Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge | Hercules and the umpire | THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL TRIAL JUDGE | CITIZENS' LAWYERS ?! | Why Is The LANGUAGE An APARTHEID ? | >>PLEASE STOP ALRIGHT

561A Federal Building
100 Centennial Mall North
Lincoln, NE 68508
Phone: (402) 437-1640
Fax: (402) 437-1641
Primary Courtroom: Lincoln, Courtrooms 1 and 2
E-mail for Submitting Proposed Orders: kopf@ned.uscourts.gov

http://www.ned.uscourts.gov/attorney/judges-information/richard-g-kopf

http://herculesandtheumpire.com./ <<

I received a note today from a Nebraska lawyer.  I have the highest respect for him. He asks me to stop writing Hercules and the umpire. He believes I am doing more harm than good.

I asked if I could reprint his communication without his name.

He gave me permission to do so. Here it is: 

Dear Judge Kopf,

Please excuse the liberty I am taking in sending this email; I trust that you will receive it in the spirit it was sent. I suspect that, on most topics but certainly on subjects such as the substance of this communication, judges hear from lawyers only what lawyers think judges want to hear. But I have concerns that rise above the desire to communicate only pleasantries and compel me to be, I am afraid, blunt. 

[sidebar#1:  To begin this critique, the first statement of fact is CITIZENS' LAWYERS'.

Neither of you "Lawyers" speak one word about THOMAS JEFFERSON'S "IDEA".

Therefore, obviously, Mr. PLEASE STOP and Mr. Kopf, have failed to be part of the solution in the Twenty-First Century.  We can't have this kind of APARTHEID, in the first paragraph the first words are PLEASE EXCUSE THE LIBERTY ....

I am deeply troubled when the judicial system you and I love, which I think is essential to our society, is harmed. I think blogging by judges harms our system significantly. I thought that you had decided some time ago to stop posting to Hercules and the Umpire. It is my sincere belief that you should.

[sidebar#2:  YES Mr. PLEASE STOP and Mr. Kopf, the love of a system that has betrayed the American PUBLIC for more than a century, more like two centuries and in reality the time has been more in the APARTHEID, than functioning as our United States CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

As you know, justice is a horribly amorphous and ambiguous concept; the delivery of justice is a complicated, mysterious undertaking; and there are innumerable elements involved in efforts to achieve on the promise of delivering justice. But, in my 25 years as a lawyer, it is my inescapable conclusion that an important element, perhaps the most indispensible one, in our legal system’s ability to deliver justice is public trust in judges. In order for our system to work, the public must know that a judge will decide matters thoughtfully, impartially, respectfully, and on the merits. (I will refrain from further expounding upon the validity of the importance of public trust of judges as (1) if this premise is not something we can instinctively agree upon, the purpose of this communication cannot be met and (2) your “the SCOTUS should STFU” post seems to agree with this premise with the words “…all of us know from experience that appearances matter to the public’s acceptance of the law.”) 

[sidebar#3:  Mr. PLEASE STOP and Mr. Kopf, TO BE IGNORANT OF CONTRACT LAW THAT IS ABOUT EXCHANGE AND TRADE WHICH IS IN EQUAL TRANSPARENCY AND IN THE OPEN, is indeed to be in a very secret RACKET.

After painstaking and sincere thought, for I am sure you have considered essentially the same questions I have and reached a conclusion exactly contrary to mine, I am unable to understand how judicial thinking out loud can ever be a net plus on the scales of public trust and confidence in judges and, by extension, the law. It seems to me that such public naval gazing from a judge assumes even more potential negative weight when it takes the form of modern electronic communication prone to going viral if a member of the judiciary communicates on a controversial topic or in a controversial way.

There is little surprise in the level of attention drawn by, or the inevitable public reaction to, a federal trial judge, in a public forum, repeatedly using vulgarity including serial exercise of the f-word, apparently disclosing a fondness for looking up the skirts and down the blouses of female attorneys who appear before him, telling Congress to “go to hell”, and urging the SCOTUS to “stfu”. How does such attention and reaction create an appearance that assists the public’s acceptance of the law, help people trust judges, foster faith in our system, and advance the cause of the delivery of justice? If a judge cannot even restrain himself or herself, in a public forum, from using harsh profanity, engaging in course sexual comment, and being disrespectful of our country’s highest court – and seems incapable of exercising sufficient discernment to know when things should be left unsaid — how do we legitimately expect the public to trust a judge to make the critical decisions he or she is daily called upon to address? That seems far too long of a leap of faith to ask, much less to expect, the public to make. Are not the ultimate purposes of our profession better served by lawyers and judges acting with courtesy, grace, respect, and restraint? Whatever public benefit may come from public discussion of controversial topics, are there not more appropriate ways, far less harmful to the justice system, for those discussions to be initiated rather than through a judge’s controversial public comments?

As I understand it, part of your motivation for continuing with your blog is your passion that “federal trial judges be seen as individuals with all the strengths and weaknesses (baggage) that everyone else carries around.” (I take that quote from your reply to a response to your post about how female lawyers should dress for court.) First, I do not think that any person who thoughtfully considered that prospect could rationally conclude otherwise, with or without your blog. Second, I fail to understand the particular level of importance you apparently ascribe to folks’ possession of that understanding about judges. What difference does it make whether federal trial judges’ strengths and weaknesses and baggage are properly understood? To quote one of your rules for how women lawyers should dress, also known as the “dirty old man” post, “It is not about you.”  

[sidebar#4:  When the FACTION OF SO CALLED 'JUSTICE' was forced into the society of Americans, the APARTHEID was etched in the CODES as "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," for only one example of the language "Split The Hood".

Mr. PLEASE STOP and Mr. Kopf, have communicated in the obvious secret language between those that have to have a level of unconsciousness that surrenders to an amorphous and ambiguous superstition.

THE INTERNET, Mr. PLEASE STOP and Mr. Kopf, already evolved, into a newer order than the old order.  The OLD ORDER, which got corrupted in the usury of so called fiat petro dollars.

The numbers in the public, that continue to have any respect whatsoever for a system that hasn't a clue:  SOVEREIGN MONEY, PLEASE KAREN HUDES' EXPOSED THE SYSTEM YOU ARE CONTINUING TO ACT AS THOUGH IT IS HONORABLE.

[comment at Mr. Kopf's blog ... KAREN HUDES, GENERAL COUNSEL (ACTING) WORLD BANK.  When the APARTHEID ends (IE the system of a language that isn't REAL in the Article I, Section IX, Clause VII), then HONOR IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM shall mirror Thomas Jefferson's IDEA.  "CITIZENS' LAWYERS'" NOT A FACTION RACKET OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 'GLOBALIZATION-MILITARIZED RETIREMENT PORTFOLIOS.  please do stop alright ... AND HERE IS THE MOST RECENT QUESTION IN THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATION 'CIRCLE' OR WHAT THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SAID - "LEGAL TRIBE". 

http://theartof12.blogspot.com/2014/07/century-of-enslavement-history-of.html