Personal to the person who left a comment with a phone number

Send me an email (jackleyhane@yahoo.com).

I want to be able to verify to whom I would be talking.

I hope you understand.

FWIW now has six million page views

It happened yesterday, possibly because a lot of FWIW readers were at home on account of the cold. (For those, like me, who weren't paying attention, courts were closed yesterday due to the subzero temperatures. Courthouses in Markham, Skokie, and Maywood were open, but only as warming centers.)

Anyway, FWIW has now passed six million page views. This is an aggregate figure. FWIW has been around since 2006, and it has always been published on Blogger.com. But Google, Blogger's parent, was not keeping track of page views back then; I'm not sure when it started.

I can tell you that the five million page view mark was reached in early April 2025, roughly 292 days ago. The four million page view milestone was reached on or shortly before May 1, 2023, roughly a thousand days ago.

FWIW reached the million page view mark in August 2015, the two million mark in March 2018, and the three million mark in October 2020.

It took 941 days for FWIW to go from one million to two million page views. It took 10 days longer -- 951 days -- to get from two million to three million. It took 917 days to go from three million to four million. But it only took another 709 days to go from four to five million. And now it has taken only 292 days to go from five to six million. I wish I could get that kind of growth on my investments. I also wish I could claim that this growth is attributable to some sincere growth in interest in our local judiciary in general, or in FWIW in particular.

But, alas.

On my increasingly infrequent trips downtown, I see precious little evidence that suggests that FWIW is better known now that it was in the past. This has always been a very specialized, niche site (at least since I started seriously covering Cook County judicial races in 2008). There are only so many people who might be interested in this topic. Of course, readers could be flocking here because of my crisp, entertaining prose, their limited interest in the comings and goings of our local judiciary notwithstanding....

And then I wake up.

But, however it has happened, I have accumulated six million page views here on FWIW. I'm grateful.

List of 2026 Cook County Circuit Court Candidates and website links

As promised, I've put up a 2026 Candidate List in the Sidebar on the web version of this site. Given that many FWIW readers access this site via mobile devices (what we old-timers quaintly refer to as 'phones'), some of you will not be particularly familiar with the Sidebar. So be it. For those of you in that category, I have also put a Candidate List below, with links to candidate websites I have so far found.

You will note that the list that follows is not quite complete; there are some 'dead links.' This may be because the candidate has not yet put up a website; it is also possible that, despite my best efforts, I missed some. If I have missed a site, or when the website of the candidate of your choice goes live, drop me an email at jackleyhane@yahoo.com and I will endeavor to promptly update the Sidebar list. Meanwhile, feel free to browse among the sites found so far:

• Sam Bae
• Dan Balanoff
• Tiffany N. Brooks
• Bianca B. Brown
• Michael Cabonargi
• John Carroll
• John R. Carrozza
• Dave Condron
• Julian Sanchez Crozier
• Amari Dawson
• Lester Finkle
• Robert “Rob” Groebner
• Meridth Hammer
• John Harkins
• Natalie Howse
• William F. Kelley
• Jarrett Knox
• Rachel Marrello
• Sara McGann
• Steven Q. McKenzie
• Natalia Moore
• Dan Naranjo
• Ginger Odom
• Kathleen Cunniff Ori
• Brittany Michelle Pedersen
• Lynn Terese Palac
• Juan Ponce de Leon
• Kim Przekota
• Martin Douglas Reggi
• Ashonta C. Rice
• Linda Sackey
• Jessica Megan Scheller
• Ashley Greer Shambley
• Monica Somerville
• Ava George Stewart
• Jon Stromsta
• D’Anthony “Tony” Thedford
• Luz Maria Toledo
• Jessica Karina Velez
• Radiance Ward
• Michael Zink

FWIW passes the 5 million page view mark

Sometime in the last few days, when I wasn't paying attention, FWIW crossed the five million page view threshold. Here is a screenshot showing where the counter stands this evening:

This is an aggregate figure. FWIW has been around since 2006, and it has always been published on Blogger.com. But Google, Blogger's parent, was not keeping track of page views back then; I'm not sure when it started.

I can tell you that the four million page view milestone was reached on or shortly before May 1, 2023, roughly 709 days ago.

FWIW reached the million page view mark in August 2015, the two million mark in March 2018, and the three million mark in October 2020.

It took 941 days for FWIW to go from one million to two million page views. It took 10 days longer -- 951 days -- to get from two million to three million. It took 917 days to go from three million to four million. And now, as noted, another 709 days to go from four to five million. So that means there's growth here: More eyeballs, more often. Including, at this moment, your own.

Thank you.

FWIW now fishing for readers on Bluesky Social

I stopped being an early adapter of technology many years ago when I bought what would today be described as a tablet, but one loaded with Microsoft Windows for Pen Computing ver. 1.0.

It was going to replace my yellow pad for taking notes -- just to cite one example, client-ready deposition summaries would now just be a simple matter of editing my notes, or so I thought -- and it was going to be Paradise.

As the use of 'Microsoft' and 'ver. 1.0' in the same sentence will suggest to most rational people with a little common sense and any experience of technology at all, the experiment failed. Miserably. I can't say it was Paradise Lost, because Paradise was never attained. Nor were any of the hoped-for benefits.

But I'll save the details of that scarring experience for a sad chapter in the book I'm supposed to be writing.

Suffice to say, for the present, that I didn't jump to create a Bluesky account as soon as it became publicly available. Rather, I hung back, watching the farewell to X posts piling up on X and Facebook, and starting to worry that I might be losing potential readers here on FWIW because they would no longer see my posts on X promoting each new FWIW post.

I spend far too much time on X as it is, sifting through the muck and mire for kernels of apparently accurate information... or just looking for craziness (and usually finding it). So the last thing I want to do is dive into X's new competitor... I am terrified that I might start comparing how things are presented on Bluesky vis a vis how the same topics are presented on X and who is saying what where (and whether they are saying different things on differnt platforms) and I'll squander my remaining vision and forfeit untold hours of whatever years I have remaining in the process....

But I've done it anyway. I have today joined Bluesky. I will try and avoid getting sucked in... and probably fail there, too.

If you wish, however, you can follow me on Bluesky @jackleyhane@bsky.social.

Yes, that's not a very imaginative handle.

Meanwhile, I also remain on X at the equally unimaginative @jackleyhane.

Not every comment left in the queue is equally perspicacious

In a post last Friday I hope I gave due credit to the anonymous reader who helped me understand how and where detainee votes at the Cook County Jail were counted in the recent election.

But not all comments submitted to FWIW are equally good. Some are just flat-out misinformation. Take this one for instance (which I am printing only here):

Leaving the judges retention vote blank counts as a “yes” vote. This is cook county, corruption is baked into the cake!

