The LuLac Edition #365, Dec. 10th, 2007

PHOTO INDEX: EMBATTLED JURIST ANNE LOKUTA, SENATOR BARAK OBAMA AND OPRAH WINFREY.

THE DOUBLE OO

So talk show host Oprah Winfrey is stumping for Senator Barak Obama. Here's my impressions: Oprah is a powerful celebrity, when she says the word, her audience follows her dictates like stupified zombies who cannot think or make choices for themselves. To Oprah's credit, she does good things and has a distinct way of trying to make people's lives better. Her appeal is simply that she came from the ranks of the poor middle class, she has battled her weight just like most of us and has become the "everyperson" of America. Her endorsement of Obama is a first for her and whether it will translate into votes is another thing. True, there have been record crowds but in a quirky state like Iowa, Obama needs to get these enthusiasts to the houses and town halls. You see in Iowa, it is not a traditional election. You go to a person's house or business or town hall and "caucus". If a candidate gets less than 15%, you can vote for a second choice. A caucus success is when you get the most people in a meeting to vote for you. You can have people from various areas, there are no geographic boundaries like voting booths or wards. Some say the most organized is John Edwards. He has been living in Iowa since 2005. Iowa loves to be the upset state, Pat Robertson in 1988, Jimmy Carter in 1976 (never you mind that "no preference finished ahead of them) and George Bush prevailed over Ronald Reagan in 1980 only to lose the rest of the way. By no means is it a barometer state. Obama's challenge will be to get his young supporters (notorious for not voting) and Oprah's fan base (possibly not sophisticated enough to do the Iowa caucus thing) to translate that firepower into votes. Teddy Kennedy was mobbed in Iowa in 1980, Howard Dean predicted his many young soldiers would converge on that state and make the same impact Gene McCarthy's "Clean For Gene" kids did in 1968 in New Hampshire. Both were defeated by more organized candidates (Carter and Kerry) who understood the nuances of the Iowa experience. Iowa might want to partake in the celebrity orgy Obama and Oprah are offering but when all is said and done, it will be interesting to see if it sways them or not.

LOKUTA FIGHTS BACK

DAY ONE

Anne Lokuta's lawyers said she might be taking the stand in her defense at her hearing in Philadelphia. In the meantime, here's what went down today: An investigator said his initial probe of Judge Ann Lokuta was to focus on her demeanor.
"Not what she said, but how she said it," George Delaney, an investigator with the state's Judicial Conduct Board testified Monday.
But that also evolved into seeing whether any mental health issues were causing the demeanor, Delaney said.
Delaney said the conduct board received a complaint from Susan Weber in April or June of 2004.
As the investigation went on, his bosses told him to focus more on Lokuta's demeanor, rather than any mental health issues.

Okay, so this testimony tells us there seemed to no concern for the safety of the court patrons or employees. Grom the testimony it seemed like all they wanted to know was whether Lokuta was mean and cranky instead and insane and unstable. Obviously, no one was looking out for the welfare of the Judge or the people in her Courtroom. They were playing "Gotchya".

It was a clerk, not Judge Ann Lokuta, who made wild comments about a squeaky courtroom chair, an employee testified Monday.
Lokuta's tip staff, Kim Roberts, said she was in court when Maura Cusick, a clerk in the Prothonotary's office, stood up from her chair.
The chair squeaked. Loudly.
Roberts and Lokuta just looked at each other.
But Cusick blurted out a comment, Roberts said.
"Ms. Cusick flippantly stated: 'Maybe this chair needs some WD-40,'" Roberts said.
Lokuta said nothing in response, Roberts said. And never said anything to Cusick later, Roberts said.
The testimony counters Cusick's past testimony.
She had said Lokuta chastised her for no reason over the squeaky chair.

I'm a government guy. I don't mind paying taxes for services. We pay a lot of money to the Wilkes Barre Area School board for school taxes. We have no kids but we figure the citizens of the future have to educated. I don't mind paying state and county taxes as long as I get services. And until the wasteful war in Iraq, I had no problem with the federal taxes either. All that said, it is incredible and exasperating to me that we are spending taxpayer dollars on whether some poor baby got her feelings hurt because of a sqeaky chair. If this is the best they can do, and to have it refuted, they (Loukta's accusers) should be ashamed of themselves.

Combined reports from Times Leader, Citizen's Voice, commentary by blog editor to his reactions to testimony.

REALITY CHECK

Here's a letter to the editor regarding what we just presented regarding the Lokuta case:

Why is taxpayers' money being wasted on the Judge Lokuta case?From what I read I don't see where she accepted bribes, didn't upholdthe law or made biased judicial decisions.The only thing they have shown is that she is ignorant and ill-manneredand shows no respect for her employees.If every employee out there took their bosses to court for having thosequalities, there'd be no time for any other cases.If the employees under Judge Lokuta can't take what she's dishing out,they can always get another job - there are plenty of rude bosses outthere to make them feel at home.

Theresa Schlingman

Wilkes-Barre