Array DECISION AND ORDER IMPOSING PUBLIC ADMONISHMENT This disciplinary matter concerns Judge Ruffo Espinosa, Jr., a judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Having considered the written and oral objections and argument submitted by Judge Espinosa and his counsel, and good cause appearing, the Commission on Judicial Performance issues this public admonishment pursuant to article VI, section 18(d) of the California Constitution, based upon the following Statement of Facts and Reasons:STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS Judge Ruffo Espinosa, Jr., is a judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Netterville, BA220480, which was before Judge Espinosa on October 30, 2003, October 31, 2003, January 29, 2004, and February 5, 2004, Judge Espinosa denied the defendant full opportunity to be heard through counsel regarding sentencing, treated defense counsel in a rude and impatient manner, and abused the contempt power by holding in contempt and immediately incarcerating an attorney who had sought to be heard on his client’s behalf. When Judge Espinosa asked defense counsel, Deputy Public Defender (DPD) Michael Pentz, if he wished to address the court, DPD Pentz presented his position that the recommendation from the Department of Corrections was “sort of a split decision[,]” 9:7–8.) Upon being informed by the prosecutor that the judge already had found the defendant in violation of probation, the judge said, “All right. PENTZ: I got that from the last hearing when I was unable to speak, but now I really want to address the Court and on the record.THE COURT: I want it clear that you’re addressing the Court for the benefit of the record.MR. Less than one minute after DPD Pentz began speaking, as he began to refer to a letter that had been submitted to the court, Judge Espinosa interrupted to ask when the defendant had been arrested, saying that he wanted to calculate his credits [for jail time already served]. Judge Espinosa told DPD Pentz that he had given the judge no alternative but to remove him from the courtroom; Judge Espinosa said that Mr. Pentz had continued to disobey the court after being warned, and had “openly insulted” The order further stated that the court “felt compelled to order Mr. Pentz removed from the court room [sic] in order to continue the orderly process of other court proceedings[,]” According to Judge Didier, “To the extent the contempt adjudication is premised on [DPD Pentz’s] failure to observe [Judge Espinosa’s] order to remain silent, such order is without evidentiary support as [Mr. Pentz’s] conduct was not contemptuous. Judge Didier stated that to the extent the contempt finding might have been based on language that was not in itself contemptuous, offensive tone, and/or mannerisms such as facial expressions or gestures, a judge must warn an attorney before taking disciplinary action. Netterville).) The appellate court found that Judge Espinosa handled the Netterville case properly up to the point at which he stated that he intended to sentence the defendant to the midterm in state prison but was willing to be swayed. 28, 40].) The appellate court found that Judge Espinosa “not only precluded Pentz from completing his argument, but refused to listen during an earlier portion of that argument.” 43].) The Court of Appeal held that Judge Espinosa “committed a miscarriage of justice and reversibly erred in violation of appellant’s rights to counsel and fair trial by precluding Pentz from completing his sentencing argument.” (Ibid.) With respect to the contempt issue, the Court of Appeal determined that Judge Espinosa ordered DPD Pentz immediately into custody in violation of the mandatory stay provisions of Penal Code section 1209(c), which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, when an order of contempt is made affecting an attorney, the execution of any sentence shall be stayed for three court days. The appellate court noted that the judge apparently was aware of the provision, having referred to it when DPD Pentz reappeared with counsel by stating that he knew he would have to stay the sentence because DPD Pentz was an attorney. 46].) The appellate court also found that when DPD Pentz appeared with counsel, Judge Espinosa mischaracterized the record of the proceedings leading to the contempt finding, and later made various material omissions and misstatements in the written contempt order. 48-51].) Based on these findings, the Court of Appeal held that there was a doubt that Judge Espinosa could maintain his objectivity, and that the case must be remanded for resentencing before a different judge. By denying the defendant a full right to be heard, through counsel, regarding sentencing, the judge violated canon 3B(7) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, which requires that a judge accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, full right to be heard according to law. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 291, 298.) Judge Espinosa’s conduct also was contrary to canon 2A, which provides that a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, canon 3B(2), which requires that judges be faithful to the law, and canon 3B(5), which requires that judges perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. In addition, the judge’s treatment of DPD Pentz was contrary to canon 3B(4), which requires judges to be patient, dignified and courteous toward those with whom the judge deals in a judicial capacity.
