West Hollywood...thoughtless woman with low IQ asks driver to turn engine off!

A friend of mine has been having a problem with his brake pedal.

Occasionally, when he is away from the vehicle, the brake light turns on at whim.

Consequently, without warning, the battery may run down.

Last night, as he sat in his vehicle on Waring Street with the engine on charging the system, a woman strode up and tapped on his window.

When he rolled the tinted glass down, she issued a directive.

"You should turn your engine off. Air is coming out."

Obviously, the unexpected intruder was not very articulate. She probably meant to say "fumes", not air.

People are very quick to find fault or act on their own selfish self-serving interests without verifying the facts first.

If the woman had any intelligence worth shaking a stick at, she would have given the driver the benefit of the doubt.

Before assuming the worst - that my friend was an SUV monster inclined to pollute the environment, for instance - she should have considered the possibility that there was a legitimate reason for his actions.

Most motorists probably would have told the pesky interloper to take a hike in less than pleasant terms.

Instead, my friend calmly deal with the situation in a classy way.

"Thank you for bringing it to my attention," he responded politely.

"I appreciate it."

Gandhi would be proud!

The message for the day?

Think before you encroach on another person's rights - and in the process - avoid looking like a fool!

As a teacher once elucidated years ago:

"If we had more foresight than hindsight, we'd all be better off by a damn sight."

http://www.julianayrs.com

Curious Case of Benjamin Button...illogical plot twists! Not for intelligent filmgoers...

At the end of last year, I stumbled across a paper-thin dog-eared copy of "The Great Gatsby", so I opened the front cover and plunged in for a second read.

Frankly, I forgot what a remarkable writer F. Scott Fitzgerald was!

So, when I took in a screening of the adaptation of a lesser-known literary work - "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" - I was saddened by the convoluted mess I witnessed up on the silver screen!

Granted, the early scenes which moved along at a fast clip, managed to hold the rapt audience (myself included) in their thrall.

And, why not?

After all, intriguing special effects convincingly transformed actor Brad Pitt from a fortyish-male in real life to a gnarly old man in the world of make-believe - and in the creative process - buoyed up the premise of a man moving backwards in time to a credible standard of excellence.

Even when a plot twist hurled Benjamin Button (Pitt) on a tug boat - to toil for a brief stint as a sailor - the project remained afloat at sea.


To some, a clandestine affair with the wife of a Diplomat (Tilda Swinton), may have been a little far-fetched; but, it didn't upset the apple cart in my estimation.

However, Swinton's part amounted to a throw-a-way role, which was annoying.

What a waste of stellar talent on screen!

When "Button" shifted forward and focused the lens on the character's middle years, illogical plot twists flabbergasted me.

Subsequently, the overly-long feature from Paramount & Warner - that a handful of lunatic critics are raving about - ended up all "holes" to me.

For example, although Benjamin was raised in humble surroundings and was an uneducated down-to-earth man - in a revved up second half of the screen oddity - a Brad Pitt fashion show shifted into high gear.

In spite of a lack of foundation, Button is suddenly captured on celluloid jaunting about the globe - by jet, luxury auto, and pristine cabin cruiser - all decked out in what smacks of top-of-the-line Gianni Versace suits and a supporting cast (wardrobe ensembles) that would dazzle even the jaded Duke of Windsor!

Superficial crap!

For a moment, I thought was settling into a shameless segment of a Sydney Sheldon mini-series.
Then, at the heart of the film, the plot zeroed in on a love affair - and subsequent live-in relationship - that Button plunged into with great abandon.

Here, mind-boggling conflicts reared their ugly head for the discerning film buff to ponder incredulous.


For starters, I thought the lead actress - Kate Blanchette - was terribly miscast.

Since the tale is supposed-to hinge on Button's fascination with a mystifying magnetic beauty from his long suffering past, you'd think that the producers would have cast an actress capable of exhibiting those precious qualities.

