Apparently, the higher-ups didn't appreciate the RJ's recent article concerning flaws with the RJC security camera system. So, what's a whistleblower to do when the passive-aggressive emails start flying? Send the emails to the RJ, of course.It all started when Chief District Judge T. Arthur Ritchie Jr. "chastised" Judge Susan Johnson - who chairs the courthouse security committee - for talking to the RJ about the camera issue:
"I assume you meant well, but you were specifically told that you were not authorized to address this issue for the court," Ritchie wrote. "I am disappointed that you would take it upon yourself to address this issue in this way. ... We will see whether your approach makes this better or worse for the court."Uh oh. Chief Ritchie is "disappointed," but SJ wasn't about to take Ritchie's little lecture lying down:
Johnson responded that, "You never informed me I was not authorized to address this issue for the court. Your response was ... that you would 'handle this,' which you did not do. Further, while I respect your role as chief judge, you have no authority to instruct me or any district judge that he or she cannot speak to the media without your consent."
Snap! Beautiful and feisty - how bout them apples, Chief?
Next, Chief Justice of the Peace Ann Zimmerman jumped into the "Reply All" pool to defend her fellow Chief:
"I believe that your interview further compromised security at the RJC by exposing potential weaknesses to those who may wish to do harm to our judges and/or the public at the RJC," Zimmerman wrote [to Johnson]. "I believe you had good intentions, but the outcome is otherwise."
"[T]he outcome is otherwise?" That can't be right, can it?
Judge Doug Smith then decided to go ALL CAPS on everyone's ass:
"In the future, please do not disclose our safety to the newspapers. I don't feel comfortable with that disclosure."CALM DOWN DOUG. THE PUBLIC CLEARLY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT JUDICIAL ELECTIONS - ANY PRESS IS YOUR FRIEND.
When one judge [taking bets on who] responded with a simple "?", Smith wrote back in capital letters: "THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE NEWSPAPER PERSON ALLOWED INTO OUR BACK OFFICES AND THE BAD PRESS WE RECEIVED. WHO APPROVED THE RELEASE(?)"
Judge Cadish also had some thoughts:
"I too was extremely disturbed to read in the paper about exactly what cameras around the courthouse don't have the view they should have because they're blocked by trees or otherwise out of position. I do think it can easily put us at risk."
By "us," Cadish of course meant all the employees and visitors in the RJC, right? She wasn't just talking about the robed ones who already have private security guards ... right?
SJ defended herself by noting that by speaking to the RJ she "in fact, made the story less negative than it would have been."
SJ defended herself by noting that by speaking to the RJ she "in fact, made the story less negative than it would have been."
We look forward to the next email thread from the judges explaining how organizing a witch hunt instead of just fixing the security problem made the story more positive.
(LVRJ; Thanks Tipsters!)