I'm not sure where our local corruption is baked. Probably not by elves in hollow trees. In back rooms, perhaps, or in vehicles with tinted windows, or while walking briskly and furtively down windblown streets. In any event, our local corruption is presumably baked as far away as possible, whenever possible, from hidden recording equipment or persons wearing wires.

But leave that aside for a moment.

It is the first part of the proffered comment that is flat-out wrong: Leaving a retention judge blank on the ballot (voting neither 'yes' nor 'no') does not constitute a 'yes' vote. If anything, failing to vote in a retention race enhances the power of voters who say 'no' to all judges.

Assume a million voters come out for a general election. All things being equal some 15-20% of these will vote 'no' on every retention judge on the ballot -- for our purposes, let's round it up to 20%... or 200,000 votes.

If all the million voters vote on every judge, and all the voters who do not reflexively say nay to all vote 'yes,' then every judge wins retention comfortably, with 80%.

But, usually, there's a dropoff as one goes down the ballot.

This year, in some places, some voters left the presidential ballot blank, too, choosing to vote only in races further down the ballot. But, normally, if 1,000,000 come out, these all vote for the high-profile races at the top of the ballot and some lose interest moving down. If 200,000 bypass a particular retention race, that leaves 600,000 'yes' votes and that constant 200,000 'no' vote lump. The judge is still retained... but with only a 75% 'yes' vote. If 300,000 voters bypass a race, that leaves only 500,000 'yes' votes and the judge's margin slips to 71% or thereabouts. If 400,000 voters skip the race, the judge is down to 67%. If half skip the race, leaving only 300,000 'yes' votes, the judge is right at the fatal 60% line... and, if we're being technical, the judge in this example is not retained, failing to obtain the necessary 60% plus 1.

And no retention judge gets everybody (except the 'just say no' crowd) to say 'yes.' In addition to the 'just say no' crowd, every judge will attract some 'no' votes because he or she has done the job, even if he or she has done the job well: People will still be mad about the guilty findings on traffic tickets, or that the spouse got more in the divorce than the voter thought appropriate. Jealous former law partners, persons whose relatives went to jail, persons who thought the judge was too soft on the person who mugged the voter's relative.... Some judges will have run afoul of one or more evaluating bar groups. The scenarios are endless, and so is the retention judge's angst... at least until the tallied votes seem safely in the judge's favor.

But do not be deceived, Dear Voter: Passing by a retention judge's race does not count as a 'yes' vote.

Ratings controversy on Retention Judges website... which is now apparently resolved

This Tweet from the Chicago Council of Lawyers caught my eye yesterday.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers HAS NOT YET COMPLETED its evaluation of judges up for retention this year. As yet, we are not prepared to state who is or is not qualified for retention.

— Chicago Council of Lawyers (@ChiCouncilLaw) September 5, 2024

I retweeted it (look, I know we call it 'X' nowadays, but it sounds silly to say I saw an 'X' and then re-X'd it) but I didn't look into it right away; I was doing something eles at the time.

Then I got an email from someone on behalf of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening (the Council is a charter member): Apparently there was a statement on the Committee for Retention of Judges website that had angered a number of Alliance bar evaluators, to wit, "The class of judges up for retention has been overwhelmingly rated as qualified and recommended for retention by our State’s Premier Bar Associations." This sat above a list of the bar groups (all the Alliance groups and the Chicago Bar Association) which certainly implies or infers that those groups have already issued ratings for this retention election.

You had to scroll pretty much to the bottom of the home page on the Retention Judges website in order to find this statement. But don't bother to try it now: It's gone.

I reached out to the Retention Judges committee to ask about the statement. A little while ago I received an email from Mary Kay Dawson, a consultant who is working with the Committee for Retention Judges. The relevant portion of the email provides, "Apparently the language on the web site was carried over from the previous class website by our web designer and once this was called to attention it was removed."

So the Retention Judges were not trying to claim ratings that have not yet been issued.

When the ratings are released by the various bar groups, you will find them here on FWIW.

Just a prediction on my part: While there will be some exceptions (there always are), most of the retention judges will ultimately be rated qualified or recommended for retention by the various bar groups. Still, no one likes being told what they're going to do before they do it, especially when they're being told by the people they're doing it to. It is presumptuous at best.

Presumably, the explanation provided will suffice to tamp down the controversy. If there is more to report on this issue, however, I will.

4,000 posts and counting

This post isn't itself the 4,000th post I've published on FWIW. Strictly speaking, and if you're only talking about this site, and not counting what I call Page Two of FWIW (where I've also put up over 500 posts), my 4,000th FWIW post went up last week sometime.

But a 4,000th post is a significant milestone -- a monument to stubbornness, perhaps -- even though not all the 4,000+ posts that have appeared here have been mine. I've been gratful for the opportunity to publish a number of guest posts, such as the many substantive posts from Albert J. Klumpp, who has provided scholarly analysis of the last several judicial election cycles.

Another bunch of these 4,000 posts that I did not write, but in which I nevertheless take particular pride, are the "In Their Own Words" posts that I have solicited and published in every campaign cycle since 2008. These are posts in which I've let Cook County judicial candidates write whatever they want to say to the voters, however they want to say it. I'll be asking for these again in a couple of months. Not every candidate takes me up on this offer; I wish it were otherwise. But I link to the all the candidate statements I do receive from the Organizing the Data posts that I feature in the last weeks before the primary or (when there's been the odd, contested election) the November election.

As for the rest... well... in my more candid and reflective moments I will concede that most, indeed the vast majority, are (at best) informational. The Pulitzer Prize Board has committed no grievous oversight in passing me by. On the other hand, I did win a Kogan Award from the Chicago Bar Association in 2012
and an Honorable Mention from the Kogan Committee in 2014. (The CBA seems to have disbanded the Kogan Committee recently; I'm not sure how much I am to blame for this.)

Some of the posts I've put up here and on Page Two have included personal recollections of my own ill-fated runs for the bench in 1994 and 1996. I tried to distill and offer lessons from my own electoral failures in these 2021 posts:

• Or you could just run? That is terrible advice...,


• Or you could just run? Some suggestions if you're thinking about it -- part 1,


• Or you could just run? More suggestions... for what they're worth, and


• Or you could just run? The pros and cons, especially the cons, of slating.

Some of the posts I've put up here and on Page Two are humorous; some posts were intended to be humorous. I like to think there's a substantial overlap between those two categories....

