[Yanu-3452]

I'm not qualified to say this, so this isn't a diagnosis, but the post strikes me as similar in tone to the postings of a paranoid schizophrenic who regularly used to post on a forum I visited.

Completely convinced they're on the verge of uncovering something that will "change history" yet very difficult to follow the detail of what they're saying.

[byecancer21]

I don't believe or have claimed this will "change history".

Had in fact offered to let the whole matter slide if and only if two judges ruling on health insurance matters hand in their resignations, as I consider them a danger to the general public.

[bladegash]

Is that really a decision for you to single handedly make? People make mistakes, but it doesn’t mean they are evil. Pushing them to admit their wrong doing, give up their livelihood/careers, etc. is just stupid. Especially if “doing it for fun”. That’s not admirable, it’s disturbing.

[danuker]

> Especially if “doing it for fun”. That’s not admirable, it’s disturbing.

I see you are attempting to take away the "hacker" in "hacker news".

I see this as social engineering, for a good cause.

[bladegash]

Good cause according to who? The OP? You? How about the other people that have received and live with judgements from this official?

And sorry, but social engineering is pretty unethical if you ask me, and has nothing to do with the name of the site.

[danuker]

Exposing a corrupt judge is among the most noble goals a citizen can have. The more incentive judges have to act fairly, the better.

I am not sure you read the story correctly. But I'm pretty sure a judge will get due process - not abusive penalties.

[bladegash]

People have been using "the ends justify the means" to justify all sorts of unethical behavior, not the least of which includes torture, genocide, and wars. Let's not go down that ethical reasoning wormhole.

As for his story, my read on it must be much different from your own. Because from what I am seeing, this is far more about the judge's husband than anyone else, and it is to right a sense of personal injustice than a (still misguided) aim of doing what's best for everyone else. Oh, and he's doing it for fun (his words).

[byecancer21]

Different standards apply for judges within proceedings, especially those making decisions at the very top.

I did offer each offender a second chance, as I thought they might have learned from this. They chose not to take it.

The first instance judge had been given four chances even.

[bladegash]

Why do you believe it is your position to give any official ultimatums just to meet your own perceived sense of Justice? The way your are speaking about this is to right your own feelings of injustice, not anyone else’s, yet you do it under the auspices of doing what’s best for everyone else. Do they get a say in this as well?

[byecancer21]

You interpret this as an ultimatum, I see offering them a way out as being nice. At the same time one has to assert seeing through obvious b-s.

What is appropriate gets decided by lawmakers not judges.

Once judges willfully violate the code they have stepped outside their assigned role. This quickly became more of a political problem than a legal one, and what is right is ultimately for voters to decide.

Whether I am able to interpret the code and precedent correctly we will see. I did score close to the very top when taking the LSAT however.

[byecancer21]

To clarify, the "way out" was simply a new filing for an interim order based on the novel fact that a potentially lethal complication had just occurred in connection with the case. I substantiated this with medical and research evidence.

This was a very simple thing for her to grant, and in my view she was required to do so based on constitutional principles.

I would more likely than not have let the previous incident slide. Why she did not take this opportunity I have no idea.

[bladegash]

You can try to wordsmith and twist the logic all you want. Telling someone “resign and do what I want, or else” is an ultimatum and bordering on blackmail. It is an ultimatum that is directly counter to your stated goal as well, which to “allow the voters to decide”. That’s you deciding for them.

[joefife]

It does sound insane, but sometimes these things are founded.

Just a few months ago, a local government body finally awards as millions to someone their formed chief executive had been persecuting for two decades. During that time, the random member of the public was imprisoned. This case involved multiple corrupt people.

If it wasn't for the happy conclusion, I'd have said this was the tale of a lunatic.

The podcast is at https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast/68

[nairboon]

Well, if you're not qualified for it, why do you still do it?

[tsol]

Who knows. They used to say people who think the government is saying on people are tin foil loonies, now everyone is worried about privacy. Don't see the reason to assume this most be crazy. Journalists as a whole have that "when I break this story everything is gonna change" mood regularly