To me, Blanchett was little more than a cardboard cut-out of the Fitzgerald vision, with mechanical moving parts that propelled her everywhere but in the right direction.

Kate, the bloom is off the rose!

Shortly after a child is born out-of-wedlock, Button is prompted to exit the home life.

Fearing that when he "de"-ages, he'll end up a toddling burden to his mistress and a baffling oddity to the daughter he dotes on (now sprouting into a nubile young creature by-the-minute in the bumpy storyline) Button chooses to roam the high seas.

Ciao, baby!

Now, there are endless shots of Benjamin Button toiling at odd jobs, travelling the highways and byways of the known world, and - on occasion - dashing off the occasional picturesque postcard home.


"Sure wish I could have been there for your first recital," Button whined in one.

"Sorry, I missed the chance," he moaned in another.

What a load of piffle!

When Benjamin Button returned for a visit years later, his buffed bod and mental faculties were still intact.

At this juncture (it was obvious to me, anyway) that Button could have easily attended those first recitals or journeyed home to toast a number of birthdays - even celebrate a special family event or two - before the great "darkness" settled in.

The wanderlust years amounted to beef helper, if you catch my drift.

In the final analysis, the "Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is not a film for the intelligent filmgoer.

No, it's just a lot of eye-candy that ends up leaving a bad taste in the mouth after a - ho hum - predictable ending.

On a scale of 1-10 - 10 being best - Benjamin rates 3 button holes for the snappy designer suit.

http://www.julianayrs.com

Profile of Judge Judith Chirlin Los Angeles Superior Court...abuse of power, unlawful interference with appeal process, court corruption!

Boxing Judge Judith C. Chirlin!

Industry-insiders may recall that Kim Basinger agreed to appear in the feature - "Boxing Helena" - by virtue of a "memo", and later, subsequently found herself hauled into court by the producers for damages when she bowed out of the project.

Unfortunately for the Hollywood beauty, her case was referred to a disreputable female jurist, Judge Judith C. Chirlin.

From the get-go, rumors abounded once Chirlin's courtroom shenanigans commenced.

Some whispered that the gruff Judge was a lesbo with the hots for Basinger.

To others, the horsey woman with the overblown sense of self-importance, was - quite simply - jealous of the starlet, her stunning looks, and the rich trappings that were part 'n parcel of her fame.

But the showdown really came to fore when Judge Chirlin manipulated the proceedings in a deceitful effort to grab the brass ring for herself.



In fact, after ruling in favor of the producers on the breach of contract suit, Chirlin had the audacity to attend the premiere of "Boxing Helena" which - to some - appeared to rub salt in the wound.

The Commission on Judicial Performance was inclined to issue a much harsher rebuke.

After reviewing the facts, the Commission publicly admonished Judge Chirlin for improper conduct within the meaning of Article VI, Section 18 (d) of the California Constitution based on the following facts:

"In 1993, a jury trial in the case of Main Line Pictures, Inc. v. Kim Basinger et al, was conducted before Judge Chirlin.

The case involved an action for breach of contract based on defendant Basinger's alleged withdrawal from Main Line's movie "Boxing Helena" which was completed and released with a different female lead.

The case attracted significant media attention due to the subject matter and the celebrity of the defendant.

There was a verdict for plaintiff Main Line Pictures, Inc. on March 23, 1993.

A notice of appeal was filed by defendants Kim Basinger, et al. on July 16, 1993.

In August 1993, Judge Chirlin attended the world premiere of "Boxing Helena" at the invitation of the movie's producer, the plaintiff in Main Line Pictures, Inc. v. Kim Basinger, et al.

The premiere consisted of the showing of the movie followed by a reception at a local Los Angeles restaurant.

Judge Chirlin's attendance at the event was noted in the media.

Judge Chirlin's attendance at the premiere was improper in that it contributed to an appearance of bias.

Due to Judge Chirlin's role in the trial of the lawsuit, the judge was seen as joining in the plaintiff's celebration of the movie's release and the plaintiff's celebration of its legal victory.

