Our State Motto

By storch ~ January 22nd, 2010 @ 12:58 PM No Comments »

Esse Quam Videri: A motto and sound  advice for us all.

north_carolina_state_seal2The State Seal of North Carolina contains the motto adopted in 1893 “esse quam videri” which is often translated as “to be rather than to seem.” This statement, is however, only part of a line taken from Cicero’s essay “On Friendship” or “Laelius de Amicitia” which was written in 44 A.D. (Chapter 26).

The full quote is: Virtute enim ipsa non tam multi praediti esse quam videri volunt. And this may be translated as: Fewer possess virtue than those who wish us to believe that they possess it. The rest of the passage continues:

It is such people that take delight in flattery. When they are addressed in language expressly adapted to flatter their vanity, they look upon such empty persiflage as a testimony to the truth of their own praises. It is not then properly friendship at all when the one will not listen to the truth, and the other is prepared to lie. Nor would the servility of parasites in comedy have seemed humorous to us had there been no such things as braggart captains.

In this work, Cicero is discussing the nature of genuine friendship. A friendship not based upon pleasure, or utility, for those are easily formed and easily dissolved. Once we stop receiving pleasure from the other person, the friendship ceases. Too many couples today mistake pleasure as the basis for marriage and that is the number one reason given by people seeking a divorce these days. “He or she doesn’t make me happy anymore.” It’s no wonder that divorce rates in the U.S. are near 60%.

The same holds for utility, i.e., benefit. The employer/employee relationship is based upon this kind of friendship or civility where the relationship exists only because of a mutual benefit.  Once the benefit ceases, the relationship is soon to dissolve.  How long would you keep working for your current employer if you no longer received a paycheck at the end of the week? Your boss really isn’t your friend, at least not a genuine friend.

It is the friendship based upon virtue, a reciprocity of good will and affection for the other, that is Cicero’s concern. It is this genuine regard that one has for the other, as one is concerned with oneself, that makes life worth living. Were a man to have every good that life has to offer, e.g., health, wealth, riches, and good fortune, but not have a single genuine friend with whom to share those goods, his life would remain a life not worth living. Think about it. When something wonderful happens to us, we meet the girl of our dreams, land the job we’ve been trying to get for years, what’s the first thing we do? We call a friend. Imagine having all the good fortune in the world but no one to call? No one to share the good news with?

For Cicero, at the core of a genuine friendship lies virtue, the ability to do the right action, consistently as a matter of habit. Virtue is a permanent character trait that is the result of a lifetime of hard work and experience. It is life and the plethora of experiences, both good and bad, that teach us how to be virtuous. And it is wisdom that also comes from learning those hard lessons. In other words, virtue is essentially linked with truth. Learning to be virtuous and capable of developing genuine friendship requires a respect for the truth. It requires the ability to make decisions about how to act that are fully in accord with the truth.

And that is the meaning of our state motto: Be wary of those who tell us what we like to hear rather than those who tell us the truth about ourselves. If we surround ourselves with “yes men” we deprive ourselves of learning the truth, about ourselves and about others. And ultimately, we deprive ourselves of the capacity for friendship.

NCGS § 144-2. State motto. The words “esse quam videri” are hereby adopted as the motto of this State, and as such shall be engraved on the great seal of North Carolina and likewise at the foot of the coat of arms of the State as a part thereof. On the coat of arms, in addition to the motto, at the bottom, there shall be inscribed at the top the words, “May 20th, 1775.” (1893, c. 145; Rev., s. 5320; C.S., s. 7536.)

No Judicial Performance Evaluation Results This Year, Again

By storch ~ January 12th, 2010 @ 12:35 PM No Comments »

In a statement from the President of the North Carolina Bar Association released today, January 12, 2010, it was announced that the results of the 2009 Judicial Performance Evaluation will again remain private to those judges who receive their “report cards.”  All judges are urged to keep their results “in confidence.”

For full details, click here.

