Judge of smut, Alex Kozinski
There are a growing number of news reporters tattling on Judges who have abused their power, engaged in corrupt acts, or - quite simply - have participated in questionable leisure activities after-hours that have brought dishonor to the stature of the Judiciary.
For instance, the LA Times recently wrote an insightful expose on Judge Alex Kozinski in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, who has been scorned by his peers and those who do business with the courts - for e-mailing dirty jokes to Judges, law clerks, and court staff - which border on pornography.
In Glendale, Judge David M. Schachter was labelled the "worst Judge" ever by critics who questioned not only his legal ability, but courtroom demeanour which has been downright insulting to many.
"He often belittled lawyers by making snide inappropriate remarks," one court insider lamented with disgust.
On many occasions, the incompetent Jurist was also known to ignore court rules and applicable California Statutes relevant to key legal issues.
"Partly, because of his arrogance and bloated ego," one tacitly remarked.
All the personality and charm of a worm, another one chided.
And, he positively despised In Pro Per litigants.
Schachter couldn't stomach the possibility that a regular "Joe" - without a law degree - was capable of presenting an oral argument at hearing worthy of turning over a tentative ruling inspired by his prejudice.
In spite of the fact the law dictates that a party may represent themselves in a court of law - sometimes out of necessity due to lack of funds to hire an attorney - sources confide that bonehead Schachter persistently thwarted legal entitlement to their day in court.
Such was his disdain for the layman.
Other Judicial Officers have managed to operate under the radar of the press and public opinion.
One such Judge is Joseph Biderman, who currently presides over a courtroom in the pretty coastal town of Santa Monica, California.
From the offset, it's obvious when you step into his courtroom - that there is a secretive aspect to his adjudications which are not only questionable - but fly in the face of American Justice.
For instance, when the court is called to order, Biderman - a portly man with a smug demeanor - immediately motions the lawyers on both sides to approach the bench.
There, out of earshot of spectators in the gallery and the defendant under guard at the public defender's desk, Biderman proceeds to engage in what amounts to clandestine discussions about the issues before the court.
The reason for this is twofold.
For starters, Judge Biderman is bent on ensuring his arguments back-and-forth with the lawyers, are shy of close scrutiny.
More importantly, his honor is deceitfully manipulating the scenario so that there is no record of his clever self-serving manipulations in the court record.
In the event that a snippet falls on the keen ear of the court reporter, you can bet your sweet bippie that if a transcript is ordered - for an appeal, let's say - the record will be doctored according to Biderman's wishes.
Or, in the alternative, the record just may up and disappear.
Because Judge Biderman is also prone to making false promises to defendants in a deceitful effort to coerce a "plea bargain", this modus operandi suits his purposes to a "T".
In retrospect, it is easy to fathom his machinations.
For example, in one instance, a defendant was informed that if she accepted the terms of a plea, she would be released from custody in a day or two.
In spite of the fact the agreement was signed, sealed, and delivered - three weeks after-the-fact - the defendant was still languishing in a filthy cell at the County Jail waiting to be released pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
When the Public Defender - Randall Rich - would not return urgent phone calls to his office (or even make a requisite visit to Twin Towers, the Sheriff's holding facility in downtown Los Angeles) - the defendant was forced to pen a letter to Judge Biderman to beg for a release pursuant to the terms agreed upon.
After receiving the note, rife with allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Judge Biderman and Randall Rich, the court swiftly ordered a hasty release.
Mr. Rich, a scurrilous fellow of dubious reputation in the legal arena, proceeded to throw the blame on the Sheriff's Department.
Indeed, Rich accused the Deputies of misinterpreting the court's order - and illegally holding the defendant beyond the release date - due to error, mistake, and/or neglect.
However, when the defendant filed a complaint for damages with the Sheriff's Department, the Chief was adamant that the Court was at fault!
A request for a copy of the original order caused a curious chain of events to unfold thereafter.
The court "order" disappeared and the defendant's communications to Biderman on the issue - from that day forward - were ignored.
In sum, Judge Biderman engaged in a cover-up - and hence - was guilty of wrongful conduct which included a gross abuse of power at the expense of the Defendant's civil rights.
In another case, a defendant was charged with one felony county on the grounds that he misrepresented facts in a credit application; namely, the he falsely represented information regarding his address.