link
Here is an essay I did for a theology subject on inerrancy, the idea that the Bible is free from all error.AbstractOn the surface, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the affirmation of Stanley Grenz have much in common. Therefore, to insist that the bible has a doctrine of inerrancy that refers to facts is an inappropriate use of the term.Thirdly, Grenz insists that inerrancy is not necessary for a view of Scripture as authoritative. Howeverfor inerrancy to have a biblical meaning, it should be defined inductively[40] from the phenomena of Scripture.Inerrancy and biblical phenomenaApparent contradictions in Scripture, both textual and with modern science which must be addressed[41]. A prior commitment to inerrancy produces problematic, ad hoc hamonisations such as those of Lindsell[49], and sometimes disregards usual standards of evidence[50].Inerrancy in retreatIt is possible to claim that inerrancy applies only to matters of faith: “the infallible and necessary rule of truth”[51]. Likewise, Beegle sees degrees of inspiration with different purposes, whilst all the time being the word of God[67].Re-imaging inerrancyGrenz calls his modified inerrancy trustworthiness, which is similar to Farrow’s functional inerrancy and Garrett’s[68] dependability. Okholm (eds), Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004.John Bartkowski, Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture, Sociology of Religion 1996, 57:3, 259-272.Dewey Beegle, Inerrancy and the Phenomena of Scripture, in Readings in Christian Theology, Volume I The Living God, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973.Dewey M Beegle, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973.Donald G. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.Norman L Geisler (ed), Inerrancy, The Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979.John Goldingay, Models for Scripture, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994.Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, Wm B Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000.Michael A Grisnati, Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 44/4, 2001: 277-298.Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/ Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.Harold Lindsell., The Case of the Molten Sea, in The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1976.George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1987.Bruce L. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, 2005, SPCK, London.The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrance 1987, Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1987.[1] Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, Wm B Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000, p401.[2] For a useful introduction to concepts of validity and soundness in syllogisms, see Mike Adler’s article “How to be much cleverer than all your friends (so they really hate you) in the June/July 2005 issue of Philosophy Now.[3] Although this is too narrow a focus, to limit the biblical narrative simply to personal salvation. Why Grenz cannot affirm that Paul wrote this letter is not discussed![6] International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, 1978, Chicago, Illinois, p5.[7] Chicago Statement, summary statements 1 and 2.[8] Chicago Statement, statement 3, including all matters in creation (statement 4) such as the creation of the world and the Flood (Article XII).[9] Chicago Statement, p12.[10] Chicago Statement, p12.[11] Chicago Statement, statement 4, articles VI, IX.[12] Chicago Statement, article XI.[13] Chicago Statement, statement 5.[14] Chicago Statement , article XIX.[15] Chicago Statement, p11.[16] Chicago Statement, article X.[17] Chicago Statement, p12.[18] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998, p248.[19] Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F Wright (eds), New Dictionary of Theology, Inter Varsity Press, Leicester, England/ Downers Grove, Illinois, 1988, p337.[20] John Goldingay, Models for Scripture, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, p262.[21] Goldingay, p262-263.[22] “If there be any mistakes in the bible, there may well be a thousand. Goldingay, p264.[23] Goldingay, p265.[24] Note that Paul D Feinberg in his essay The Meaning of Inerrancy in Norman L Geisler (ed), Inerrancy, The Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979, p269 takes it for granted that inerrancy is orthodoxy (before he even defines it).[25] Whose obsession with the absolute accuracy of numbers insists upon inerrancy of every detail. Okholm (eds), Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004, p41.[31] Douglas Farrow, The Word of Truth and Disputes About Words, Carpenter Books, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1987, p128.[32] Bloesch, p91.[33] Farrow, p139.[34] Farrow, p28.[35] John Bartkowski, Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture, Sociology of Religion 1996, 57:3, 259-272.[36] Dockery, p66.[37] Erickson, Christian Theology, p255f.[38] Referring to Norman Geisler. Dewey Beegle, Inerrancy and the Phenomena of Scripture, in Readings in Christian Theology, Volume I The Living God, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973, p249f..[48] For example, Genesis 5. Erickson, Problem Areas Related to Biblical Inerrancy and Responses in The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrance 1987, Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1987, p183.[56] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/ Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994, p90.[57] Michael A Grisnati, Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 44/4, 2001: 277-298.[58] Grisnati, p590f.[59] If deutero-Isaiah were an important prophetic figure, why is he unnamed? Likewise, if unnamed prophets updated Isaiah, surely it is deception for them to claim it is his work alone?[60] Grenz, 401.[61] Farrow, p96.[62] Paul J Achtemeir, Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture, Hendrickon Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 1999, p94.[63] Farrow, p98-9.[64] Goldingay, p274.[65] Goldingay, p275.[66] Goldingay, p276.[67] Dewey M Beegle, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, p207.[68] James Leo Garrett, Jr, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical and Evangelical, Vol.
link
- Raising KaineHarris Miller in his own words - The Richmond DemocratWhy Harris Miller is wrong for Virginia in 2006 - The Richmond DemocratRemember, you can always get up to date commentary on Virginia’s political scene by visiting Lefty Blog’s Virginia page.Labels: Raising Kaine, Richmond Virginia
link
Let’s see how many more signatures we can collect in the next two days.The Last 48 HoursIf you live in the metro-Richmond area and have petition signatures you have had notarized and you would like to turn them in, here is the procedure for the last 48 hours:Monday — April 10th:Use overnight mail (FedEx, UPS, etc.) to send your notarized signatures to:Jim Webb for Senate1916 Wilson BLVDArlington VA 22216Attention: PeteI will also be at tonight’s meeting of the Henrico County Democratic Committee.Tuesday — April 11th:I will be collecting any remaining notarized petition sheets in Richmond and driving them up to Fairfax on Tuesday evening, April 11th.