But even in strictly informational posts, I sometimes try and slip in a zinger or two. I used to do this in appellate briefs, too. My thought was that the judges (and/or their clerks) who had to read those things might appreciate a little diversion. You know... never a joke, certainly, but perhaps a play on words, or an unexpected allusion... a little levity to leaven the grim necessity of plowing through page after page of dense legal prose. It never occurred to me that it might cause some judges (and/or their clerks) not to take me seriously... but, now, looking back, considering some of the results that obtained... well, I can't help but wonder....

I've written some posts for FWIW that I consider substantive -- even if I try to approach serious topics in a readable, conversational way. By way of example, I hope that one of these days, the courts will realize that access to justice in civil cases and meaningful employment for lawyers are both negatively impacted by the soaring costs of discovery. When that day comes, I hope the courts will remember that I've been advocating for "Zero-Based Discovery" for some years now (and, if you're interested in what I mean by this, perhaps start with this post).

But I realize that what keeps readers returing to FWIW is my coverage of Cook County judicial elections. People tell me I am providing a useful service with this site. I hope I am.

For those of you who may be new here, and unfamiliar with how I've tried to cover these elections in the past, this FAQ post may be of some assistance.

If you've consulted one of my FAQ posts, now or ever, you know that I don't accept ads from candidates and I don't charge candidates to promote their websites or events. I will accept ads from persons or companies looking to sell services to candidates... but I don't suffer from the burden of too many ads. I do accept reader donations. If you're viewing this article on a laptop or desktop, you can see there's a "Donate" button toward the top of the Sidebar on this site. You are welcome to contribute to the upkeep of this site by clicking there.

The "Donate" button links to PayPal, and allows readers to pay either by PayPal (if you have an account) or by credit card. And PayPal has recently added another donation option, for those generous souls who may be reading this only on their phones and/or who already have a PayPal account (I'm told it's quite common). This link -- PayPal.Me/FWIWChicago -- supposedly will allow you to help support this venture as well.

Charlie Meyerson, in his hugely popular email news briefing, Chicago Public Square, regularly solicits support from his readers, and occasionaly he will publish a list of those who have most recently taken him up on that invitation.

But be not afraid. I realize that everyone who reads this site seems to prefer, and even cherish, anonymity. Much as I would like to publicly thank anyone who contributes -- I am truly grateful for any and all support -- I won't mention anyone who donates by name unless they ask me to do so.

I may not know how to 'read a room' well, but I'm not totally illiterate either.

More posts to come....

Judge released from Judge's Jail

Associate Judge Gregory E. Ahern, Jr. has been returned to active judicial duty.

In an Order entered Tuesday (Special Order No. 2023-126), the Executive Committee of the Circuit Court of Cook County stated, in pertinent part:

The Executive Committee of the circuit court of Cook County having convened to consider the request of Hon. Gregory E. Ahern, Jr., pursuant to Ill.S.Ct.R. 56(c), that Cook County Cir. Ct. Special Order 2023-121 (eff. Aug. 25, 2023) be vacated and that Judge Ahem be returned to his previous judicial assignments;

The Judicial Inquiry Board having informed this court, on September 11 ,2023, that it had concluded its investigation of the allegations made against Judge Ahern, that no further action is warranted, and that the Board deems the matters that were the subject of Special Order 2023-121 to be closed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Cook County Cir. Ct. Special Order 2023-121 (eff. Aug. 25, 2023) is vacated....

Ahern had been banished to Judge's Jail on account of allegedly "express[ing] his agreement with, or support for, comments by other persons [on X, f/k/a Twitter] that can reasonably be interpreted as suggesting a bias or prejudice that demeans individuals based upon their race, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation." The content of the Tweet that Judge Ahern may have 'liked' on X were not publicly shared. The identify of the "established local media outlet" that complained about Ahern was likewise not disclosed.

FWIW readers who have not already done so may be interested in reviewing the provisions of the new Code of Judicial Conduct (collected in this post) that potentially apply to a jurist's use of social media.

Staying out of Judges Jail: New Code of Judicial Conduct provisions that may be of assistance

Last Friday's article about a judge getting reassigned to Judges Jail, apparently on account of 'liking' someone else's Tweet, prompted a lot of attention and also some concern, among other judges, as to how and why the judge's online actions, whatever they were, may have potentially violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Although I have asked for more information from the Chief Judge's Office about the precise conduct that triggered the Executive Committee's action, I haven't received anything new. So I can not talk about that particular case at this time.

But I could, and did, reach out to an actual expert to follow up on the question of how judges generally can avoid getting into similar difficulties in future.

Jim Grogan is the former Chief Counsel of ARDC; he continues to teach ethics and professional responsibility at Loyola University Chicago Law School and, as most FWIW readers probably know, he remains a much-in-demand speaker on legal and judicial ethics at CLE presentations around the country.

While he's very entertaining in person, Grogan's rapid-fire delivery and seemingly inexhaustible fund of relevant anecdotes loses something when reduced to writing... especially when I'm doing the reducing. In our recent conversation, Grogan did try to speak more slowly and use smaller words so that I could follow along (we went to law school together, so he has long known how necessary this is), but what follows are more like slides for a Grogan presentation, with Ben Stein serving as a last-minute fill-in (Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?).

(And, yes, large swaths of text are excised from the following, and the deletions are not always specifically indicated. This is meant to get you to the most relevant language without getting bogged down along the way. Some things you really should be able to figure out from context....)

2023 ILLINOIS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Relevant Provisions Dealing with Social Media

Preamble & Scope

(4) The Code governs a judge's personal and judicial activities conducted in person, on paper, and by telephone or other electronic means. A violation of the Code may occur when a judge uses the Internet, including social networking sites, to post comments or other materials such as links to websites, articles, or comments authored by others, photographs, cartoons, jokes, or any other words or images that convey information or opinion. Violations may occur even if a judge's distribution of a communication is restricted to family and friends and is not accessible to the public. Judges must carefully monitor their social media accounts to ensure that no communication can be reasonably interpreted as suggesting a bias or prejudice; an ex parte communication; the misuse of judicial power or prestige; a violation of restrictions on charitable, financial, or political activities; a comment on a pending or impending case; a basis for disqualification; or an absence of judicial independence, impartiality, integrity, or competence.

*  *  *

RULE 1.3: AVOIDING MISUSE OF THE PRESTIGE OF JUDICIAL OFFICE

A judge shall not misuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests* of the judge or others or allow others to do so.

COMMENTS

[1] It is improper to use or attempt to use the judge's position to gain personal advantage or deferential treatment of any kind. For example, it would be improper to allude to judicial status to gain favorable treatment in encounters with traffic officials. Similarly, a judge must not use the judicial title in letterhead, e-mails, or any other form of communication, including social media or social networking platforms, to gain an advantage in conducting personal business.

