11

User Iñaki Viggers seems to bear a grudge against a particular Michigan Judge, whom he sardonically mocks and denounces in several lengthy postings on his blog.

In Viggers accepted answer to Are there any indication that article 112 of anti narcotic laws in Indonesia are meant for “dealers” rather than “users”?, he derails a question about Indonesian law with an illustration about said Michigan Judge, peppered with various insulting opinions like:

  • "...her JD designation stands for Juris Drugstore instead of Juris Doctor..."

  • "...this felon judge..."

...and so forth.

If this were advertising a (non-relevant) product, it would make sense to flag it as spam. Here the "product" is some kind of crusade or grudge.

How should answers of this sort, (i.e. "Down with Official X from Region Y!"), be handled?

  • What, is law.meta.SE now used for public shaming of users? – User37849012643 Apr 2 at 23:38
  • @StephanS, If the question was of a more general sort, a pronoun could be used instead of the username, and the details abstracted. But without first seeing an actual example, readers might suppose the question was improbable and contrived. – agc Apr 3 at 5:04
  • The flag button gives you the chance to report "rude or abusive" answers to a question, this allows moderators to take appropriate actions. Bringing up actions taken by a user off-site is irrelevant. Community member's actions are judged by the actions they take on Law.SE, not actions taken on other sites. I agree with you that this answer as inappropriate, but Law.SE has a flag button option for this. – User37849012643 Apr 3 at 6:11
  • @StephanS, Thanks. Off-site data sometimes can provide context to help distinguish between good faith and bad faith answers. In this instance the off-site data was linked to in an answer, and would be all the more relevant. FWIW, I had flagged the answer, (but not as abusive, since it was directed against a third party and public figure), and found the response time slow enough that it seemed uncertain whether Law.SE's extant categories applied to such circumstance. Perhaps the text for the "abuse" flag needs improvement. – agc Apr 3 at 15:10
18

Bringing up irrelevant personal vendettas is an insult to the standards Stack Exchange is meant to adhere to, and the audience who has to read through it to get any useful information (including to know that the entirety of the useful topical information has already ended).

A single post of this kind should be flagged as rude or abusive, because that's what it is, and/or edited to remove the material.

A pattern of such posts should normally be met with further flags and eventually a warning or suspension, as a clear breach of multiple policies and the terms and conditions applying to Stack Exchange.

7

It is Stack Exchange policy that we Be Nice - as per this Meta question and answer I would expect that such answers be edited to remove any non-compliant, non-essential content of this kind, regardless of the user or their target.

-10

I was wondering why my answer on that post is getting so many downvotes lately, but now I see this question. Some clarifications are in place.

First, you are stretching the notions of spam, product, and advertisement. When pertinent, I include in my answers one or more links where the audience can find further information. Sometimes it is case law, other times it is the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, etc., and other times is some post --from my blog-- that encapsulates various related sources. I do so because in the past others have falsely derided that my statements are "not" factually supported.

Second, "felon judge" is not an "opinion". In line with what I explained to you there, the misconduct at issue is classified as felony even in that judge's own jurisdiction. Putting my predictable opinion aside, "felon" is a factual attribute in that specific matter. It is supported by a (publicized) police report and what the statutory law currently is.

Third, my criticism in the blog you cite is not about just one "particular Michigan Judge". Admittedly, that "particular" Michigan judge is mentioned most often there. That is because my personal knowledge, court documents, and litigation experience in her courtroom enable me to highlight items that may go unnoticed by journalists who report her deplorable acts. But I have some material regarding other judges as well; I just haven't had time to work on it, whereas content about that "particular" Michigan judge is more publication-ready, so to speak.