Some Clarification on Storch’s “Zero Contribution Campaign”

By storch ~ January 10th, 2010 @ 3:43 PM No Comments »

I’ve recently received feedback and comments from many respected members in the community casting doubts on the viability of my campaign.  Traditional opinion is that a political campaign needs to raise as much money as possible in order to be successful.  Therefore, since I am not raising or seeking external funding and have sworn to a threshold (<$3,000 in spending), I must not be serious about winning.

First and foremost, let it be clear that I am 100% earnest in winning this election and I am not simply trying to make a point by seeking out a minority “protest vote.”

My campaign has been in the works since the summer of 2008 and not accepting funding is more than something to set me apart from the other candidates but is the result of serious consideration and I have written several essays on this subject.  (click here for link)

The values I hold most dearly and attribute to the independence of the judiciary dictate that I do not accept financial contributions from anyone who might appear in my courtroom.  Given that more than 70% of judicial campaign funding comes from attorneys who regularly appear in any given judge’s courtroom, I have chosen to maintain my moral integrity by keeping the courtroom as neutral as possible with respect to any attorney that will appear before me.

This position is reinforced by the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Caperton v. Massey. (click for link to this article)

So how do I expect to get votes?  I think bombarding the public with bulk mailings filled with political doublespeak and worn out euphemisms is an insult to the intelligent voters of Durham.  Ironically, I am already receiving campaign literature from other District Court Judge candidates asking me to support their campaigns!  This only goes to prove my point of the inefficiency of the traditional approach.

In contrast, I expect to earn the trust and confidence of voters by going to them directly.  If you are a registered voter in Durham, expect me to come knocking on your door and introducing myself in person and addressing any questions and concerns you may have about our judicial system directly.

The bottom line is that a vote for Storch is not a “novelty vote” but a vote that represents more than the traditional approach to judicial campaigning.  It represents a vote for a higher standard.

If voters feel compelled to believe that in order for a candidacy to be legitimate that campaign must raise money, I’ll offer a solution:  Vote for Storch in the upcoming primary and then make out a check to any local charity.  The Durham Rescue Mission; Urban Ministries, Reality Ministries; and the John Avery Boys and Girls Club are a few worthy local causes that come to mind.  And in the memo section of the check, indicate that the donation is in honor of the Committee to Elect Storch.

Mailing addresses are:

Urban Ministries
412 Liberty Street
Durham, NC 27701-3408
Durham Rescue Mission
P.O. Box 11858
Durham, NC 27703
Reality Ministries
PO Box 242
Durham, NC 27702
John Avery Boys & Girls Clubs, Inc.
PO Box 446
Durham, North Carolina 27701

Or any other local charity you wish to help out.

For further reading on the ethical perils of judicial campaign financing, read: Judicial Campaign Financing: An Ever Present Threat to Judicial Independence

The State Bar will not rate North Carolina’s Judges

By storch ~ December 31st, 2009 @ 5:38 PM No Comments »

On Dec 22, the North Carolina State Bar released a statement that it will not go ahead with initial plans to rate judges on a simple “qualified/unqualified” rating scale.

The Bar cites an insufficient number of responses to the survey taken during the summer of 2009.  However, in an earlier public release, the Bar stated that 3,140 responses were received and never intimated that this was an insufficient data pool.

The most recent announcement also indicates that preliminary results were given to judges and requests that no one use those results in the upcoming election.

For the official announcement, click here.

Supreme Court Decides Caperton v. Massey

By storch ~ December 31st, 2009 @ 2:52 PM 1 Comment »

On June 9, 2009, the United State Supreme Court handed down a decision on Caperton v. Massey, a case involving a West Virginia Supreme Court Judge who refused to recuse himself despite receiving campaign donations from one of the parties appearing before him.  With the exception of a few judicial websites, like the Brennan Center for Justice, commentary and discussion regarding the consequences of this ruling have been remiss.

What happened in Caperton v. Massey?

In Massey, an attorney, Brent Benjamin, was running for a Supreme Court Justice seat in West Virginia.  Because contributions made to his campaign committee exceeded 3 million dollars, he was able to run an all-out mud slinging campaign against the then seated judge, Warren McGraw.  What is important to note is that these contributions were made by the C.E.O. of A.T. Massey Coal Company.