*  *  *

RULE 2.1: GIVING PRECEDENCE TO THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE

The duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law*, shall take precedence over all of a judge's personal and extrajudicial activities.

COMMENTS

[1] To ensure that judges are available to fulfill their judicial duties, judges must conduct their personal and extrajudicial activities, including their use of social media or participation on social networking platforms, to minimize the risk of conflicts that would result in frequent disqualification. See Canon 3.

*  *  *

RULE 2.8: DECORUM, DEMEANOR, AND COMMUNICATION WITH JURORS

COMMENTS

[2] Commending or criticizing jurors for their verdict, including on social media or social networking platforms, may imply a judicial expectation in future cases and may impair a juror's ability to be fair and impartial in a subsequent case.

*  *  *

RULE 2.9: EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS

COMMENTS

[3] The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding includes communications with lawyers, law teachers, or other persons who are not participants in the proceeding and communications made or posted on social media or social networking platforms. A judge must make reasonable efforts to ensure that law clerks, court staff, court officials, and others under the judge's direction and control do not violate this Rule.

*  *  *

RULE 2.10: JUDICIAL STATEMENTS ON PENDING AND IMPENDING CASES

(A) A judge shall not make any public statement about a matter pending* or impending* in any court.

(B) A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office. * * *

COMMENTS

[4] Judges who are active on social media or social networking platforms should understand how their comments in these forums might be considered "public" statements implicating this Rule. Judges should be aware of the nature and efficacy of privacy settings offered by social media or social networking platforms.

*  *  *

RULE 2.11: DISQUALIFICATION

COMMENTS

[7] A judge's use of social media or social networking platforms may create the appearance of a relationship between the judge and litigants or lawyers who may appear before the judge. Whether a relationship would cause the judge's impartiality to "reasonably be questioned" depends on the facts. While the labels used by the social media or social networking platform (e.g., "friend") are not dispositive of the nature of the relationship, judges should consider the manner in which the rules on disqualification have been applied in traditional contexts and the additional ways in which social media or social networking platforms may amplify any connection to the judge.

*  *  *

RULE 3.1: EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES IN GENERAL

COMMENTS

[3] Discriminatory actions and expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside the judge's official or judicial actions, are likely to appear to a reasonable person to call into question the judge's integrity and impartiality. Examples include jokes or other remarks that demean individuals based upon their race, sex, gender, gender identity, religion, national origin, ethnicity, pregnancy, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. For the same reason, a judge's extrajudicial activities must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with an organization that practices invidious discrimination. See Rule 3.6.

*  *  *

RULE 3.7: PARTICIPATION IN EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, FRATERNAL, OR CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS AND ACTIVITIES

COMMENTS

[3A] A judge may not use social media or social networking platforms to promote the activities of educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations when the judge would be prohibited from doing so using another means of communication. For example, just as a judge may not write or telephone nonfamily members or judges over whom the judge has supervisory authority to encourage them to attend organizations' fundraising events, a judge may not promote those events via social media or social networking platforms.

*  *  *

RULE 4.1: POLITICAL AND CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES IN PUBLIC ELECTIONS

COMMENTs

[2A] Except as may be specifically authorized in the context of judicial election campaigns, Rule 4.1 prohibits judges and judicial candidates from "publicly" endorsing or making "speeches" on behalf of political candidates or organizations. Comments by judges active on social media or social networking platforms may be considered "public" for purposes of this Rule.

*  *  *

Rule 3.1 was the one cited by the Cook County Circuit Court Executive Committee in its recent Order removing Judge Ahern. But, clearly, as Grogan's list demonstrates, there are other provisions that must be considered by a prudent jurist prior to posting anything. Anywhere.

I asked Grogan to summarize. Well, he said, a judge can express an opinion regarding Barbie or Oppenheimer. Pro or con. But a judge needs to refrain from commenting on the news of the day. A candidate for judge, even a sitting judge seeking a different judicial office, has a little more latitude to express opinions than a judge not coming before the voters. But, he said, while a judicial candidate might more freely express some kinds of opinions, because the Supreme Court says he or she has that right, a judicial candidate is nevertheless courting discipline if he or she misrepresents facts, such as, for example, his or her opponent's involvement, or degree of involvement in a particular case.

My mother was not a scholar of legal or judicial ethics. But she might have expressed things this way: If you have to think about whether posting something may run afoul of a rule, maybe you should think again about posting in the first place. Here, certainly, Grogan leads by example: He doesn't have a Facebook account. He doesn't have a Twitter (or 'X') handle. He's undoubtedly happier for it, too.

Judge's Tweets land him in Judge's Jail

That's the gist of an Order entered by the Executive Committee of the Circuit Court of Cook County on August 25, assigning Associate Judge Gregory E. Ahern, Jr. to "restricted duties or duties other than judicial duties in the office of the Presiding Judge of the First Municipal District."

Here, verbatim, are the findings made by the Executive Committee in Special Order No. 2023-121:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023, the court was informed by an established local media outlet that Associate Judge Gregory E. Ahern, Jr., had used the Internet and his account on the "X" (f/k/a Twitter) social media networking platform to publicly express his agreement with, or support for, comments by other persons that can reasonably be interpreted as suggesting a bias or prejudice that demeans individuals based upon their race, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation;

If made, the expressions of support or agreement would appear to a reasonable person to undermine Judge Ahem's judicial independence, integrity, or impartiality, in violation of Ill. Code ofJudicial Conduct (2023), R. 3.1."

The Court's Order states that reassignment was made "to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Banishment to Judge's Jail carries with it, in accordance with the Court's recent practice, a referral to the Judicial Inquiry Board.

This is obviously an incomplete story. I don't like incomplete stories.

In my opinion, at this point anyway, the key words in the Court's Order, quoted above, are that Judge Ahern was reported "by an established local media outlet."

That would suggest that a reporter found whatever-it-was that Ahern had 'expressed agreement or support' for (which I hope is understood may not necessarily be the same thing as 'said') and thought it was so egregious that it was worthy of reporting. Seeking comment from the Chief Judge's Office would be entirely appropriate before running the story -- Journalism 101 stuff -- and the 'established local media outlet' is not, and should not be deemed, responsible for the consequences of seeking said comment.

But where is the story?

When established local media outlets -- even FWIW -- have enough to publish, we publish. Whatever "comments by other persons" that Ahern "publicly express[ed] his agreement with, or support for" are not disclosed by the Court in its Order (I've asked for details from the Chief Judge's Office and I'll update if these are provided). But one would think the "established media outlet" would have run a story. That's where the damning details, if there are any, should be.

