Why Judge Fleming Should Sanction and Fine the SF Standard for Contempt of Court

Why does the SF Standard believe in suppressing election information?

You get it.  You watch the news coverage of a trial and all that is shown is an artist’s sketch of the defendant.  On a high-profile case, you see the scrum of reporters and television cameras waiting in the lobby--outside of the courtrooms.  Or a celebrity defendant being whisked away from a courthouse by his attorney through a parted sea of media.   And you turn to your spouse and say, “Honey, I don’t think they allow cameras in courtrooms.”

Congratulations, you are more observant and knowledgeable of courtroom protections for witnesses than some of San Francisco news media editors.

By law, cameras are not allowed in court

The Judicial Branch of the California Courts established The Rules of the Courts.  Rule 1.150 covers “photographing, recording, and broadcasting in court.” 

·      Rule 1.150 (b) defines: “"Media coverage" as any photographing, recording, or broadcasting of court proceedings by the media using television, radio, photographic, or recording equipment.

·      Rule 1.150 (e) states: “Media coverage may be permitted only on written order of the judge as provided in this subdivision.” 

·      Rule 1.150 (f) fiats: “Any violation of this rule or an order made under this rule is an unlawful interference with the proceedings of the court and may be the basis for an order terminating media coverage, a citation for contempt of court, or an order imposing monetary or other sanctions as provided by law.”

The March 2024 judicial election

On March 5, 2024, voters will vote in the California presidential primary.  Also on the ballot is the election for San Francisco Superior Court judges.  Judge Michael Begert (incumbent) is being challenged by Albert “Chip” Zecher and Jean Roland, a 20-year veteran of the SF DA’s office is challenging Judge Patrick Thompson (incumbent).

While elections are generally about a candidate’s policies and political views, the decision to retain or replace a judge should be focused on judicial conduct.  During the recall of Chesa Boudin, progressives tried to distance themselves from Boudin’s indefensible track record by rationalizing, “I’m really just against recalls.”  Similarly, because progressives are unable to defend the decisions made by Judge Begert and Judge Thompson, they distract the public by whining that elections create candidates with preordained decisions that compromise their neutrality.  Sorry, there is long history of election challenges to sitting judges—think Rose Bird.

To properly inform voters on judges’ decisions, individuals have been monitoring court hearings.  This infuriates progressives, whom I guess, prefer voters to be left in the dark. 

Evidence the SF Standard broke the law to promote their candidates

On November 15, 2023, Jonah Lamb, a former investigator for the SF Public Defender’s Office, published An Anti-Crime Group is Watching Judges.  First, by the title of his article, we must assume Lamb is anti-anti-crime, which after my double negative translates to him being “pro crime.”  Second, Lamb was concerned that Hatun Noguera was monitoring judicial decisions and providing transparency—meaning Lamb is both pro-crime and anti-transparency.   

Included in Lamb’s article was a photograph of Hatsun Noguera (below) and two other witnesses while they were actually in court. 

This photograph appeared in the SF Standard. They claiming was taken on November 7, 2023 in Department 20.

The photo was taken by the SF Standard’s Jason Henry in Department 20 on November 7, 2023.  The presiding judge would have been Judge Eric Fleming, who is not up for election until November 2026.   The targeted witness was not inadvertently caught in the background of a photograph, the SF Standard intentionally photographed Noguera for their hit piece.

Think of the legislative intent of Rule 1.150.  Taking a photograph of witnesses is a form of witness intimidation.  What would Lamb have written if law enforcement photographed gang members in the court’s gallery?  Intimidation?  Yet Lamb’s article was about intimidating Noguera from obtaining election information on active and future candidates.  Or, worded differently, the SF Standard and Lamb committed unlawful acts to suppress the dissemination of election information to voters.

The SF Standard follows me on Twitter.  On November 15, 2023, I posted on Twitter this apparent violation of the law.  However, the photograph was never removed from their website.

Without permission, this was an “unlawful interference with the court proceedings.”

.

First a PRR evidences the SF Standard lied about a document, now a PRR proves they broke the law

In an October 4, 2023 article, anonymous SF Standard writers claimed they obtained information into the confidential investigation of an SFPD officer when that information was temporarily published unredacted on the SF Police Commission website.  Here’s a screenshot documenting the SF Standard’s actual passage:

The SF Police Commission’s response to my public records request refuted the SF Standard’s claim the officer’s name appeared unredacted on their website.  It never happened; they merely fabricated the complete incident to protect their source.^[1] 

Ironically, when the SF Standard’s entire story was dependent upon the integrity of a single piece of evidence, they neglected to substantiate their fortuitous discovery with a simple screenshot.  Yet when the same media group wanted to do a hit piece on someone with differing political views, they were willing to break the law to document their findings with a photograph. You can’t make this stuff up.

With regards to the SF Standard’s photographs from inside a courtroom, there is an exception.  A photographer must complete two forms, and submit them to the judge for approval five days prior to the hearing.  For me to rule out the SF Standard had met this exception, on December 8, 2023 I inquired to Department 20 whether the requisite forms had been submitted.  Department 20 informed me that no such documents from the SF Standard were received by Judge Fleming. 

Judge Fleming must now determine the SF Standard was in contempt of court and sanction them under Rule 1.150 (f).

How to apply an investment adage on the decision to vote for the judicial challengers

Despite the gigantic impact of judges’ decisions, and some of their intense affinities to mental health diversion, voter information on judicial decisions is hard to come by.

On Wall Street, there is a saying follow the smart money.  However, since I don’t hang around smart people,^[2]I’ve tweaked the saying to; do the opposite of the dumb money.  What is dumb money?   Late adopters.  The person that just heard about a great investment at a party last week.  The shoeshine boy giving Joe Kennedy stock investment advice on the eve of the Crash of ’29.

Likewise, you can apply the do-the-opposite concept to the pro-crime, anti-transparency SF Standard’s advocacy.  I am not implying the SF Standard writers are dumb.  Unaware?  Duh, why am I the only one taking photographs here in court?  Blinded by their biases? Oh yeah!  Trustworthy?  Nah, they rigged false stories about the release of unredacted government documents that never occurred to protect their apparent leaker.  Do you trust an organization that does that?

The decision on which judges to vote for is really a simple one: vote the opposite of who the SF Standard endorses.

---

^[1] This investigative case had been assigned to Police Commissioner Max Carter-Oberstone.  Amazingly, the SF Standard never wrote about the unredacted/redacted version until Carter-Oberstone concocted the excuse on Twitter first (below).  Presumably, Carter-Oberstone, is the SF Standard’s source and leaked the confidential information to them, which is a criminal violation of the Brown Act.

^[2] Birds of feather flock together?