This simple, and recently popular phrase seems to apply to Comm. Elizabeth Hendrickson, Dept. 507 in this case.  My process server has twice sworn that she was served with a Judicial Challenge on May 4, 2009, and she failed to respond within the required 10 days.  By statute (CCP 170.6), she must now step down, and her decisions are open to interpretation by the judge that replaces her.  This is the law.
 
On the other hand, she now claims that she wasn't ever served, and so she doesn't have to step down.  The judicial equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"
 
It brings to mind the throwing of shoes. 
 
By the way, I was present when the papers were served, and my server is willing to submit to hypnosis as allowed by Evidence Code 795, and to a lie detector test, convincing although never admissible. 
 
How about you, Comm. Hendrickson?  Since it would prove that you are not telling the truth, I expect that you will refuse to take a lie detector test, as used by all police departments, or to submit to hypnosis, and contradict your own sworn statement that you weren't handed the papers personally while you stood behind your courtroom clerk at 12:10 p.m. in Department 507 on that day.
 
Who should believe you?  I don't.