Because Biderman held the discussions regarding the issues at bar, the defendant was unaware that the charges hinged on information on his Driver's License.
Had he known, the falsely-accused man would have requested his license be brought up to the courtroom from the property department at the County Jail, so he could establish that the DMV made glaring errors on the document which accounted for the misunderstanding.
For instance, two words in a well-known street name were spelled incorrectly, a box number for the address was changed to the word "Apt", and - get this - all the aforementioned information was "run" together with no spaces in-between!
Clearly, the defendant was not at fault for the confusion which arose during the credit application process.
Indeed, it was a gross miscarriage of Justice to level a charge, under the peculiar circumstances.
Once released, the defendant requested - by certified mail- that Biderman dismiss the case in view of the facts.
From the offset, it's obvious when you step into his courtroom - that there is a secretive aspect to his adjudications which are not only questionable - but fly in the face of American Justice.
For instance, when the court is called to order, Biderman - a portly man with a smug demeanor - immediately motions the lawyers on both sides to approach the bench.
There, out of earshot of spectators in the gallery and the defendant under guard at the public defender's desk, Biderman proceeds to engage in what amounts to clandestine discussions about the issues before the court.
The reason for this is twofold.
For starters, Judge Biderman is bent on ensuring his arguments back-and-forth with the lawyers, are shy of close scrutiny.
More importantly, his honor is deceitfully manipulating the scenario so that there is no record of his clever self-serving manipulations in the court record.
In the event that a snippet falls on the keen ear of the court reporter, you can bet your sweet bippie that if a transcript is ordered - for an appeal, let's say - the record will be doctored according to Biderman's wishes.
Or, in the alternative, the record just may up and disappear.
Because Judge Biderman is also prone to making false promises to defendants in a deceitful effort to coerce a "plea bargain", this modus operandi suits his purposes to a "T".
In retrospect, it is easy to fathom his machinations.
For example, in one instance, a defendant was informed that if she accepted the terms of a plea, she would be released from custody in a day or two.
In spite of the fact the agreement was signed, sealed, and delivered - three weeks after-the-fact - the defendant was still languishing in a filthy cell at the County Jail waiting to be released pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
When the Public Defender - Randall Rich - would not return urgent phone calls to his office (or even make a requisite visit to Twin Towers, the Sheriff's holding facility in downtown Los Angeles) - the defendant was forced to pen a letter to Judge Biderman to beg for a release pursuant to the terms agreed upon.
After receiving the note, rife with allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Judge Biderman and Randall Rich, the court swiftly ordered a hasty release.
Mr. Rich, a scurrilous fellow of dubious reputation in the legal arena, proceeded to throw the blame on the Sheriff's Department.
Indeed, Rich accused the Deputies of misinterpreting the court's order - and illegally holding the defendant beyond the release date - due to error, mistake, and/or neglect.
However, when the defendant filed a complaint for damages with the Sheriff's Department, the Chief was adamant that the Court was at fault!
A request for a copy of the original order caused a curious chain of events to unfold thereafter.
The court "order" disappeared and the defendant's communications to Biderman on the issue - from that day forward - were ignored.
In sum, Judge Biderman engaged in a cover-up - and hence - was guilty of wrongful conduct which included a gross abuse of power at the expense of the Defendant's civil rights.
In another case, a defendant was charged with one felony county on the grounds that he misrepresented facts in a credit application; namely, the he falsely represented information regarding his address.
Because Biderman held the discussions regarding the issues at bar, the defendant was unaware that the charges hinged on information on his Driver's License.
Had he known, the falsely-accused man would have requested his license be brought up to the courtroom from the property department at the County Jail, so he could establish that the DMV made glaring errors on the document which accounted for the misunderstanding.
For instance, two words in a well-known street name were spelled incorrectly, a box number for the address was changed to the word "Apt", and - get this - all the aforementioned information was "run" together with no spaces in-between!
Clearly, the defendant was not at fault for the confusion which arose during the credit application process.
Indeed, it was a gross miscarriage of Justice to level a charge, under the peculiar circumstances.
Once released, the defendant requested - by certified mail- that Biderman dismiss the case in view of the facts.
And, a copy of the offending license, was included in the packet in support of the request.
Biderman summarily set a "motion to dismiss" the case to be heard thirty days later.
