Judge Lisa Greif vs. Judge Joe Charter

The campaign for Judge Greif's re-election begins. 

Today, a close look at Orestar, the Oregon system for observing campaign contributions and expenditures.

Usually sitting judges in the state court system are re-elected without opposition.  Not this time.

Shocking text messages Judge Greif wrote to a local litigant were revealed in the routine "discovery" process.

The texts revealed both intemperate animus against a fellow judge and active involvement in the legal and media strategy of a litigant with an active case against a defendant. The defendant was a nonprofit agency that provided services to her own local court.

The texts' profanity added to their startling effect. 

Attorneys who contacted this blog noted that the litigant Greif aided appeared regularly in front of the court's judges, including both Judge Greif and the fellow judge that Greif referred to as a "bitch" and a "witch." Greif wrote that she wished to "body slam" the fellow judge.

Attorneys told me comments of that kind undermine the respect that is an essential element of a court's legitimacy. Moreover, her texts revealed that she gave active support and counsel to this litigant in both her legal and media strategy, revealing her purpose of extracting a better settlement offer from the defendant to stop the drumbeat of stories in local media. These actions were inconsistent with the need for court officers to be, and appear to be, impartial, they said.

Who said? Lots of people.

Judges are dangerous to annoy, especially if one is an attorney.

Just because a judge does something shocking and inappropriate does not mean he or she will be opposed for re-election. Lawyers with business before a court don't want to stir up trouble for themselves or their clients by criticizing a judge or running against them. Attorneys who contacted this blog asked to remain anonymous. They said her comments were indefensible, but let someone else speak up.

The Oregon Orestar system is transparent. Campaign contributions and expenditures are required to be  posted promptly. Anyone can go to Orestar and see who has an active campaign, evidenced by who is raising and spending money. Here is a link:

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/gotoPublicTransactionSearchResults.do

In the box that says Filer/Committee type in Greif.  Or Charter. Then push the gray "Search" button in the upper right. 

Normally, the risk to an attorney would be to have ones name associated with a challenger. In this cycle, the polarity may be reversed. The problem is not that Charter is a Judge of the Justice Court. Few attorneys appear before a court that deals primarily with traffic issues. The risk is that an attorney who openly endorses or contributes to Greif may appear to be acknowledging that Greif's behavior was acceptable, "good enough" for local courts. I have not yet encountered any attorney who openly says that Judge Greif was right, that she showed judicial temperament, that she has the composure expected of a judge, that she brought dignity to the court, or that her behavior undermining a fellow judge and giving assistance to a litigant was perfectly fine.

Some may emerge. 

But in any case, all contributors above $100 for every candidate will be right there available for any citizen to observe. So far, no names have appeared on Orestar for her. Greif has raised a total of $50, an amount under the threshold of giving names. She has raised and spent essentially no money beyond what appears to be cleanup from her prior uncontested campaign. 

Joe Charter appears to have an active campaign. He loaned his committee $40,000 in seed money and then another $10,000. He is spending money on what appears to be professional help to have an internet presence and other campaign materials. He has begun raising money from Mary Cody, Carol Voisin, and from local attorney Damian Idiart. Charter's campaign appears to be up and running.

Out of state readers tell me they have little interest in my description of local races like this, but let me relate this to a bigger issue. Courts do not have armies. Their power rests entirely on their legitimacy and the respect they have. Executives who command police forces and militaries, or legislatures which have the power of the purse, have mechanisms for asserting their will. The courts have only the power of belief, that when they assert something is fair and right, people will accept it, even if it is against their interest. People need to believe the court system and its judges are reasonable, fair, unbiased people, or else the system collapses.

Reputation matters because legitimacy matters.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson is in the news today having just decided that Roger Stone should go to prison for 40 months. It was news, because the political branches of the government were weighing in on what she should do. She wrote that the case before her "exemplifies why it is that this system, for good reason, demands that the responsibility falls to someone neutral."

In the future this blog will review the actual text messages that led to Presiding Judge Gerking saying he was "certainly disappointed" and that the "thoughts expressed in the texts are inappropriate and fall short of what we expect from a judge." But the subject of this post is the campaign and why it matters.

The office is an important one, and this campaign should enjoy the same transparency as legislative and county commission races. A campaign has begun. As of this moment, Joe Charter has a real campaign. Lisa Greif does not.

                                                                            --------

Here are links to two blog posts that give the background on this story:  

                

A sample of her texts are available here:  Click Greif: "I also wanted to kill Crain today. . . "

Greif's and Gerking's verbatim responses are here: Click. Gerking: "Certainly disappointed."


Note: i am married to an attorney. No one but me decides what goes into this blog, most certainly not my wife. She doesn't even read my blog.