But my search this morning has come up empty. I don't subscribe to every "established local media outlet" (is there a list somewhere?) but Google should have ferreted out something, even if the full story languishes inside a paywall.

Non-lawyers reading this post might be expecting me to launch on a First Amendment screed at this point.

But, of course, that's not going to happen.

Judges get a lot of perks with their jobs -- good salary, benefits, deferential treatment from lawyers (especially from wannabe judges) -- many good things. But judges are, by definition, professional neutrals. They leave some First Amendment rights behind when they take their oaths. It's a knowing and deliberate trade-off.

Let's look at Rule 3.1 of the 2023 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct:

RULE 3.1: EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES IN GENERAL

A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law or this Code. However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge shall not:

(A)  participate in activities that will interfere with the proper performance of the judge’s judicial duties;

(B)  participate in activities that will lead to frequent disqualification of the judge;

(C)  participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality;

(D)  engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive; or

(E)  make use of court premises, staff, stationery, equipment, or other resources, except for incidental use.

I've eliminated the asterisks that denote use of the defined terms "law", "independence", "integrity", and "impartiality", but the interested reader is encouraged to consult the Code to review these definitions.

For our purposes here, suffice it to say that judges should not publicly express opinions on the issues of the day. Even non-controversial ones. (Or seemingly non-controversial ones. Controversies seem to erupt out of nowhere sometimes.) Any judge who takes a public stance, pro or con, on any issue is, you should pardon the expression, courting trouble.

On the other hand, the Order banishing Ahern is rather delicately worded: It does not say he took a stand or necessarily said anything. Rather, it says he "expressed his agreement with, or support for, comments by other persons."

Judges come from the ranks of lawyers. And lawyers rank among the least technologically sophisticated people on Earth. Think of that poor man in Texas who couldn't get the cat filter off his Zoom feed during Covid. A lot of lawyers used desktop computers more for paperweights than anything else for the longest time. Efiling hath made users of us all... but some may still have limited actual participation in the document creation and filing process.

Could Ahern have merely "liked" something on Twitter? (Sorry, Elon, "X" is really hard for me to write -- it looks wrong.) Could someone have misinterpreted that as agreement or support? Would judges on the Executive Committee necessarily understand that "liking" something on X merely makes it possible to navigate back to it later? I do not suggest that there is an "innocent construction" available here, because I don't know all the facts, but I wonder if it might be possible. My X page -- Twitter page -- used to say "Favorites and RT's indicate interest, but not necessarily agreement."

Which is easy enough for me to say -- first of all, I'm allowed to have opinions, if I wanted to, not that anyone would care, and, second, it's absolutely true in my case: Clicking "like" doesn't automatically mean I actually like, or agree with, the post in question. It might. But then it might also mean only that I may want to look at it again. Sometimes I even do go back and look.

Anyway, today, I've revised my "X" profile to clarify -- 'favorites' having somewhere given way to 'likes' on the Twitter/X platform -- that "'Likes' and RT's indicate interest, but not necessarily agreement." Would a similar profile statement be sufficient to protect a judge against an accusation of 'supporting' or 'agreeing' with a 'liked' post? Whatever the facts may be in Judge Ahern's case, a lot of FWIW readers will want an answer to that question -- and may want to check their profiles, too.

I here mean to express no opinion about what Ahern said, or didn't say, or what he did or did not do online. I don't express any opinion because I don't know what actually happened. If more people refrained from expressing full-throated, full-throttle opinions online until possessed of all relevant facts, we'd all be a lot better off. That opinion, I will express.

FAQs about FWIW -- and how candidates can use this site to help their campaigns

This is a post I revise and trot out at least once in every election cycle. This post is specifically addressed to persons running for judge in Cook County in 2024, their friends, business associates, and relations. Knowing this stuff will help candidates take advantage of this site and maximize their visibility.

That said, Candidates, if using this site is your media strategy, get another strategy. But, just as corn flakes can be part of a balanced breakfast, this site can be part of a solid campaign effort. ("Solid" meaning that it may not happen for you this time, but if you run well, you can build for the future.)

(P.S., A lot of this stuff is already addressed in the this site's Sidebar, so if you forget something, you can find it there.)

1. This is a non-partisan site. I will cover all candidates running for judge in Cook County. However, since almost all Cook County judicial candidates run as Democrats, most of the posts here will be about candidates in the Democratic primary. But I will gladly cover any Republican candidates, too, should there be any. Or Greens. Or Libertarians. If any could get on the ballot. If a candidate has a website, I will link to it and post another link in the Sidebar.


2. This site does not make endorsements. It grieves me to admit this, but no one cares who I would vote for. I reserve the right to talk about what I look for in judges, and what I saw in over 40 years of practice -- in general terms -- in future posts.
   
   In past election cycles I have given candidates the opportunity to make their own case directly to visiting voters (click here to bring up posts written by judicial candidates in prior campaigns). I plan to do this again; expect an announcement around the first of the year.
   
   When as much information about all candidates as possible is presented for the voters' consideration, I believe that the best candidates will stand out. In addition to bar evaluations, I will report newspaper endorsements (if they're made) or community group or union endorsements (when I can verify them). All of this information will be collected in Organizing the Data posts (explained more, below) as the primary date comes closer. (Word of caution, or cynical caveat: The best candidates may not always make the best judges -- but that, too, is a story for a different day.)


3. I want to publicize candidates' events. I'm happy to put up information about candidate fundraisers whenever I know about them. One need not scroll very far down the page here to find examples of this. I will cheerfully publicize other candidate events as well. (Organizers of candidate forums are strongly encouraged to contact me so I can promote their events, too.) If a candidate wants to promote a speaking engagement or a morning handing out flyers at the 95th Street Red Line Station or the Jefferson Park Blue Line Station, I'll run that, too. I will try and include photographs if the candidate or his or her campaign provides them. I make no promises or warranties in this regard, however; sometimes, real life may intervene and I won't be able to keep up with the flow of items.
   
   Please note: I can't possibly find out about all candidate events on my own. That means I rely on candidate requests for publicity. Every campaign cycle it's the same: I'll hear from some campaigns ten times or more; there will be others that I'll never hear from once. That does not mean I'm playing favorites; I'm merely responding to the email I receive.
   
   Pay attention to this one in particular: I generally will not report a candidate's bar ratings until the CBA and the Alliance release their findings. This will not happen until late in the primary season, after every candidate has had the opportunity to be evaluated. Candidates complain to me about this in every election cycle. I wish the bar associations had a rolling release policy for their ratings -- I raise the issue with the evaluators in every election cycle, both here and privately -- but, so far, to no avail. But the bar associations believe that the mass release of candidate ratings, around the time that early voting begins, maximizes the impact of those ratings on the voting public. Meanwhile, candidates are permitted to, and do, post bar ratings on their campaign websites as soon as they get some favorable ratings to talk about. And I will link to the websites. So, for now, look there.


