Apologies upfront to Steve Martin for misquoting his famous sarcastic catchphrase from his standup-comedy days. The very funny man actually said: “Well, excuse ME!”
Twisting Martin’s words seems as good a way as any to focus on the subject at hand as I present yet another draft chapter from my upcoming book on just how mind-numbinlgly stupid and mentally unbalanced I must have been to take on the Queensland judicial system.
Chapter ### – IS THERE A SOLID NON-RECUSE EXCUSE?
The thing that stood out, as the Latin expression In oculis canine testiculous clara luce goes, in Acting District Court judge Haddrick’s dismissal on 31 August of my notice of appeal was his clearly stated and obviously long-standing admiration of Magistrate Shepherd, my lower-court dispatcher.
As stated in his findings, His Honour said the SM had analysed the case “in her characteristically thorough way”, and “carefully, in a business-like way” and had conducted herself “in an exemplary fashion”.
This glowing assessment of Magistrate Shepherd’s skills as a jurist with an apparently untarnished record of professionalism, decency and fair dealing reminds me of another Latin term I didn’t learn at Aspley State School. His Honour clearly believes Sol e culo eius lucet best describes at least one illuminating aura his lower-court colleague emits.
And as mentioned in previous chapters, all the Latin legalise used in this book, including In oculis canine testiculous clara luce and Sol e culo eius lucet as used above, and stremamente offesivio and estremamente possibilus as used below, are translated at the end of this tome.
So let’s read what my support base that I’ve relied on and could afford during most of this folly of a judicial journey of mine had to say about the judge’s words of high-praise..
My question: If you describe someone has having conducted themselves in a “characteristically thorough way”, does that suggest an assessment of that person made over a reasonable period of time?
AI’s response: Yes, it strongly suggests an assessment made over a reasonable period of time. The word “characteristically” means that a specific behaviour is a predictable, defining trait of that person. To know what is “characteristic” of someone, you must have observed them across multiple situations, tasks, or projects over time. If you had only met them once or seen them complete a single task, you could say they were “thorough,” but you would not have enough evidence to say their thoroughness was “characteristic.” To help you use or analyse this phrase, here is a quick breakdown of what it communicates: Established reputation: It implies the person has a proven track record of being detailed and careful. Predictability: It suggests that anyone who knows the person would expect this high standard of work from them. Deep familiarity: It positions the speaker as someone who knows the person’s professional or personal habits well.
Thanks, AI! So, I hope, dear reader, that you will WELL EXCUSE ME! for repeatedly asking the bush lawyer in me a simple question over recent times: considering my outline of argument for appeal had two main strands, both critical of Magistrate Shepherd, why didn’t His honour Acting District Court judge Haddrick RECUSE HIMSELF from hearing this appeal? It’s my honestly held if untrained opinion that Judge Haddrick should have done that.
How did our learned judge glean so much good oil about the SM?
A wild and crazy guy might suggest that these two jurists dated at law school. Now I don’t believe that for a minute. That’s estremamente offesivio.
A man with two brains might ponder if they in fact married and the SM has kept her maiden name, Now I don’t believe that for a minute. That’s estremamente offesivio.
Someone who’s not a complete jerk might simply suggest that they have a history of meeting up regularly – and for quite a while now – for coffee near the Roma Street law buildings where they love nothing better, as old friends sometimes do, than to read out to each other their excellent courtroom judgements? That seems estremamente possibilus.
Want to be alerted immediately a new blog hits Australia’s longest running and most offensive satire site? Simply click on the Follow sign to be emailed new yarns the moment they are uploaded! The very second we go far too far – and trust us we will – you can then quickly unfollow via the three dots!
Will do. I’ll also add “recused himself given his exceptionally high opinion of the SM. The more self-effacing the better has been my guide through this project.
Also. The two made-up latin expressions for today’s draft are things that stand out like dog’s balls and a belief held that the sun shines out of some people’s arses!
All explained in a glossary at the back. My first idea anyway; maybe at the end of each chapter would have more impact?
From: Lindsay Marshall <lindsaymarshall@rocketmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 19 September 2026 10:17 AM
To: Don Gordon-Brown <aussiebugman@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: if you don’t have time to check my book draft ….
I was just having a quick read.
I suggest to trowel on the satirical nature of the criticisms you might employ some more Steve Martinisms prior to floating the possible personal connections between the two jurists… eg…..
…etc….
or…
A man with two brains might allege… etc….
The Bug Online 