RRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTT!!!!!

His conduct wasn't that offensive - the Appeals Court needs to loosen up - that's a red card for them.

You can't copy text?
Have you heard of Acrobat's OCR features?
or cutting and pasting an image?

10:20,

Your mom can't copy text.

Sincerely,

Jesus, your mom's Mexican lover

so wait. this judge gets admonished and whole new trial gets ordered (that's good)....
but O.J. goes free???

Didn't anyone watch what a joke Ito was during the trial? How unprofessional the entire trial was?

He should have been smacked down, too! New trial! Ah, California!

(And yes, I am aware of double jeopardy. Tongue-in-cheek....but serious, too)

so wait. this judge gets admonished and whole new trial gets ordered (that's good)....
but O.J. goes free???

Didn't anyone watch what a joke Ito was during the trial? How unprofessional the entire trial was?

He should have been smacked down, too! New trial! Ah, California!

(And yes, I am aware of double jeopardy. Tongue-in-cheek....but serious, too)

That's awesome!

I think his honor is on to something with those soccer-style penalty cards. Nothing like summarily handing out mini-Rule 11 sanctions.

10:20 is right. Just use the "convert document to OCR" feature of Adobe and then you will be able to copy etc.

What the hell does Jesus have to do with it???

Judge brooks = MY HERO

Kash,
10:20 is right, if you're a paralegal and you can't OCR text, I don't know how you're employed.

oh my:

In 1996, Judge Brooks received an advisory letter addressing, in part, the
judge's comments reflecting ethnic bias: referring to Hispanic defendants as "Pedro";
issuing a bench warrant for an Asian defendant for "ten thousand dollars or twenty
thousand yen"; and stating to an undocumented Hispanic defendant, "[ylou have more
names than the Tijuana telephone book." In 1999, Judge Brooks received another
advisory letter for remarks to a defendant at the conclusion of a preliminary hearing
about how the judge would have handled an assault on a member of his own family:
"I would go down and punch [the defendant's] lights out," and that instead of calling
the police, it would be, "touch them, you die." In 2003, Judge Brooks received a
private admonishment for conduct including referring to the parties in a case, the
operators of a mobile home park, as b'Nazis" and analogizing their actions to that of the
Nazis during the Holocaust. In another matter also included as a basis for the private
admonishment, in the course of denying plaintiffs motion to exclude reference to his
status as an undocumented alien, Judge Brooks made remarks conveying his
stereotypes of undocumented aliens, including that they place burdens on taxpayers by
receiving benefits to which they are not entitled. The judge referred to the defendant's
physician as "this good doctor." The appellate court reversed Judge Brooks's ruling in
that case, and based its reversal in part on the appearance of bias. (Hernandez v.
Paicius (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 452.) In 2006, Judge Brooks received a public
admonishment for conduct including telling a litigant who claimed to have failed to
appear for his deposition due to a heart condition, "I wonder what's going to happen
when we put you in jail, Mr. McMahon. Your little ticker might stop, you think?"
Later, after imposing a fine on Ms. McMahon, Judge Brooks stated, "I'd mention jail
but it might give her a heart attack." (Palacio Del Mar Homeowners Assoc. v.
McMahon, No. 0 1CC 14684.) The 2006 public admonishment was also based on
comments Judge Brooks made during a hearing in the case of Vinci Investments Co.,
Inc. v. Joher, et al., No. 04CC04522.) Defendant Joe Joher had allegedly transferred
business property into his mother's and his wife's name instead of transferring it to
plaintiff. Referring to the mother, Judge Brooks stated that, ". . . a lady that, in her own
country - I put a question mark; I know it's Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon - probably a
very nice lady, probably doesn't know how much she owns, I don't think." Later,
Judge Brooks stated that defendant Joher transferred, "much of the businesslproperty
into the name of defendant 'Joe' Joher's wife, who, in her native Syria (?) probably
wouldn't be allowed to own property." The commission found that Judge Brooks's
conduct in the Vinci and the Joher cases violated canons 2A, and 3B(4).

Woo hoo! None of you bitches took my name! Anonamiss is here.

1:30 did, however, make the comment-I-was-planning-on-leaving unfunny by showing that the judge is not funny, but tasteless.