This is a link to the STL NPR panel discussion of the Drew Clinton case.

One argument that we have encountered many times from persons who do not agree with our position that what the judge, Robbert K Adrian, did in this case was wrong is, since the judge said it, then it should be taken for a fact. And that idea warrants a discussion we don’t think has been thoroughly beaten into the ground yet, so let’s explore that idea. Because yes, in theory, we agree. We agree that if a judge makes a decision, we should be able to take for granted what the judge has decided is just. Judges are supposed to be just. It’s sort of, like… their “thing,” you know. But the argument seems to be hinged on the idea that judges create the truth - as if the truth doesn’t exist until a judge speaks it into existence.

Judges don’t create the truth. They aren’t above the law, they don’t decide what the laws are, and they do not have the authority to decide if they want to follow the laws or not. They do not have the authority to subvert the truth because they do not want to follow the law. 

They are servants of truth.

And we agree, that should mean something. That should be a position that commands respect. People should be able to trust judges. 

And we, our mothers and fathers, our grandmothers and grandfathers - we have fought, hard, to write better protections into our laws. The laws in Illinois are not perfect. And when we find ways to make the laws more perfect, when we see ways to cinch up the loopholes, there are avenues to open those conversations. There are processes in place and ways to advocate for reform. Typically, judges are persons who are so well-versed in the operational standards of how the legal system and judiciary operate that they are aware of how they could be involved in advocating for judicial and legal reform, if they chose to do so. We should be able to safely assume that judges on any level of the U.S. Courts do understand their own jurisdiction and the extent of their authority. 

To be fair, Judge Adrian did seem to acknowledge that he is aware of what the laws are and the boundaries of his own authority. He said he knew he could challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for a Class 1 Felony on the first offense - and he said he didn’t do that because he thought his challenge would be overturned by the Appellate Court, a court that has more authority and jurisdiction than he has as a judge in the the 8th Circuit Court of Illinois. In essence, he said HE doesn’t trust the judiciary. Point taken, Mr Adrian; point taken.

We get it - we write too much for the tastes of some. We’ve been told.

So just a couple more notes and then we’ll call it a day. 

Look at the Letter to the Editor Judge Adrian wrote to Muddy River News dated August 1, 2022, if you get the chance. It is rife with untruths. He covers lies with with lies. And if our judiciary lies and doesn’t follow the law, then why should anyone have to tell the truth or follow the law…?

Our position has never changed, by the way. 

We initially felt Judge Adrain was wrong, and in this journey we have never, not one time, been provided any evidence from anyone that has shown us where he actually does deserve our trust and respect. We’ve only found reasons that leave us more sure than ever that he was wrong then, he does not serve the truth, and he does not uphold the law. He serves his own opinions of what he thinks is fair and how he thinks justice should be served. 

And we’re still mad about it.

We don’t hate men. We don’t hate the judiciary. We aren’t just “the left” “cancelling” with “shout downs.” We’re mothers of boys. We are women who have never been victims and persons who have. We believe different things. We think different ways. And we have come together for one reason: 

We demand better.

The People

Special thanks to Professor Freivogel for his consideration of this case. We so appreciate your time and care - thank you.