heart.  As usual.

Sincerely,

Scott Roger Hurley

"And now, the movie, folks!"

Letter from Bob Begin, St. Colman Parish

This Time It Is A "Yes!"

July 19, 2013

Dear Parishioners and Friends of St. Colman,

Thank you, all of you, for your sincere concern and your prayers and efforts over the past two months. I met with the bishop and Father Oleksiak this morning to discuss the future of St. Colman as it relates to the timeliness of my retirement.

The meeting was pleasant and the Bishop indicated that he had carefully considered and prayerfully reflected on my request that he reconsider his decision to accept the resignation that I submitted as required at age 75. He indicated further that he had prayerfully reflected on all of the messages that he has received from persons who love the mission and ministry of St. Colman.

He proposed that I continue at St. Colman as Pastor until August 30 of 2014 and, during that time, work with the incoming leadership to create a smooth transition and a transition that would insure the “long term pastoral and sacramental care of St. Colman.”

I could not have asked for a better proposal and I promptly agreed. As we talked further, I became very convinced that if we make good use of the year ahead of us, we can not only assure a smooth transition, we can also continue to expand our pastoral and sacramental ministry. We will have his full support.

Please take a moment to thank God and all of our saints and angels who have accompanied us through these two months.

A thank you note to the Bishop can be addressed to Bishop Richard Lennon, Diocese of Cleveland, 1404 East Ninth Street, Cleveland Ohio 44114.

Thanks again to everyone and please stay fully engaged as we roll up our sleeves once again and figure out how to expand our efforts to be the compassionate heart of Jesus in our city in the best way possible.

Gratefully,
Father Bob Begin







This email was sent to gimmejustice@gmail.com by saintcolmanparish@gmail.com |  
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

St. Colman Church | 2027 West 65 Street | Cleveland | Ohio | 44102

Unusual Shoes

I fill unusual shoes at the Cuyahoga County Public Defenders Office in Cleveland, Ohio. On paper, I'm currently assigned to Housing Court (Yes, housing court is a criminal court, and homeowners cited for violations can go to jail; therefore, they should be entitled to free legal advice from a qualified, concerned lawyer if they are determined indigent), but, I'm also known as "The Floater." I fill in the gaps of coverage when our underfunded, understaffed Municipal Division is particularly short on available lawyers. I'm also the fixer, when other lawyers run into problems with clients, I assume representation in the matter. I'm also the replacement, when lawyers get thrown out of a courtroom for their (alleged) insolence or intransigence or incompetence, or whatever the personality clash was that resulted in me taking over. I step in, as if emerging from the dizzy brown slats of the Justice Center's courtroom walls, much to the surprise of a scared client or a curious gallery of citizens. I fill in, pouring my conscience into my advocacy in the stormy sea of poverty and ignorance and prejudice (people have lots of prejudices against public defenders and the court and each other) and addiction and mental illness -- all fundamental issues to a just society -- and I surf the waves of problems of others until I reach the beach.

And I don't just solve problems for clients. Often, I'm solving the judge's problem of moving a crowded docket. I solve security problems by keeping clients calm and moving jail populations in a safe, swift manner. I solve prosecutor's and cop's and victim's problems when I broker a result where others failed. In fact, there's rarely a client or spectator that isn't impressed with my demeanor and results. I don't always "win," but sports metaphors have no business in this improvisational moral theater you call the criminal justice system, anyway. Right?

Each day, I live out a philosophy of public service: that you judge a society by how it treats the least among its citizens. I do it with wit and candor and wisdom earned by helping the poor. I think the court system, specifically the Cleveland Municipal Court system is THE PLACE to address the problems of the poor, since they get arrested so much. It is THE PLACE to intervene in violent families, drug-addled behaviors, alcoholism, dementia, psychosis, hoarding, ignorance, racism, homelessness, etc. It is THE PLACE to provide access to mental health services, substance abuse services, job readiness.

And it is THE PLACE to breathe life into the constitutional rights of our lowest citizens. Even if every other goal fails, we must still make poor folks' First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment rights as strong as those of the aristocracy.

I'm running for judge, now. As of today. I've filed petitions to sit among the judges before whom I now practice. While I never expected to get rich helping the poor, circumstance compels me to grab this opportunity to be the most qualified candidate in this race. I don't know what kind of judge I'd be, but I assure all who know me that my desire to serve this great city is somewhere between a sacred duty and a moral compulsion.

I'm not taking any campaign contributions. I'm rejecting party politics. Judicial candidates should know the court system they aspire to control, they should be inside it for many years to observe what works and what doesn't. They shouldn't be well-connected party insiders with debts to settle or axes to grind. I wholly support the Judicial Candidates Ratings Coalition's process for scrutinizing judicial candidates, irrespective of name. I'd love to debate how money and politics (and corruption) have obscured the true aim of a judicial selection process -- the most qualified candidate for the job.

The Kubrick Courtroom

This courtroom, at the north end of the massive, impressive Ohio Judicial Center, in Columbus, OH, was the situs of our mock trial cause. It was an honor and a privilege to coach the Menlo Park team of "gifteds" to this decorous end. Thank you to all judges and parents and students and coaches.

"Courtroom Classroom Theater Church"

Hoppy Oster 2013

Literally Good Friday 2013

Power Struggle

Dippin'