- July 21, 2013 in Columnists
What do you call 100 lawyers tied at the bottom of the ocean?
The first step in legalizing suicide baiting in California was taken July 19, 2013, in United States District Court, Northern District by Judge Maria-Elena James. Her judgment might well be remembered as historic. It will be to me. It certainly is the first OFFICIAL step that has been taken to make suicide baiting legal, particularly regarding the suicide baiting death of Dylan Gifford Yount in Hallidie Plaza, in San Francisco, on February 16, 2010.
With a frivolous wave of her judicial hand, Judge James has granted fortuitous license to every sociopath and psychopath in the state who wishes to deliberately prey on the suicidal. They may soon do so with IMPUNITY. If she is right, all future suicide baiting would be constitutional. To satisfy their perverted pleasure, the sadistic would be able to provoke the mentally disabled into killing themselves with no consequences for the taunters. The police, apparently, may also enjoy the activity – again – with IMPUNITY.
This judge’s last ruling should not come as a shock to any who have read her previous work, notably Document 53. In that legal missive, she stated that she did not need to hear oral arguments in Yount v City and County of San Francisco before making her ruling. She found the matter “suitable for disposition without oral argument.” Her disallowance of court time illustrates the rigidity of her prior mindset. Her refusal should have prepared us for her puzzling ruling that came 40 days later when she made good on her promise to “issue an order forthwith.” Strange, since she already had her made up her mind.
In my world, this judge would be defined as a crappy teacher if she were a licensed teacher. Her order to vacate the court hearing without listening to arguments in Doc 53 would be like a speech teacher omnipotently telling a flabbergasted student, “Of course I am responsible for your final grade, but I do not need to listen to your final speech in order to issue that grade!!” Clearly, the woman who wrote that document is not a teacher. She is a magistrate judge. Nevertheless, like many judges, she is educating America. And the lessons are not pretty.
Like most Americans right now in the after wake of Trayvon Martin’s killing and George Zimmerman’s trial, I am jaded. I am not totally surprised by Document 54. I am sickened, but not shocked. While most of us possess nothing closer than a peripheral understanding about the judicial system based on nothing more substantial than traffic or divorce court or episodes of Judge Judy, we mostly share a similar belief. We cannot fix such an expensive and unfair court system. Has anyone Googled how much the GZ team raised to get that verdict?
We are all tired of legal clapperclawing, judicial pantywaists, legal hand washing, and legal maneuvers that miswield language with the fine precision of a maniacal jeweler making expensive necklaces for us to wear around our necks. Tightly. We do not want to hear that this case or that case was plead well or plead poorly, that the legal standard was set too high or too low. We do not want to hear that verdicts have nothing to do with morals – only legalities.
The answer to the opening riddle, by the way, is “a good start,” but I can no longer laugh. The lawyer jokes leave me cold. It is just too simplistic to say that lawyers cause the problems. If it is your opponent’s side, you call them LAWYERS. If it’s yours, you call them attorneys. And you fervently pray to God they can fix what should be fixed.
My attorney often says I have tried to “kill the messenger” when he speaks to me. He is right. I am apologizing in public – right now – to all who have tried to guide this legal neophyte through this dastardly process. The judicial process is a dirty, dirty, dirty process. A California writer, Ambrose Bierce, once said that litigation was “a machine which you go into as a pig and come out as a sausage.” Clearly, I was hoping his little aphorism would apply to the SFPD and not to me.
Document 54 says it is an advantage for a police department NOT to have a standard operating procedure to use in the case of a suicide attempt, let alone in the event of a suicide baiting. If the SFPD does not have one – or refuses to write one – Doc 54 proves they are better off – without one! Good-bye SOP’s!
And very clearly, if a representative of the SFPD does not know the laws he is supposed to enforce–it is not necessary! Ignorance CAN be bliss. It would be FOLLY to be wise in crowd management techniques! Stand there and feign ignorance! This could replace the old serve and protect motto.
And never mind that Police Incident Report 100-156-034, many newspaper articles, the deposition of Officer Cezar Perez and others, and the details from Doc 54 ALL contain myriad contradictions. Gosh, you don’t think there is any prevarication going on, do you?! Never mind that a very human, human being died a most brutal and soul-destroying death at the careless hands of men and women who ALLOWED it to happen. I absolutely guarantee that if the victim had been a loved one of Officer Perez – or of any other officer idly standing by that day – what happened would have gone down MOST DIFFERENTLY.
I also guarantee that many will sadly see Document 54 as further extending the recognition of San Francisco as a World Class Suicide Magnet. We will watch you die and egg you on if you are uncertain! Your desperation is but a show for us! We will glory in your hopelessness and death.
For those who love – or loved – Dylan and those who love – or loved (understood, I am a Pill, capital P) – me, I will continue to wage this fight until my attorneys tell me we are FINISHED. Meantime, all prayers referencing the lottery and me are quite welcome. And while I wait, I will begin new work researching the Bane Act and a zillion other references newly used to obfuscate the truth about the suicide baiting death of my only child. Seriously, every sentence in Document 54 sets me on fire. I wonder if this will overturn CA Penal Code 401. Why do we have laws if we do not plan to enforce them?
We were hoping to make California case law history regarding suicide baiting. We just never anticipated we could end up HELPING to LEGALIZE it.