An appearance of bias or partiality erodes public confidence in and respect for the judiciary.

Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities; Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires that judges perform judicial duties without bias; Canon 4 requires that a judge's conduct (even extrajudicial activities) do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge.

On January 2, 1994, while the appeal of judgment in Main Line Pictures Inc. v. Kim Basinger, et al. was still pending, an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times Sunday magazine about the case.

Judge Chirlin was interviewed for the article and asked about allegations that her rulings during the trial exhibited bias against defendant Basinger.

Judge Chirlin was quoted as saying:

"The fact of the matter is that throughout the trial, a significant portion of my rulings were in favor of Kim."

The commission found that Judge Chirlin's comments to the reporter about the Main Line Pictures. Inc. v. Kim Basinger, et al. case were in conflict with the provisions of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which states in part:

"A judge should not make any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court."

At the time of the remarks, an appeal of the judgment was pending.

The requirement that judges refrain from commenting about cases continues during any appellate process until final disposition."

In arriving at their finding, the commission noted that the judge recognized and acknowledged the impropriety of her attendance at the premiere and of her public comments regarding the case.

But, Chirlin proceeded to thumb her nose at the Commission - and in a handful of cases that followed - abused her power, manipulated court documents, and on one occasion made inappropriate direct communication with Justice Klein in the 2nd Appellate Court (Division 3) which adversely (and unlawfully) affected the Appellant's right to a fair hearing on the appeal.

For example, in a case involving a dispute over damages in a civil suit, the defendant's attorney submitted a "Motion" to the court asking that the plaintiff be declared a "vexatious litigant".

In support of the arguments set forth in the moving papers, the dishonest attorney not only misrepresented the facts - but also misinterpreted the Civil Code - in an underhanded attempt to prevail at the hearing.

Notwithstanding the fact the Plaintiff was not served with any notice of the hearing (and subsequently did not appear in court), Judge Chirlin proceeded to grant the motion in spite of the fact the Plaintiff did not meet the stringent requirements of applicable California Code.

Was Chirlin ignorant about the specifics of the Statute and binding case law?

Obviously!

The fact that she didn't bother to research the issue not only established her incompetence, but her willingness to put the integrity of the court at risk.

Or, was there something more sinister underfoot?

Did Chirlin have associations with the defendants (a thriving business entity) that prompted her to "swing" the ruling in their favor?

In view of what transpired thereafter, it doesn't appear to be a far-fetched notion.

For example, after the ruling of the court was served on the plaintiff, he proceeded to lodge an appeal with the 2nd Appellate Court, which was promptly assigned to Division 3.

Pursuant to Rules of Court, the Appellant served a "Notice of Appeal" on Chirlin.

Shortly thereafter, Judge Chirlin contacted Justice Klein in the Appellate Court, and whispered in the Jurist's ear that the Appellant was a vexatious litigant.

It is important to note that Chirlin neglected to inform Justice Klein that the issue on appeal pertained to the Appellant's alleged "vexatious litigant" status declared by the lower court.

Subsequently, Klein assumed that because the Appellant was "allegedly" a known vexatious litigant in the environs of the court, that the appeal must be frivolous.

Henceforth, Klein dismissed the appeal without a proper review, and in direct violation of the Appellant's right to an appeal on the issue.

If a plaintiff is declared a vexatious litigant - and the allegations do not meet the stringent requirements of the Statute - he or she has every right pursuant to California law to lodge an appeal on the issue to determine if there was error in the lower court proceedings.

In sum, Judge Judith C. Chirlin willfully and wrongfully interfered with the Appellate process, misrepresented the facts to a Justice of the Appellate Court - and ultimately - abused her power.

All to the damage of the Plaintiff/Appellant.

In another incident at the courthouse, a man delivering paperwork to her courtroom at the downtown Los Angeles Superior Court facility, was detained, searched, and held against his will - without explanation - due to Judge Chirlin's skewered view of her Judicial reach.