4. Judicial candidates and committees do not pay for posts appearing on this site. I do not book the Google ads that appear on this page, and you may sometimes see candidate ads in those spaces, but I personally do not accept candidate ads.
   
   On the other hand, I am willing to entertain ads from persons or companies looking to offer products or services to judicial candidates. Advertisements -- clearly labeled as such -- will be put up as posts on the blog for a one-time fee. For this election cycle, as in 2022, ads cost $250 each. I reserve the right to edit or reject ad copy or to refuse an ad altogether. Potential advertisers should email me at jackleyhane@yahoo.com for more information.
   
   In this stage of the election cycle, posts on FWIW are read primarily by candidates, their supporters, persons who are thinking about running for judge in the future, and persons who hope to provide goods or services to candidates. A lot of judges tell me that they visit here regularly; so do persons affiliated with the various bar association judicial evaluation committees. As the primary date draws closer, this site will be increasingly visited by citizens trying to make informed voting decisions. The information that I have collected here, post by post, will be 'packaged' for the voters. Candidates may want to look at past Organizing the Data posts to get a feel for the kind of information has been collected and posted in the past. I'm always looking to enhance the functionality of this site and I reserve the right to make any improvements within my abilities.


5. I am the editor, host, and moderator of this site. Having run for judge twice myself (in 1994 and 1996) I appreciate just how little opportunity judicial candidates have to get their credentials before the public. I do try to present candidates in the best possible light, at least in my initial post about any given campaign. But I reserve the right to fact-check information provided, to add information I've discovered on my own, to combine or even ignore duplicative releases. I may not accomodate your schedule, or say things the way you'd prefer I say them. I strive to be fair but, with the exception of the In Their Own Words posts or the occasional guest posts, I edit my site as I see fit.


6. Comments on this site are 'moderated.' This means I read any comment that anyone cares to leave and I decide whether or not it will get posted. I do not automatically exclude anonymous comments, but I'd greatly prefer you leave a name. I will, however, usually flush "attack" comments, especially from anonymous commenters.
   
   I understand that we are here on the Internet and there is an expectation, for better or worse, that all Internet commentary should be freewheeling and even pungent. But I disagree and this is my site. I also reserve the right to be inconsistent about the kinds of comments I let through.

One final suggestion: Use this site as a force-multiplier. I will often put up a Tweet (putting up an 'X' sounds wrong to me) about a post I run here. Occasionally, I put links on Facebook or LinkedIn as well. But that's me plugging my site. If I put up a post about your campaign, you will want to tweet it out, too, or put it on Facebook, or Bill Belichick's "Snapface" or "Instachat," and encourage your friends and family to do so, too. If you don't know how, ask your kids. Good luck, everyone.

Four million page views -- and counting

Sometime yesterday, according to Blogger, this site achieved four million page views. Here's a screenshot of the relevant section of my dashboard, showing where the count stands as of this morning:

That number surely includes a lot of Russian bots.

But this exalted number also includes a fair number of actual readers and, to you, I say, thanks!

FWIW got its three-millionth page view in October 2020, about seven months into our initial two-week COVID-19 shutdown.

At the time (though obviously I did not admit it) I was a little bummed by the fact that, while it took 941 days for FWIW to go from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 page views, it took 10 days longer -- 951 days -- to get from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000. Now, of course, I realize that everything dried up a bit during the Pandemic. Before I officially announced my retirement from the private practice of law, my practice just about entirely evaporated.

So I think it's probably a good thing that it took only 917 days to go from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000. All of that time was officially during the Pandemic, too. Which is why we had the last primary on Mel Brooks' Birthday instead of on or about the Feast of St. Patrick.

Since the Pandemic is now officially slated to end on May 11, I hope I get to 5,000,000 in far fewer than 917 days -- but, even with five new subcircuits, there are only so many people interested in Cook County judicial elections. So we shall see... and hopefully together. Thanks again for stopping by.

6th Subcircuit situation provides opportunity to explain what is news and what is not news

Learning how to read the news, especially online, is an increasingly necessary skill, one that should perhaps be taught in schools.

There's always been the problem of separating solid, factual reporting from misinformation and downright lies. But, added to that, is the problem that people who undertake to report on a subject sometimes don't know the subject well enough to distinguish between what is news and what is normal.

Here's an old, but useful, definition of news: Dog bites man is not news; man bites dog is. (For more than you ever wanted to know about the origin of that saying, click here.)

A more contemporary example, and one particularly relevant to this site, might be this: When no Republicans file for any Cook County judicial vacancy, that is not news -- but when no one at all files for either 6th Subcircuit vacancy, that is news. Over the past several election cycles, when there have been 6th Subcircuit vacancies, those races have drawn a great many candidates.

And, yet, as of this writing (and I just checked again) no one has filed petitions to run for either 6th Subcircuit vacancy in the June 28 Democratic Primary.

That's not something one would expect. That, therefore, is news.

FWIW has learned that there are at least four candidates eyeing the two 6th Subcircuit races. According to multiple sources, two associate judges, Charles S. Beach and Kerrie Maloney Laytin, are circulating petitions, as are David Rodriguez, an employee of the Circuit Court Clerk's Office and Assistant Public Defender Lori Roper.

Rodriguez filed for a 6th Subcircuit vacancy in the 2020 primary but was not on the primary ballot.

Roper sought a countywide vacancy in 2018. In this cycle she has already picked up an endorsement from the 40th Ward Democratic Organization.

Beach became an associate judge in 2018. He was a candidate for a 6th Subcircuit vacancy earlier that same year.

Laytin was one of the associate judges selected just last Fall. She was a candidate for a countywide vacancy in the 2020 primary.

Moving on... and some housekeeping announcements

If you've been visiting regularly these past several days (and, if you have, thank you) you must have noticed that I think there's a significant flaw in the language of the newly-passed Judicial Circuits Districting Act of 2022, a flaw which jeopardizes the candidacies of those slated by the Cook County Democratic Party for the nine countywide judicial vacancies (as well as the candidacies of anyone else interested in those vacancies).

I Tweeted about it, and got this response from Maya Dukmasova of Injustice Watch:

(If you're interested, here's a link to Dukmasova's story on the Judicial Circuits Districting Act of 2022, published this morning.)

Anyway, bottom line is that "insiders" are telling Dukmasova that the flaws in the new law will be fixed, presumably to allow the Cook County Democratic Party's nine slated candidates and any lucky alternates for whom a vacancy might open between now and March 14 to run countywide as planned.