Happy with the outcome, the defendant proceeded to mail a copy of the notice of the hearing to the Public Defender - and promptly requested that the "motion to dismiss" be prepared and filed and argued with the court - on his behalf.
Then, something curious happened.
The court date came and went, but there was no word about the outcome.
A follow-up letter to the Public Defender's office, elicited a response.
Biderman summarily set a "motion to dismiss" the case to be heard thirty days later.
Happy with the outcome, the defendant proceeded to mail a copy of the notice of the hearing to the Public Defender - and promptly requested that the "motion to dismiss" be prepared and filed and argued with the court - on his behalf.
Then, something curious happened.
The court date came and went, but there was no word about the outcome.
A follow-up letter to the Public Defender's office, elicited a response.
But, the contents of that communication left the defendant shell-shocked.
The Public Defender neglected to file a motion with Biderman's Clerk or make any good-faith effort to argue the merits of the "motion" before the Judge.
When queried about his failure to act on his client's behalf, the lawyer attempted to weasle out of the fix he was in by perpetuating bald-faced lies.
In a written communication, the Public Defender asserted that the hearing on calendar was set for the express purpose of discussing the status of the case, and that the court had not intended to entertain any "motion to dismiss" the case.
A total falsehood!
The Defendant had a copy of Biderman's directive in his possession - and it clearly stipulated that a hearing for a "Motion to Dismiss" - had been set by the Court.
In fact - the Judge specifically underscored in that communication that the defendant and counsel not only file the appropriate papers - but also be mindful of California Rules of Court and California Civil Code of Procedure when preparing the documents for hearing.
Understandably, the defendant complained to Judge Biderman, again by certified letter.
A complaint was also filed with the State Bar.
At this point, Judge Biderman became non-communicative.
In fact, the defendant was instructed not to engage in any future ex-parte communications with the court.
Shortly thereafter - imagine that! - the file disappeared from the courthouse records!
Fishy, or what?
And, forget about filing complaints to Steven Cooly at the Prosecutor's office.
Although Mr. Cooly stridently asserts in the public arena - that he endeavours to seek truth and justice for all - the opposite is true.
Request a probe of his staff for alleged wrongdoing, and you'll get the bum's rush, and nothing but denial denial denial.
The loathsome man is just as corrupt as the rest of 'em down there at the Los Angeles Criminal Courts Building.
The Public Defender neglected to file a motion with Biderman's Clerk or make any good-faith effort to argue the merits of the "motion" before the Judge.
When queried about his failure to act on his client's behalf, the lawyer attempted to weasle out of the fix he was in by perpetuating bald-faced lies.
In a written communication, the Public Defender asserted that the hearing on calendar was set for the express purpose of discussing the status of the case, and that the court had not intended to entertain any "motion to dismiss" the case.
A total falsehood!
The Defendant had a copy of Biderman's directive in his possession - and it clearly stipulated that a hearing for a "Motion to Dismiss" - had been set by the Court.
In fact - the Judge specifically underscored in that communication that the defendant and counsel not only file the appropriate papers - but also be mindful of California Rules of Court and California Civil Code of Procedure when preparing the documents for hearing.
Understandably, the defendant complained to Judge Biderman, again by certified letter.
A complaint was also filed with the State Bar.
At this point, Judge Biderman became non-communicative.
In fact, the defendant was instructed not to engage in any future ex-parte communications with the court.
Shortly thereafter - imagine that! - the file disappeared from the courthouse records!
Fishy, or what?
And, forget about filing complaints to Steven Cooly at the Prosecutor's office.Although Mr. Cooly stridently asserts in the public arena - that he endeavours to seek truth and justice for all - the opposite is true.
Request a probe of his staff for alleged wrongdoing, and you'll get the bum's rush, and nothing but denial denial denial.
The loathsome man is just as corrupt as the rest of 'em down there at the Los Angeles Criminal Courts Building.
Just ask anyone in the "know".
In view of the foregoing, it's no wonder that citizens have little or no respect for Judges and the Los Angeles Superior Court system, in particular.
In the final analysis, bench-warmers like Schachter, Kozinski, and Biderman are a disgrace to the Judiciary.
Until they're ousted, and exposed for the corrupt evil individuals that they are, the integrity of the court will continue to be at risk.
Horace once opined:
"A corrupt judge is not qualified to inquire into the truth."
No comments:
Post a Comment