The unsuspecting fellow innocently entered Chirlin's courtroom one fine morning with the specific aim of hand-delivering moving papers (and the documents in support) to the Jurist's clerk to meet a filing deadline.

Inside, Judge Chirlin was engaged in a discussion with an attorney.

So - as quickly and quietly as possible - the gentleman turned over the paperwork to the court clerk, turned on his heel, and exited.

About five minutes later, when he stepped off an escalator, two Sheriffs strode up and demanded that he halt.

In response to instructions on a walkie-talkie, the guards proceeded to frisk the startled citizen, search through his pockets at whim, and snatch up his wallet.

No explanation was forthcoming when the man expressed his outrage at what appeared to be an illegal search and seizure in direct violation of his rights.

Just as quickly as the ugly scene unfolded, it ended, when the guards permitted him to go on his way.

The shaken man later determined that Judge Chirlin ordered the demeaning detainment because she was put-off by the fact noise filtered into the courtroom during the proceeding when he innocently entered and exited.

In retrospect, it's obvious that Judge Chirlin not only has a vindictive streak - but without warning - is capable of striking out and abusing her power.

In spite of the fact Chirlin was in the middle of a hearing, and the man was hardly out the door, within minutes she articulated her rage by issuing an directive that the intruder be hunted down, detained, and humiliated with a body search.

And, to heck with her court proceeding, eh?

Chirlin has also been known to bully and belittle lawyers who appear before her, too.

Undoubtedly, the lady (and I use the term loosely) suffers from an inferiority complex.

A search on the Internet will also rustle up a handful of curious posts about Judge Chirlin, worthy of taking a gander at.

Glowing tributes appear to have been posted by friends and business associates (or, just maybe, by Chirlin herself) in a sly effort to rehabilitate her image.

I laughed out loud when I came across one news clip which reported that Chirlin narrowly missed a bomb blast when she was in war-torn Baghdad.

I just betcha she was the intended target!

After all, over the years Judge Chirlin has racked up quite a few enemies in the Judicial system, back-stabbing legal circles, and among the social-climbing set beyond those realms.

In the final analysis, Judge Judith C. Chirlin is a disgrace to the Judiciary, an inept Judge wallowing in a sesspool of corruption down at the courthouse.

Until the dragon lady is ousted from the bench, the integrity of the court will constantly be at risk.

Karl Kraus once opined:

"Corruption is worse than prostitution. The latter might endanger the morals of an individual, the former invariably endangers the morals of the entire country."

http://www.julianayrs.com

Defiance...Jews who fought back! Acting tour de force...

The premiere for DEFIANCE at the AFI Film Festival in November was probably the highlight of the season.

Non-stop, the press were treated to up-close and personal interviews with a handful of the stars who wafted down the red carpet a stone's throw away from excited fans who strained curbside for a glimpse of their screen idols.

Vanessa Redgrave and Matt Dillon put in unexpected appearances, too.

Even, high profile behind-the-scenes power brokers turned out to tout the release.

Post: 11/10/2008

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2008/11/afi-festvanessa-redgrave-surprise-at.html

When Ed Zwick alighted for a chat, he was beaming with pride.

"The story may have been lost because Tuvia Bielski was such a humble man. Although he was considered a hero, he downplayed it."

Of course, he was referring to the man who inspired a community of Jews in a concentration camp, to steal away from the clutches of the Germans and seek their freedom in the wilds beyond the death camps.

Yes, Defiance is based on a true-life story about Jews who actually fought back against the Nazis in World War II.

There is quite a bit of action on screen - and likewise - no-holds barred violence on the heels of it.

Even still - the producers managed to weave a tale not only about the horrors of war - but the human condition, as well.

Unexpected twists-and-turns have been delighting rapt audiences.

A romantic wedding scene - shot under a canopy of grand old trees deep in a mystical forest - touches the heart and resonates, for instance.

The acting throughout is superb, with special kudos going to Liev Schreiber and Jamie Bell, in particular.

