Sunday, December 8, 2013

Clark Peterson's Woes

The other day +Erik Tenkar posted this on his blog referencing this newspaper article on Peterson. 

Clark and I have had our differences of opinion in years past, but I genuinely feel bad for the guy for this. Every nutjob who ever stood before him in court and lost, is now going to claim it was because Clark was on the bench slaying dragons in his mind.

Clearly someone is trying to do a hatchet job on Clark here. He either pissed someone off, screwed the wrong person over--intentionally or not, or someone just wants his job, plain and simple. That's what's really behind all this. They are using the nutjobs, from the paragraph above, to make the stink from below.

And if there is nothing that a judicial branch of government hates more than a stink on its reputation. It doesn't matter that Clark did nothing wrong, technically. The appearance of impropriety is enough to get the higher ups in judicial to put pressure on him to step down. We have enough of that here, along with the nutjobs pressuring from below, to get that pressure applied.

I hope Clark make it through this, but it will depend on how much stink and pressure are generated, and how badly the guy who ordered the hatchet job wants Clark out, and how much clout he has.

It's all politics and power plays. And that's a shame.

Edit to add: Don't read that much into his personal finances. In divorces today it is common to have to claim bankruptcy to get out of debt. You used to be able to refinance to do that, and also to get one person off of the note, but with housing values shot to hell, that's not usually possible anymore. Also, a second mortgage I would bet is part of the dividing up the household assets as part of the divorce. There may not have been enough liquidity to do so without it. Lastly, tons of people who run their own businesses owe the gvt taxes. Expecially in this economy, its hard to gauge how much to put aside, and if things take a downturn, its easier to dip into the tax money and pay the rent to keep the business going, hoping it will pick up and you can replenish what you took, rather than to close up the business. What he owes isn't a lot at all.

3 comments:

Joseph Bloch said...

I read it as someone who was dissatisfied with a ruling trying to build a case to overturn it (flimsy and BS as that case might be). Not so much as someone out to get him personally, or someone that he "screwed over".

Joe D said...

Call me paranoid, but I never believe the person mentioned in the article is behind the thing. I always assume they are a pawn of someone.

Joshua said...

I am reminded of the line from the Curse of Chalion: "On the average one half of all supplicants to come before a judge's bench must depart angry and disappointed. But not, by that, necessarily wronged."