A.T. Massey Coal Co. was subsequently involved in a law suit filed by Hugh Caperton, of Harman Mining.  The  jury found in favor of Caperton and awarded $50 million in damages.

The case was appealed and found itself in the West Virginia Supreme Court, before, guess who?  Judge Benjamin.  Of course, Caperton petitioned to have judge Benjamin recuse himself from the case, given the large contributions made by A.T. Massey’s C.E.O..  Benjamin declined and was ultimately part of the 3 to 2 majority that overturned the $50 million verdict.

Caperton appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy called the appearance of conflict of interest so “extreme” that Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself constituted a threat to the plaintiff’s Constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also noted that “Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s recusal, but this is an exceptional case. We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias—based on objective and reasonable perceptions—when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge’s election campaign when the case was pending or imminent.”

“The inquiry,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “centers on the contribution’s relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election.”

Applying that test, Justice Kennedy ruled for the Court that “Blankenship’s significant and disproportionate influence—coupled with the temporal relationship between the election and the pending case—”‘ “offer a possible temptation to the average . . . judge to . . . lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true.”‘ “On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level.”

What are the Implications of this Ruling?

Some states are instituting limitations on local judges, e.g., District Court Judges, requiring them to recuse themselves from hearing any case where either party has contributed more than a specified threshold amount to that judge’s campaign.  Texas, for example, has set that amount to $1,000.00 for smaller districts and $2,500 for larger ones.

Other states have introduced legislation to prevent candidates for District Court Judge from accepting any monetary donations by changing the process from an electoral one to one by appointment.

Implications for Durham

District Court campaigns in Durham have historically spent tens of thousands of dollars, with some recent campaigns reaching more than thirty thousand dollars.  This is a relatively small amount compared to the millions that are raised for statewide positions.  But by comparison, contributions made by some local attorneys reach significant percentage of the total campaign budget.  For example, in one recent campaign, the judicial candidate raised approximately ten thousand dollars.  One local attorney contributed $750 to that campaign, which amounts to a substantial 7.5% contribution.

It is hard to believe that the judicial candidate won’t remember that significant contribution when that attorney appears in that judge’s courtroom after the election.

I have promised to not accept campaign contributions from anyone for exactly the reasons brought to light by Caperton v. Massey.  This is the policy I have adopted at the outset of my campaign back in 2008, long before the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Not because it merely avoids the appearance of impropriety but because it is the morally correct thing to do and the only way to preserve judicial fairness, integrity, and objectivity.

And I challenge my opposition to do the same.

Want to know where my opposition’s money is coming from?  Click here (coming in February)

Storch is sworn in as a Magistrate in Durham County

By storch ~ November 18th, 2009 @ 8:21 PM No Comments »

Tuesday, November 17, 2009. It was a nondescript ceremony conducted in the Chief District Court Judge’s chambers. Left hand on the bible, right hand raised, and an affirmation of the Magistrate’s Oath of Office. But it was a monumental day in the life of this attorney as it was an opportunity to serve the public and the criminal justice system in Durham County in a new capacity as an impartial officer of the court.

What exactly does a Magistrate do? The Magistrate is a judicial official of the District Court Division. In criminal cases, magistrates issue search warrants, arrest warrants, and conduct initial appearances. They also determine conditions of pretrial release and set initial bond amounts when appropriate.

In civil cases, they preside over small claims court and they also perform civil marriage ceremonies.

For more information about the duties and responsibilities of a Magistrate, click here:

Further Reading

Our State Motto

No Judicial Performance Evaluation Results This Year, Again

Some Clarification on Storch’s “Zero Contribution Campaign”

The State Bar will not rate North Carolina’s Judges

Supreme Court Decides Caperton v. Massey

Storch is sworn in as a Magistrate in Durham County

Why Durham Needs Drug Treatment Court

State Bar Will Release Results of This Year’s Judge’s Evaluations

Judicial Performance Evaluation Released

Storch will not accept campaign donations

©2010 Storch for District Court Judge | powered by WordPress | Theme Design:Fat Cat Designs | Email