Nobody's told me anything like that, by the way, but I will subside. Stand down. Move on.

(You know, the Illinois Democratic Party has had access to some real top-drawer legal talent over the years. Maybe now they'll consult with some of them. But, again, I've moved on. If I get wind of any amendment, I'll advise.)

Those of you reading on your phones will not have noticed this, but I have put up the Circuit Court Candidate list in the Sidebar of my main page. The list is shorter than I thought it would be, but, even though some names will drop off this list soon, the list itself will get longer, and quickly now, too, inasmuch as tomorrow is the first day candidate petitions can circulate. Here is the list so far:

• Iris Y. Chavira
• Jim Gleffe
• Meridth Hammer
• Diana López
• Viviana Martínez
• Amanda "Mandy" Pillsbury
• Pam Saindon
• Stephen A. Swedlow
• Sanjay T. Tailor
• Lisa Taylor (new site)
• Rena Marie Van Tine

I may also put up a separate list of Appellate Court candidates -- but not today.

Whilst fiddling with the Sidebar on this site, I did try and insert a widget with my Twitter feed embedded. All the cool sites have this. But, at least so far, mine has only partially succeeded. If you click on the link you will get to my Twitter feed -- but, at least on my equipment, it's not showing up in the Sidebar itself. I'll continue to work on this.

And one more thing... while I've chided the Supreme Court (in a very civil manner, I hope) about the manner in which judicial vacancies are posted on the Circuit Courts Vacancies page of the Court's website, it appears to be very much up to date, mainly because it corresponds down the line with the 2022 Judicial Vacancies report on the Illinois State Board of Elections website (.pdf document).

Before the Supreme Court updated its website last year, the ISBE vacancies page (which only appeared shortly before any given election) was the only authoritative list of vacancies around. (Unless one was one of those "insiders," of course.) For those non-insiders looking for late-breaking vacancies, the ISBE page is a vital resource.

On posting vacancies -- and not -- and how you, Dear Reader, can help

I've just updated, again, the Who Sits Where post that I put up only the day before yesterday.

Today's addition is the 15th Subcircuit vacancy of Judge Chris Lawler, pictured at right.

The picture is taken from the announcement that ADR Systems made on August 31 about Judge Lawler joining the ADR panel of neutrals. I certainly missed that one.

I can't say I wasn't warned: I've received several anonymous tips during the last several weeks about the Lawler vacancy. But I ignored these, for reasons I shall explain momentarily. This morning I saw an inquiry on an ISBA listserv from a practitioner trying to find out who was hearing the now-retired Judge Lawler's cases on his former motion call. That got me looking.

Why didn't I look sooner? Well, my comment queue is chock-full of rumors about judges retiring -- not just Judge Lawler. For any judge you care to name I probably have at least one anonymous comment about that judge retiring. Often these rumors are embellished with intimations that Judge X is succumbing to some loathsome disease. Or about to be indicted. Or both.

Some of the anonymous persons who submit comments here are very creative.

But not very nice.

I don't print those sorts of comments.

Not everyone who supplies anonymous tips here has an axe to grind. Many, I'm sure, are trying to be helpful. But, without something more to go on than 'Judge Y has retired' I can't necessarily tell who is trying to be helpful and who has some sort of problem.

In the case of Judge Lawler, someone might have told me about his move to ADR. That would have given the comment, anonymity notwithstanding, credibility. And, of course, I could easily verify the information provided... if only it had been provided.

The motto of the old City News Bureau was, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." In the age of the 24/7 news cycle, such caution is apparently quaint. But I'd rather be incomplete than inaccurate. (I will now brace myself for the inevitable anonymous comments that say that I am both. *Sigh*)

But the rest of you, Dear Readers, can help improve this site. I know how few people are going to put their name behind anything -- but if you have an anonymous tip you wish to share, any corroboration you can include will allow me to investigate, on my own, and maybe even get your information out to the world, as you wished it to be, in a more timely fashion. Thanks.

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again: Updating links

The Supreme Court updated its website this week, with splashy new colors, increased functionality, user-friendliness, mobile-compatibility and so on and so on.

All good, right?

Not so great, actually, for FWIW. Every link to every post-2011 public domain Illinois case citation changed when the new website launched. Every case citation I've linked to here... no longer worked. I ascribe this to the Law of Unintended Consequences, not to any conspiracy, vast or otherwise, or animus on the part of the Supreme Court or any court personnel. But it's still a pain in the neck to go back and fix links.

I've tried to do that this morning, and I've gone back through a few years of posts in search of newly-bad links. I'm sure I've missed some. I'm equally sure that you, Dear Reader, will enlighten me as to any I have failed to correct that you may happen across.

I'd have settled for a little less mega in the mega-menu if the links could have stayed the same.... Sigh.

Yes, the Supreme Court has a redesigned website

I noticed it yesterday, as at least one commenter did, too. The Supreme Court's press release about the new site can be found here.

Pending contradiction by OED, or at least by Lexis, I will submit that this press release probably marks the first use of the word "mega-menu" by a state's highest reviewing court.

The commenter (named "Anonymous," to absolutely no one's surprise) gripes, correctly, that, while the new site purports to list all Cook County "at large" judges (i.e., countywide judges) and "resident" judges (i.e., subcircuit judges), the latter are no longer idenfitied by subcircuit, but only alphabetically. This, certainly, will make the process of guessing vacancies before they are publicly announced (seemingly as late in the election cycle as the law allows) that much more difficult.

But, perhaps, applied Kremlinology may no longer be required: The new website has a Judicial Vacancies page.

That's the good news. The bad news is that, so far, the relevant sub-page is blank.

But... who knows? The new website is just a couple of days old. Perhaps this public information will be soon be publicly available.

FAQs about FWIW -- and how you can use this site to help your campaign

This is a post I revise and trot out at least once in every election cycle. This post is specifically addressed to persons thinking of running for judge in Cook County in 2022, their friends, business associates, and relations. Knowing this stuff will help you can take advantage of this site and maximize your visibility.

That said, if using this site is your media strategy, get another strategy. But, just as corn flakes can be part of a balanced breakfast, this site can be part of a solid campaign effort. ("Solid" meaning that it may not happen for you this time, but if you run well, you can build for the future.)

(P.S., A lot of this stuff is already addressed in the this site's Sidebar, so if you forget something, you can find it there.)

1. This is a non-partisan site. I want to cover all candidates running for judge in Cook County. Because Democratic candidates have historically enjoyed such tremendous success in this county, most of the posts here will be about candidates in the Democratic primary. But I will gladly cover any Republican candidates, too. If a candidate has a website, I will link to it and post another link in the Sidebar.
   