Fourth, you seem indignant by the sardonicism I use in some of my denouncements. Your reproach is indicative of the enviable, good news that you have never been blatantly deprived you of your rights by unfit judges. But I had that unfortunate experience, and I am sincerely proud of how I have handled it during that time and ever since then:

Modesty aside, at all times I've had more dignity than what judicial nominee Brett Kavanaugh displayed during his Senate hearing(s). Unlike him, I never cried in my hearings and never threw tantrums such as the current "Justice" threw during his Senate hearing(s). Unlike him, I didn't even have the privilege of dozens of Senators patting on my shoulder as my rights were unlawfully taken away. For a lot less, that judicial nominee fell much lower than a plain civilian like me (or like many of us). And there are some people whose reaction to adversities is even worse than Brett Kavanaugh's (and impliedly, much worse than mine): those end up mistreating their loved ones or --in extreme, tragic instances-- engaging in shootings. Putting things in perspective, the fact that you can only recriminate my criticism and the evidence I provide therefor is a good thing.

Fifth, I did not derail the question about Indonesian law. I addressed the OP's question, and only thereafter I brought that "particular Michigan judge" to topic. The ramifications of such real-life example served me to substantiate "the importance that legislative terms such as possession and store remain unqualified". That remark of mine pertains to Indonesia's and any country's legislation of narcotics (the topic of that question). You should not miss someone's point only because the violator being discussed is a judge.

We hear all the time --from the judiciary-- the slogans of preserving the appearance of justice and the "avoidance of conduct that is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice" (MCR 9.205(B)). The denouncements I occasionally make are reflections that the appearance of justice (if not justice itself) oftentimes is grossly missing in some instances. That is inextricable from questions about what the law is and/versus how it is applied (if at all). Accordingly, this type of premised answers is within the scope of Law SE.

  • 4
    Re "felon": US law presumes innocence; a blog is not a court of law, nor SE.Law or a police report. – agc Mar 31 at 21:49
  • @agc You are confusing "felon" and "convicted of a felony". See the legal definition of "felon" in the Black's Law Dictionary. – Iñaki Viggers Mar 31 at 21:51
  • 4
    Repeatedly you have claimed that a single police report constitutes good grounds to cry "felon!" But that's not necessarily compelling evidence, since police are no more unerring than judges. – agc Apr 1 at 3:21
  • @agc With due respect, on whom do you think I (or any reasonable person) will rely: (1) someone's sudden & unfounded attempts to deny the judge's crime, or (2) a police report that was undisputed by the busted felon and then reinforced in a letter where the prosecutor states that "the evidence supported the filing of criminal charges for the possession of controlled substances that were to her"? I'm sure you saw that letter when you visited the blog you now denounce. – Iñaki Viggers Apr 1 at 10:38
  • 5
    A prosecutor's opinion of a police report is not evidence, anymore than a movie review is a movie. – agc Apr 1 at 15:55
  • @agc Again, the discovery was undisputed by the busted felon. The trivial attempt of "analogy" (police report = movie) indicates a lack of knowledge of a prosecutor's job & background, more so about the specifics of that matter. Also, your insistence to advocate for that "particular" judge is bizarre, but basically the position you are taking is indefensible and only calls for highlighting/revisiting the aberrations of keeping individuals like that in the judiciary. – Iñaki Viggers Apr 1 at 18:48
  • 5
    It's sometimes much better not to dispute, particularly when there's no actual prosecution. See also nolo contendere: Michigan for the formal version, though it might not have been used, (let alone have been necessary), in this instance. To summarize: US law presumes innocence, police may err, prosecutorial opinion is not evidence, and under US law a no-contest plea (whether formal or tacit) does not equal guilt. – agc Apr 1 at 22:28
  • 12
    Your assessment that your content falls within the scope of Law.SE is incorrect; this is not a place for you to proselytise your indignation against the judiciary. While I would not argue that the law is perfect, this is a site about answering questions about the law as it is, not what (you believe) the law should be; nor is it a place for you to advance your vendetta against a particular judge (you claim it is not just about one judge, but it seems you can't resist using her in your examples). You have a blog for your rants; Be Nice. – jimsug Apr 2 at 3:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .