Yesterday's mega-post left me a bit drained; consequently I've throttled my ambitions back a notch today in order to leave some energy to put together the weekly installation of Your Friday Dose of Woo tomorrow. Fortunately, just the topic presented itself: A story that's interesting and instructive (hopefully) but that won't take as much of my time to deal with.
But first, a brief recap. A couple of months ago, I discussed a highly dubious fundraising e-mail that was going around, apparently pushed by an organization known as Natural Solutions Foundation, about what seemed on first blush to be a horrific miscarriage of justice and abuse of the rights of a 17 year old with cancer and his mother, in which a youth claimed to have "cured" himself with "natural" methods. Allegedly this youth was being forced by the Orange County in the State of California to undergo treatment, including surgery and chemotherapy, while his mother was, incredibly, said to have been thrown into maximum security prison for resisting. The whole story had a strong whiff of an urban legend, as I pointed out, along with the reasons why I had concluded that. Nothing much happened, and I couldn't find much out for nearly two months. Then, about a week and a half ago, there was an unexpected update from a blog that I had never heard of before. In a breathless and frantic piece entitled Mother Jailed, Put On Trial for Curing Her Son of Melanoma (also parrotted at Health Freedom USA, a blogger going by the 'nym Angry Scientist told an even more improbable tale, although superficially it sounded more convincing because more details were provided, including the names of the alleged mother and son, namely Laurie and Chad Jessop. Unfortunately, that story had at least as many inconsistencies and inaccuracies about melanoma treatment, which I proceeded to enumerate in that logorrheic yet compelling fashion that I'm known for. Then a couple of days later, a new character entered the fray.
The new character this time had a name and a cause. His name is Lee Woodard, Sr., and his cause is known as Human Rights USA (MSN group here). This group, on first glance, looked to me as though it were dedicated to helping children in abusive situations, but a closer look shows that it has serious anti-psychiatry leanings, to the point that some of my readers even speculated that it might be a Scientology front. It also has some serious "health freedom" leanings as evidenced by its championing of Abraham Cherrix, the boy who wanted to use quackery rather than effective chemotherapy to treat his Hodgkins lymphoma. Oddly enough, at first Mr. Woodard turned out to be one of the only skeptical voices in the comments thread of the Angry Scientist's post, eventually coming to the conclusion:
Thus Human Rights USA has stopped all efforts related to this considering it to be a hoax. I personally take responsibility for any material, post or releases that has use our name on this matter and apologize that they occurred. This has been the first such incident in our history and we will take ongoing steps to insure it is the last.
This conclusion did not go over well with the Angry Scientist and his minions, as you might imagine. Even though Mr. Woodard's pronouncement had seemed pretty definitive and I even used it as an example of how this story is so full of holes that even a man who clearly desperately wanted to believe it couldn't bring himself to do so after investigating it for himself, in retrospect I should have seen this next development coming a mile away. I really should have. After all, it was very obvious that Mr. Woodard really, really wanted to believe this story; consequently, I should have been able to anticipate that he might ultimately somehow find a reason to believe.
And find a reason he did. Mr. Woodard has had a come-to-Jesus moment about the Chad Jessop story:
They say "To Err is Human" so we must assume that my recent investigation into the Orange County/Jessop story is proof that I am human. This is not flip-flopping or shifting on an issue. It is accepting a preponderance of the evidence at two different points in time. Despite a lengthy investigation which included conversations with media sources in Orange County that had been linked to the story, I found nothing that supported the events. I came to a reasonable conclusion.
The fact that it was a WRONG CONCLUSION should in reality only raise more questions as to what is going on in Orange County, California. The court does not have the power in a gag order to erase what is already known facts in the public domain. It does not have the power to cause reasonable searches on the subject matter to produce false and misleading results.
Yes! Now we're talking conspiracy! If logic and inconsistencies told skeptics that the story almost certainly couldn't be true because, among other reasons, courts do not have the powers to erase already known facts or to deny a citizen's right to hire their own counsel, then something bigger and more powerful than the courts must be preventing the truth from getting out! It's obvious--if you're a conspiracy-minded type. Mr. Woodard's skepticism was correct the first time, but obviously it was flimsy as toilet paper.
And how does Mr. Woodard know all this? Easy:
Within hours of posting the opinion that the incident was a hoax I found the first e-mail in my box that would give me serious cause of concern. I consider this source impeachable on matters of alternative medicines and was not surprised at all to find she had been in contact with the Jessop family. Since then I have listened to recordings from radio archives, talked to several reporters in Orange County that WERE AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE and discussed the matter with others closely connected to the story. The atrocities that have been reported against Laurie and Chad Jessop ARE REAL. The crimes committed against this family (in your name, supported by your tax dollars) did occur. I have talked with one reporter in Orange County that is still pursuing the story despite the gag order and despite the fact that because of it the Jessop's have had no contact with her.
Ah, yes, the "impeachable" source, whom Mr. Woodard doesn't name. (Of course, I realize that Mr. Woodard probably means "unimpeachable," but his error in word usage almost certainly conveys the true situation much more accurately.) Where, pray tell, did Mr. Woodard get these "recordings from radio archives, when he himself had stated that he had contacted several stations and could not verify the story? He himself had stated that he could find no news source that corroborated the Jessop story; he himself had stated that his searches did turn up similar references of the story that predated the alleged September 6 press conference at which the Jessop case had been discussed with reporters "on the courthouse steps." Yet, this "impeachable" source (heh), apparently a woman, managed to persuade him otherwise. Naturally Mr. Woodard doesn't name this source, nor does he provide any concrete description of this new evidence that hit him like the bolt of light hit St. Paul on the road to Damascus and led to his conversion. Instead, we're treated to this rant:
As for the "Whore of the Beast" that has presided over this case, LET ME EXPLAIN a little law to you. The family courts were granted the power to implement a gag order to PROTECT MINORs that may be permanently harmed by the release of information that pertains to a case. IT was never intended to PROTECT YOU or CPS or hide the crimes the system commit against the families of Orange County. There will never be any justice in this case till this judge is removed from the bench and held accountable for her actions.
I was most surprised that all this had occurred in the front yard of the Orange County Register, and yet a search of their archives revealed no stories on the matter. It has been my experience that the OCR was one of the few premiere newspapers for revealing the graft and failures of the social services and family court systems in California.
I am not going to redo the time line of events in this case here. A good and accurate source can be read at
http://angryscientist.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/mother-jailed-put-on-trial-for-curing-her-son-of-melanoma/
I have determined that the events listed in this blog are true and accurate. I can not speak on cancers that play hide and seek or the speedy recovery that appears to have taken place without the aid of conventional medicine. I leave these issues for others, hopefully with more capable minds. This story is a perfect example of violations of Family Rights and personal choices. It is about Abuse of Power, the fraudulent use of it and the waste of the taxpayers moneys. It is about a greedy, corrupt system that operates under the Color of Law like a thief in the night robbing us all of the most basic and fundamental rights.While the Jessop family is most affected now by these Crimes of State, all of Orange County are put at immediate risk as a result of them. California and all of the U.S. is put at risk if these crimes are not challenged and the perpetrators held accountable, for it becomes a fact of accepted law.
WE ALL NEED TO RAISE OUR FIST and VOICES AGAINST THESE CRIMES PERPETRATED the JESSOP FAMILY. We need to call our representatives regardless of our state of residence and voice our dismay and disgust that our tax dollars are helping to fund these crimes.
Choose to sit back and do nothing. Decide that what "reality waste" is on the tube is more important to you than the basic freedoms and rights that so many have fought and died for. Then when your family is a victim,,, keep quiet then too... because you threw away the opportunity to care. It is now that you have the opportunity to prevent this from becoming the accepted fact of law.
"Whore of the beast"? Apparently Mr. Woodard has a bit of a misogynistic, chauvinistic streak in him along with his conspiracy-mongering streak. (Even the Angry Scientist seemed a bit uncomfortable his use of the term "whore.") In any case, it just occurred to me: If the judge is female, then we should be able to narrow down the list of candidate judges considerably from this list of judges in Orange County. Perusing the list, I see that there are not very many female judges who might have been assigned to this case, if this case even exists. Also, there is still no convincing reason why Mr. Woodard or the Angry Scientist cannot name the judge. A gag order, as far as I know, should be public information, and the name of the judge issuing it could not be kept secret or made part of the gag order. Or maybe the conspiracy took care of this problem. Yeah, that's it.
Of course, Mr. Woodard's conversion makes me wonder why he changed his mind. There are a few possible explanations that come to mind. First, it's possible that he may indeed have developed sources that have confirmed this story "outside web searches" as he puts it. It's unlikely, given that a story like this would almost certainly have left real news reports and other footprints on the web, but not impossible. However, if this is indeed the case, there is no reason why Mr. Woodard needs to continue to be so coy unless, as I suspect regardless of the truth of this story, he's milking it for his own purposes. Certainly, there's no believable reason that I can think of why he can't name the judge, at the very minimum. Ditto the dermatologist who allegedly testified in the case. Yet Woodard chooses not to, and because he does not name key players he should not be surprised that people like me view his come-to-Jesus transformation with extreme skepticism. Another possible reason for Woodard's change of heart, of course, is that he's found secondhand sources who have managed to appeal to his preexisting bias and thus convinced him or sources who have themselves exaggerated or misunderstood what happened. A final reason that, hopefully, is not the real reason is that he doesn't really care if the story is true or not as long as it serves his purpose or knows that it is not true but keeps reporting it anyway.
Whatever the true reason for his continued promotion of this story, interestingly enough, even Mr. Woodard can't be sure, if the story happened, whether Chad ever actually even had melanoma:
Was Chad CURED of an advanced malignant melanoma by alternative medicine in a period of five weeks? We will likely never know. The original diagnosis was very questionable by a general practitioner, and the line of events that followed has likely forever blurred the reality of what Chad actually had. It would not seem far fetched to assume he had been cured of melanoma in it's early stages with such treatment, but it is far less likely to have occurred in advanced stages.
And that's about the only sensible thing Mr. Woodard has said since his recent St. Paul moment; it even echoes my analysis of the Angry Scientist's post, where I speculated that, if a youth named Chad Jessop ever had melanoma it was probably a local, early stage skin lesion that could be burned off by black salve. Since then, Woodard's been off on a rant about the beast that is "$ocial $ervices." Oh, and saying something about me that gave me a hearty chuckle:
I have been to that blog already Robin. It expresses opinion about what is on this blog, nothing more. For what it is worth it is far less credible than my own two opposing opinions which at least while finding different results, they were the result of honest effort and research based on more than what could be found in the blogs.
To which I answer: This story is so obviously full of holes to anyone with some knowledge of how melanoma is treated and so continuously mutating that it is on its face incredible. No one, including Mr. Woodard, has provided one whit of credible, verifiable evidence that this story ever happened as it is being represented by either the Natural Solutions Foundation or the Angry Scientist. Although I doubt I am, I might have been wrong. Stories smacking of urban legend accompanied by conspiratorial rants by you and the Angry Scientist, however, do not and will not convince me that I was. Credible, verifiable evidence, none of which has been provided by either of you, might. So far, the only independently verifiable information that the Jessops even exist comes from traffic court and divorce court. Laurie and Chad Jessop appear to exist, but there's no evidence what the Angry Scientist describes has happened to them.
Even more amusing is the "deafening silence" in response to a series of very good questions by a commenter named Robin, who asks:
If I may ask: exactly what action is it that you are expecting us to take, if you will not tell us the crucial details of the case, but continue making vague references to "the" judge, "the" courthouse etc. Such a lack of specifics is the tell-tale hallmark of the urban myth. IF your story is true, a large part of the blame can be laid at the feet of a single judge who has acted in a clearly wrong and illegal way. SO TELL US WHO THE JUDGE IS! How else are we supposed to raise any complaint? Who do we complain about? Mr. Woodard and Angryscientist both claim to have spoken to reporters, been in contact with the Jessops themselves, etc. If that's the case I don't see how you can possibly NOT have such basic information as the name of the judge.
Robin is absolutely correct that the Jessop story has many of the hallmarks of an urban legend and asks many of the right questions: Who is the judge? Why will neither Mr. Woodard nor the Angry Scientist tell us? Until they do tell us who the judge was and provide more details of the case, I have little choice but to continue to conclude that they're full of crap. And, believe me, I'd be happy to contact the radio station myself if Mr Woodard would be so kind as to give me the name of the nameless news director to whom he claims to have spoken. (I've got better things to do than to waste my time hunting down exactly whom he allegedly spoke to, although I might do it if pushed.) Also, why is this news director unnamed, anyway? If the station truly did run the story you describe, then that wouldn't be covered by the gag order, as it was broadcast before any such gag order. There's no reason not to give the name of the news director.
Finally, the Angry Scientist has some words for me; so I'll answer him directly. He throws down the gauntlet:
I think Orac would prefer to let the matter drop. Since he seems to have taken heed of my warning above, I've no need to keep his version of the story going. I did make a comment there over a week ago, warning him that he who laughs last laughs best, which for now is enough. For the record, I never claimed to have spoken to any reporters. This is the true story of Laurie Jessop and her son. I'm just helping get the story out.
And I pick the gauntlet up.
No, O Angry (Alleged) Scientist, I haven't let the matter drop, your threat to "make an example" of someone "persisting in spreading rumors about this story being a hoax or urban legend" and your warning to "back off, or else" merely amused me. You seem to think that I have some sort of deathly fear of ending up with "egg on my face." Why would that be a concern to me? Even if every word of your version of the story were absolutely, 100% true, the very worst that could be said of me was that I exercised appropriate skepticism and prodded you and Mr. Woodard to provide credible evidence. After all, I never claimed that the story didn't happen, merely that the version you tell is so full of holes that it's very hard to believe, leading me to conclude that it probably represents an exaggeration or distortion beyond recognition of a real case; i.e., an urban legend. Moreover, everything I discussed about the inconsistencies in your version of the story remain valid criticisms. Even if your version of the story were ultimately to be verified to my satisfaction, it would not in any way change that fact, nor produce any embarrassment in me, to be ultimately shown to be wrong. After all, there's no shame in showing appropriate skepticism towards a dubious story even if the story ultimately turns out to be more or less correct, as long as a skeptic doesn't cling to disbelief when the evidence no longer supports that disbelief.
So, Angry Scientist and Mr. Woodard, I leave it to you now. The ball's in your court. Absent your producing some independently verifiable evidence, I continue to conclude that this story is probably an urban legend. What you have both posted thus far in response to criticism and skeptical questions remains utterly unconvincing to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills, and, no, pictures alone are not convincing. You both seem to think that I'm terrified of "getting egg on my face," but I'd turn the question back at both you and Mr. Woodard and ask: Are you afraid to share in the egg splatter?
Hopefully, people with skepticism and critical thinking abilities will continue keep the pressure on the Angry Scientist and Mr. Woodard to put up or shut up regarding their evidence supporting the Chad Jessop story. After all, his story, if true, would indeed be outrageous and worth getting worked up over. Evidence, first, though, and outrage later if outrage is appropriate. At the moment, the cart is being put before the horse. As for the eggs, bring 'em on. After all, one of my favorite TV shows is Dirty Jobs.
ALL POSTS ON THIS STORY THUS FAR:
- The story of the 17-year-old with melanoma being forced to undergo chemotherapy: Urban legend?
- Thomas Cowles twisting in the wind defending the "cancer boy" urban legend
- An update on the youth who "cured himself" of melanoma, Chad Jessop
- One last update (for now) on the youth who "cured himself" of melanoma, Chad Jessop
- "I have seen the light! The Chad Jessop melanoma story happened. Really."
- Lee Woodard on the Chad Jessop melanoma story: "Why would I promote a hoax?"
OTHER SKEPTICAL TAKES:
PUBLICATIONS REFERENCED:
- Dear Health Freedom Fighters (September 12, 2007)
- The Gary Null Show 9/13/2007 (The relevant segment is at approximately the 11:45 minute mark.)
- Mother Jailed, Put On Trial for Curing Her Son of Melanoma (October 3, 2007)
- Mother Jailed, Put On Trial for Curing Her Son of Melanoma (published in the Los Angeles Free Press on 11/12/2007, PDF here)
The questions asked by Robin, and you, should be specifically enumerated for The AngryScientist(?) and Woodard to answer. Of course, once they start posting information that may be verifiable, it would behoove someone to go and verify it.
They will not do it. They cannot do it.
A gag order, as far as I know, should be public information.
Indeed. A gag order that was *not* public information would, in fact, be useless and unenforceable. As this whole discussion shows.
Ooh - mentioned on one of my favourite blogs! Quite made my day. :-)
Needless to say, I share your assessment of the situation, Orac. Angry Scientist keeps insisting that the full story is going to come out, any moment now, just you see, and all us mean sceptics are going to end up with egg on our faces; meanwhile he continues to answer precisely none of the questions you or I asked. Worry not, I don't plan to let up on him. I'm just a sceptic who's arrogant enough to want to get to the truth of the matter. If the story's true, I want to know about it because it's an appalling situation, and I care nothing for egg on my face. But if it's untrue, then those who spread false information should not be allowed to go unchallenged.
https://ocapps.occourts.org/FamLawWeb/DisplayCase.do?caseNbr=97P007260&…
That is the URL for the Family Court in Orange County. There is only one type of case specifically excluded: Paternity/Parentage cases. I conducted a search on Jessop and found two cases involving a Laura or Laurie Jessop. One was for child support, the other for divorce. There are no cases under Laura Jessup.
Sounds more and more like a hoax every minute.
What it amounts to: They think it's embarrassing to not have the psychic powers necessary to be right beforehand. They think it's embarrassing to have to use evidence and logic to reach a conclusion and update as new evidence comes in. They think it's embarrassing to know that you're fallible and have a system that allows you to change your mind to the correct conclusion once the evidence comes in.
In short, he's gambling that he'll be able to make fun of us for not being omniscient, infallible gods, and for not having the arrogance necessary to throw aside prudence in favor of gut instinct.
The annoying part is that these guys will sieze on even a partial verification of their story as a complete vindication. If I had to guess, I would say that the Jess[u|o]ps exist, that Chad ha[d|s] early-stage melanoma, which his mother superficially "cured" with caustic salve (and if he's lucky the salve got it all). At least, none of that seems a priori implausible. However, reported interactions with the medical profession are heavily distorted, and the legal aspects of the story are largely fabricated.
But verify just the first part -- let's see the Jess*ps on TV showing off the scar, or something -- and AS and Woodward will be all "See? Y'all laughed at us and WE WERE RIGHT!"
Oy Vey.
This story is a testament to skepticism: The data (course of treatment for melanoma) doesn't fit the scenario (a mother and son that no one has actually spoken to face-to-face) to be remotely credible.
This story, sans any factual evidence, boils down to, "Somewhere, someone did something and someone else had something happen to them." And the cranks want other people to 'do something'?
Here's an example of a story that has facts:
I am going to the fridge, getting my left-over pasta, walking to the end of the hall where I will heat said pasta for 3 minutes on high and then sit on the second stool from the left while talking with my friend Seth and looking out over the Cancer Center. I will likely also have a chuckle or two at the wacky cranks and denialists.
Orac, have you tried calling or e-mailing Mr. Woodward (or the Angry Scientist) and asking directly for the information to which he claims to be privy? I don't know how to get his phone number, since we don't know where he's located, but you can submit e-mail to him through his website.
Once the anonymity of the internet is lost, these type of people lose a lot of their bluster. Not that they'll ever acknowledge it on their websites though.
Funny you should mention anonymity. The Angry Scientist is anonymous, even more so than me. Even so, I predict that his next move will likely be to "out" me and slime me in order to "intimidate" me into silence.
Been there, done that.
Yawn.
As for contacting him by e-mail, what's the point? He now detests me. I highly doubt that he'd cooperate, and I'm not about to e-mail him under a false pretense in order to trick him. I am, however, very tempted to try to contact KFWB's news director or program director to see if that gets me anywhere.
Orac: KFWB's news director should be able to clear things up. Surely his/her memory has been jogged due to the flood of inquiries from concerned alternative medicine cranks trying to get the full details of this story before they start spinning it for their own personal reasons. Oh wait... Maybe not.
I just posted over on angryscientist calling out Mr. Woodward. He stated the following:
There has [sic] been many comments about the lack of links to the Jessop nightmare in main stream media. Why not try doing a search in NEWSWEEK. While they did not do a story you will find they have seen fit to mention this blog and my research. Odd I would think for such a source to keep tabs on a subject that supposedly has no merit.
Well, I indeed DID search the Newsweek site with such phrases as "Jessop", "melanoma", "Orange County", "Woodward", and "angry scientist", and wouldn't you know it? None of these searches returned a result mentioning the case. HOWEVER, if you use the Newsweek search feature to search "The Web" instead of "Search site", then you get the usual suspects of websites since THAT search is simply an MSN search of the internet.
As an aside, you should feel flattered that your website is the first result returned for the search "Jessop melanoma". You've usurped the cranks on their own story!
How do you know I haven't contacted him? ;-)
Orac, congratulations. You made my day, but you and your gang have a little more time to throw around this spiteful nonsense before the full truth comes out and destroys your credibility. You'll see, none of your skepticism is warranted, because it's all based on your own biased misinterpretations, which you'll have to admit, soon enough. The truth is not on your side, not even close.
That's a chance I'm willing to take, Angry Scientist. Bring it on. My credibility will not be in the least bit affected if I turn out to be wrong, because I'm simply applying reasonable skepticism to a story that, in its current form, doesn't pass the smell test.
You can start by telling everyone: What is the name of the judge who presided over this case?
It's a simple question, and no gag order can stop you from stating that simple fact. So why can't you answer it?
Come on, dude, who was the judge who allegedly wrote the gag order and who allegedly refused to let Laurie Jessop hire her own lawyer?
Oh, for crying out loud. This magical thinking makes my head hurt. I am not going to believe something because some anonymous blogger said it did, yet will not provide BELIEVABLE evidence to show it did--you know, something verifiable...
Everything so far printed smacks of whack job-conspiracy theories, and that's a lousy way to live one's life.
In fact, there's a few people involved in this hoax who seriously need to get help or get a life.
But my friend's barber's cousin said it must be true! I don't know what you all don't understand.
Is it me, or has the melanoma moved from mild early stage to malignant severe back to early stage again ?
I have an open mind, but a hard nose. AngryScientist and Woodard have to come up with more than nebulous conspiracy theories and crankery. In any case where someone asks me to believe the implausible, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Well, let's see the proof. as a lawyer friend of mine says -- where's the steak to go with the sizzle?
Orac, congratulations. You made my day, but you and your gang have a little more time to throw around this spiteful nonsense before the full truth comes out and destroys your credibility. You'll see, none of your skepticism is warranted, because it's all based on your own biased misinterpretations, which you'll have to admit, soon enough. The truth is not on your side, not even close.
You don't get it, you loon. We have no idea what the truth is because you have provided not one single, verifiable fact that we can corroborate. Other than the fact that the Jessops exist.
Go hang out with Tim Bolen and all of the other conspiracy-mongering "health freedom" wackos.
You wanted the name of the judge, Orac? She is Orange County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kirkwood. Now try convincing your flock she isn't real!
It's not a matter of whether she is real or not. For all I know, you could have looked at the list of judges of the Superior Court of California, Orange County and picked a judge in the juvenile dependency court at random. It's a matter of having some concrete information that allows people to contact Judge Kirkwood's office to see whether this case actually occurred. If that part of the story is verified, I'd then move on to other parts of the story that need verification until I either verify the story to my satisfaction, conclude that part of it is true, or decide that it's a load of bollocks.
Now what do you think I'd be told if I called Judge Kirkwood's office? The same thing as KFWB told me (stay tuned)?
As for your reporting that the Los Angeles Free Press has made this its cover story, am I supposed to be impressed that some free rag in LA reprinted your blog post essentially verbatim?
This is better than Desperate Housewives.
I'd like to see the path report and the statement from the doctor. I don't care if any other part of the story is true. The melanoma tale makes absolutely no sense. An MRI CT/PET or at least ultrasound or chest x-ray would be helpful too. Until then, there is no proof of huge parts of this story, rendering it useless. There is no evidence of a cure.
Good crikey these people worry me. Here's a lovely gem illustrating why:
128. Diana - November 10, 2007
Whether this story is a hoax or not it is a fact that there are lot of corrupted government agencies out there. I see a lot of people not getting proper medical aid because the expense is more than they can handle and that is why they turn back to the old fashion remedies. If the government can't control it then they outlaw it!
Angry scientist, the only case involving Ms. Jessop in Orange County Superior Court (not counting traffic tickets) is her marital dissolution proceeding, which was filed in 2003 and recently had activity on a motion to modify spousal support. The judge in that case is Frederick Aguirre. Judge Kirkwood was never involved in that case. There's no indication that any criminal case has been filed against Ms. Jessop, or that she is involved in any case over which Judge Kirkwood is presiding or has presided. Do you have a case number of something?