2. This site does not make endorsements. I realize no one cares who I would vote for. I reserve the right to talk about what I look for in judges, and what I have seen in 40+ years of practice -- in general terms -- in future posts.
   
   In past election cycles I have given candidates the opportunity to make their own case (click here to bring up posts written by judicial candidates in prior campaigns). I plan to do this again; expect an announcement around the first of the year.
   
   I believe the best candidates will distinguish themselves when as much information about all candidates as possible is presented for the voters' consideration. In addition to bar evaluations, I will report newspaper endorsements (if they're made) or community group or union endorsements (when I can verify them). All of this stuff will be collected in Organizing the Data posts (explained more, below) as the primary date comes closer.
3. I want to publicize candidates' events. I'm happy to put up information about candidate fundraisers. I will cheerfully publicize other candidate events as well. (Organizers of candidate forums are strongly encouraged to contact me so I can promote their events, too.) If a candidate wants to promote a speaking engagement or a morning handing out flyers at the 95th Street Red Line Station or the Jefferson Park Blue Line Station, I'll run that, too. I will try and include photographs if the candidate or his or her campaign provides them. I make no promises or warranties in this regard, however; sometimes, real life may intervene and I won't be able to keep up with the flow of items.
   
   Please note: I can't possibly find out about all candidate events on my own. That means I rely on candidate requests for publicity. Every campaign cycle it's the same: I'll hear from some campaigns ten times or more; there will probably be others that I'll never hear from once. That does not mean I'm playing favorites; I'm merely responding to the email I receive.
   
   Pay attention to this one in particular: I generally will not report a candidate's bar ratings until the CBA and the Alliance release their findings. This will not happen until late in the primary season, after every candidate has had the opportunity to be evaluated. I wish these groups had a rolling release policy for their ratings -- but they don't. I hear complaints from judicial campaigns in every election cycle about this. But the bar associations believe that the mass release of candidate ratings, around the time that early voting begins, helps to maximize the impact of those ratings on the voting public. Meanwhile, candidates can, and do, post bar ratings on their campaign websites as soon as they get some favorable ratings to talk about. And I will link to the websites. So, for now, look there.
4. Judicial candidates and committees do not pay for posts appearing on this site. I do not book the Google ads that appear on this page, and you may sometimes see candidate ads in those spaces, but I personally do not accept candidate ads. (I do accept ads from persons or companies looking to offer products or services to judicial candidates; see this post or the site Sidebar for additional information.)
   
   In this very early stage of the election cycle, judicial election posts on FWIW are read primarily by candidates, their supporters, persons who are thinking about running for judge in the future, and persons who hope to provide goods or services to candidates. A lot of judges tell me that they visit here regularly; so do persons affiliated with the various bar association judicial evaluation committees. As the primary date draws closer, this site will be increasingly visited by citizens trying to make informed voting decisions. The information that I have collected here, post by post, will be 'packaged' for the voters. Candidates may want to look at past Organizing the Data posts to get a feel for the kind of information has been collected and posted in the past. I'm always looking to enhance the functionality of this site and I reserve the right to make any improvements within my abilities.
5. I am a lawyer, not a professional journalist. However, since nearly all professional journalists insist on ignoring judicial elections, I do the best I can. Having run for judge twice myself (in 1994 and 1996) I appreciate just how little opportunity judicial candidates have to get their credentials before the public. I do try to present candidates in the best possible light, at least in my initial post about any given campaign. However, I reserve the right to fact-check information provided, to add information I've discovered on my own, to combine or even ignore duplicative releases. In short, I reserve the right to edit my own page.
   
6. Comments on this site are 'moderated.' This means I read any comment that anyone cares to leave and I decide whether or not it will get posted. I do not automatically exclude anonymous comments, but I'd greatly prefer you leave a name. I will, however, block "attack" comments, especially from anonymous commenters.
   
   I understand that we are here on the Internet and there is an expectation, for better or worse, that all Internet commentary should be freewheeling and even pungent. But I disagree and this is my site. I also reserve the right to be inconsistent on this.
   

One final suggestion: Use this site as a force-multiplier. I will often put up a Tweet about a post I run here. Occasionally, I put links on Facebook or LinkedIn as well. But that's me plugging my site. If I put up a post about your campaign, you will want to tweet it out, too, or put it on Facebook, or Bill Belichick's "Snapface" or "Instachat," and encourage your friends and family to do so, too. If you don't know how, ask your kids. Good luck, everyone.

There really is a company called TimeSolv. However... this can't be a good marketing idea

My late mother-in-law was overly impressed with personalized marketing.

Every time she'd get a solicitation from an insurer, or a company offering to lower her property taxes, using publicly available information in its pitch, she'd call to tell us. "They must know me," she'd say, often with some wonder in her voice. "They know all about me!"

Sometimes, in her view, this was a good thing; sometimes it was frightening. She always thought it noteworthy.

In the modern day and age, most of us have become immune to personalized pitches. Immune and/or mildly resentful. My wife had me looking up different types of yarn for some projects she was working on recently, and for the last several weeks, I haven't been able to read the news headlines, or browse Facebook, without pushing past a number of ads for yarns, knitting patterns, and crochet patterns. I don't know which annoys me more: That the Internet provides ads based on my browsing history or that the Internet doesn't understand that I'm not the least bit artsy or craftsy.

But I got a new one this morning: I received an email from a time management software outfit called TimeSolv. The graphic above is from the company's website. It's apparently a Thomson West spinoff, with an excellent BBB rating and positive reviews and all that good stuff. So what, you say. Another ad? Don't we all get dozens, even hundreds of ads every day?

Well... yeah. Except this wasn't an ad. This email was bannered "Welcome to TimeSolv" and purported to provide me with my very own user name and password. And it had a link to click to begin.

We've all endured seminars on Internet security, providing advice on how to avoid embarrassment, or even discipline, by being more vigilant online. I didn't see any of the telltales on this morning's emailthat are supposed to alert us to a possible scam -- no slightly off email address, a telephone number consistent with the Minnesota origins of the company, no glaring grammatical errors in the text of the email itself.

Are the Nigerian generals' widows getting that sophisticated?

Who knows? Maybe this morning's email was legit -- but just really badly timed. Maybe someone thought lawyers like me might stay with, and ultimately pay for, time management software if we were automatically enrolled -- and, Lord knows, I could be much more efficient -- but sending the email on April Fools Day?

Nope.

Bad things can happen when you click blindly on 'click here' -- as today's edition of Brewster Rockit illustrates:

I marked the email as spam. I will have to become more efficient some other way.