link
I certainly couldn’t do a better job of debunking the book than Michael Berube does on a regular basis on his blog (of course, as someone actually listed as one of the 101 most dangerous professors, Berube is in an ideal position to take on Horowitz, and does so with elan and ironic humour, something his shrill and thin-skinned opponent is notably lacking. Granted, this does tend to come from the more hysterical of the pundits (Anne Coulter is perhaps the Senator from Wisconsin’s greatest advocate these days, though there are some revisionist histories in the works as well), but the fact that it rather neatly parallels the entire Bush-wiretapping issue is somewhat disturbing.It is still a fairly significant insult to be accused of McCarthyite tactics, and so the good Mr. Horowitz bristles rather quickly when anyone ventures to suggest that his book is all about naming names, though he is quite glib when it comes to accusing his detractors of tactics similar to those of Tailgunner Joe.With the frequency with which McCarthy’s name gets tossed around by people on both the left and the right, it’s only good and proper that we hear it with a grain of salt and see it for what it is most of the time: namely, a reified term that simply connotes a bad guy in a black hat, a cartoon villain whose identification as a bombastic crypto-fascist buffoon tends to go largely unexamined and unquestioned in the popular imagination — much in the same way that a Stephen Spielberg film uses Nazis as the bad guys, because they come with a whole series of qualities and traits that require no thought to decipher.The problem is that Horowitz’s tactics are genuinely McCarthyite. Herding cats is the phrase that comes to mind — any conspiracy by academics would be stillborn at the first meeting during the fight that would ensue over what to name the cabal.Further, the basis for Horowitz’s book is the idea that these professors are dangerous not so much for personal politics as for their indoctrination of their students into leftist and anti-American sentiments. When we think about it, conspiracy in its actual, documented forms as a criminal charge (conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to defraud) is something that is investigated and uncovered using inductive reasoning — that is, working from the particulars to a general rule (investigators uncover evidence, find connections, establish which connections are valid, and arrive at the shape of the conspiracy). Also undeniable however is the collateral damage done by HUAC to people whose only crime had been attending a meeting out of curiosity in the 1930s, or owning albumns by Paul Robeson, or having a next-door neighour who had confessed to marxist sympathies — people whose jobs were lost, who found themselves faced with the impossible choice of naming names they knew to be innocent or getting blacklisted.The point of the McCarthyite conspiracy theorizing however was manifestly not uncovering actual card-carrying communists so much as attacking the vestiages of 1930s-era, New Deal-style politics as manifested in the figure that so fired McCarthy’s hatred: the east-coast, Ivy League liberal intellectual. Yet, the continuum proceeds by increments, taking us from idiots like Professor Ward Churchill (who called the victims of 9/11 little Eichmanns) or a dictator like Fidel Castro, through well-respected academics like Cornell West or populist filmmakers like Michael Moore, to such innocuous celebrities like Streisand, Bruce Springsteen and Martin Sheen (the picture of Sheen, incidentally, is cropped from a publicity still from The West Wing).This particular page is, effectively, the entire site in microcosm.
link
What is remarkable about it is that despite being filmed using plasticine figures, it catches the humanity of Jesus more than any other film. Viewers familiar with a number of Jesus films will know that this is one of the issues that always come up when Jesus films are discussed. Whilst I believe the timing of this incident is not based on a specific historical incident, it does emphasise what most Jesus films miss - that Jesus’s execution was, from a Roman point of view, nothing out of the ordinary.Later on there we are shown the post-resurrection appearance to Cleopas and companion on the Road to Emmaus. Whilst some films have excluded it all together, such as Son of Man (1969), others have taken more creative, but ambiguous, interpretations (Jesus of Montreal, Jesus Christ Superstar, Last Temptation of Christ). Of those that have chosen to show a more literal interpretation, they have either given it relatively short shrift (Jesus of Nazareth) or eschewed the biblical accounts and replaced them with their own interpretations of what happened (The Passion of the Christ).In contrast, The Miracle Maker shows Mary finding the empty tomb (John 20:1)and then meeting the risen Jesus (John 20:11-18), Mary telling Peter, and him running to the tomb (John 20:2-7), Peter meeting Jesus (a fictionalised abbreviation of John 21:15-19), The Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), And the second appearance to the disciples, including Thomas (John 20:36-41), and the Ascension (Luke 24:48-53).I’ll post a full scene guide in a few days, but if you fancy watching a Jesus film at some point over the Easter period, and you haven’t seen this one yet, then I’d strongly recommend it.Edit [5:25pm]I’ve just noticed that Lesa Bellevie over at The Magdalene Review has also just seen this film and posted her comments on it.
link
Read the rest of this entry »