Atty XX <attorneyxx@gmail.com>
to: senator@smith.senate.gov, jeff_lomonaco@smith.senate.gov, Gohar_Sedighi@smith.senate.gov, Ed_shelleby@smith.senate.gov,
senator@klobuchar.senate.gov, Elizabeth_Peluso@klobuchar.senate.gov, Elizabeth_Farrar@klobuchar.senate.gov
date: Apr 20, 2020, 8:02 AM
subject: Ain’t Misbehavin’
mailed-by: gmail.com
I am writing to inform you of, what I consider, an ongoing outrage that has continued for essentially eight years. What you will do about this “misbehavior” (Article III, Section I) remains to be seen. According to your public personae, “Klobuchar knows the struggles that all ambitious women face at work” and “Tina Smith” ... a “strong advocate” and “staunch champion for women's rights,” etc. etc. Let's see.
Back in late 2017, I sent emails to a women lawyers association and a law school dean, in positions suited to take steps to start a correction of this Article III infection. At most, they put a band aid on it and covered it up.
For over five years, from May 2012, this Ninth Circuit District judge, Alsup, had a Twitter posting (attached) referring to certain people as “pussies,” who used a particular software technique and evidently weren't up to his manly software standards. How ironic on several levels. He also likes “old men” age-dissing talk and hood talk, “fool.” This stuff is revolting enough in normal circumstances, but publicly, from an Article III judge?
In October and November 2017, I sent the emails I mentioned. No response. However, Alsup's account was deleted some months later in 2018 (now says, "suspended," which makes me wonder whether some contrived "denial"might have been made). Here's one email I sent, with recipient identifying information deleted — for now:
Attached is a screenshot of the twitter site: https://twitter.com/askalsup?lang=en
where Judge Alsup of the NDCA wrote, "DI [dependency injection] is for pussies."
Does this matter to you? It matters to me a lot. I'll tell you why. I find it revolting that an Article III judge would publicly display such an adolescent and contemptuous attitude, especially in a written setting where he had time to contemplate what he was writing and, further, where he would leave it posted for five years. I don't have to tell you about the stature and power of an Article III judge and how women parties and attorneys appear in front of him and, apparently, appear to him.
Back in 1989, the cover, "Has Silicon Valley Gone Pussy," killed Upside magazine. Why is a federal judge's similar disparagement any more acceptable? It's not acceptable at all.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=86895&page=1
I write this email anonymously because in my current situation I have too much to lose by not doing so anonymously. Without, I hope, presuming too much, I would think that ### Law, with its Women of ### Law organization would want to take a public stand on Judge Alsup's behavior. After all,
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability/faqs-filing-judicial-conduct-or-disability-complaint
You may complain about actions taken by a judge outside his or her official role as a judge only if “the conduct might have a prejudicial effect on the administration of the business of the courts, including a substantial and widespread lowering of public confidence in the courts among reasonable people.”
I believe this is directly applicable to such a repugnant statement from an Article III judge, and such a lowering of confidence should, in particular, be felt by all of ###'s women -- and, I would hope, men too.
The junior high, misogynistic “humor” brazenly public by an Article III judge mattered enough for his account to be deleted or suspended, but he's still on the bench.
I'd guess that, through back channels, Alsup was told that deleting it would be wise. That, doesn’t solve the real problem, of course. His resignation would have been a real start.
Now, I am calling it to your attention. That Alsup was not called out on this, shows, I think, just how seriously woman lawyers in positions of power or influence really take their commitment to calling incontrovertibly demeaning behavior from the judiciary for what it is. Not seriously enough to stand up to an Article III judge. Except when something may have occurred at a high school party 40 years ago, according to faded and contradictory memories.
That's all I have to say. For now. The question is: what are you going to do about this inexcusable junior high boy, Alsup?
How does this compare with Franken? For one thing, Franken didn't have lifetime tenure with “absolute independence” and the power to ruin individuals at whim, dontcha know. So whatcha gonna do?