In contrast, I found Daniel Craig's acting style a bit too minimalist in approach.

For the most part, he was stone-faced - with little expression on his face - throughout.

And, his accent (?) was as fleeing as the wind.

In spite of those annoyances, I'm sure a shot of Craig shirtless in a romantic scene by an open fire, must have curried favor with his devout fan base.

The film was a tad long, but worth the price of admission, nonetheless.

http://www.julianayrs.com

West Hollywood...vehicles get the boot! Sign of the times?

I was dashing around - and fussing about with chores - when I suddenly spied a nasty archaic-looking thing-a-ma-jig (in brilliant orange) on the front left wheel of a dozen or so upscale cars parked around the neighborhood.

Gotcha!

The mighty "boot" struck stealthfully under the cover of darkness last night!

The unprecedented sweep was obviously a coup for the city.

Notwithstanding, the merciless night raid signalled two things to me.

One, the city is desperate to secure an influx of cash for the public coffers.

Two, motorists hit by the recent economic crunch, are having difficulty coughing up their parking fees.

Can't they proffer an I.O.U.?

Just asking!

"Running into debt isn't so bad. It's running into creditors that hurts."

Author unknown

http://www.julianayrs.com

Palm Springs International Film Festival...cultural waste in the desert. Writer Susan King clueless...

I laughed out loud when I read the caption for Susan King's feature in the Los Angeles Times for the Palm Springs International Film Festival.

"The world flocks to indie oasis."

Hardly.

If she thinks so, she's deluding herself.

To paraphrase Samuel Goldwyn:

"They'll probably stay away in droves."

Ms. King must have lost her artistic sensibilities.

Either that - or she's on "the take" - maybe even friends with festival organizers and filmmakers screening their projects out in the boonies.

Come to think of it - in view of recent features she's penned - I'd have to conjecture she never had any worthwhile sensibilities to begin with.

Surely - she doesn't expect that on her "say so" - filmgoers are going to flock to the 9th Hole in Palm Springs to plunk down hard-earned cash for the piffle they're offering up in that cultural wasteland?

I expect that there is a self-serving motive behind King's gushing report.

Like the Richard Raddon /Los Angeles Film Festival fiasco - I expect a closer behind-the-scenes investigation just might ferret out Los Angeles Times newspaper ties to the annual event - politically, socially, financially.

Whatever!

After all, they're a scurrilous lot at the morning daily.

Ms. King started off by enticing readers with "Last Chance Harry" bait.

Ho Hum!

Dustin Hoffman's new release was premiered at the AFI Film Festival last month to tepid reviews.

And a scant few weeks later is - um - savoring less-than-full houses.

Who wants to drive down to P.S. to nibble at crumbs left-over from more prestigious film festivals around the country?

Unless up-close vistas of commercial buildings that hug a highway are your cup of tea - the ninety-minute trek down a bumpy two-lane highway sounds a tad pointless - don't you think?

Of course, if a fest enthusiast hankers for images of dizzying (!) tiers of highway overpasses (like those scraping the sky at the turnpike in San Bernardino) or getting their rocks off in truck-stop johns along the route- then, this jaunt is for you - Bud!

King proceeded to gush - like some infernal groupie or school-girl with a first crush - that the desert oasis horse & pony show was drawing "star" power this year.

Whoa nellie!

Excuse me, Ms. King, but the cast of "Revolutionary Road" doesn't fit the bill.

Isn't that little stinker languishing in movie houses currently and on its way to bombing big time?

Sean Penn, a draw?

Although many will concede Mr. Penn is a fine actor, I don't recall anyone ever chomping at the bit to catch a glimpse of him in person at a premiere, in the men's room, or acting naughty on the street.

If anything, the cautious are more inclined to avoid the man in person - and his political tirades - sure to put a blight on any upbeat social, cultural, or newsworthy event.

And - here's is a chance to catch a handful of indie films you won't encounter elsewhere on the circuit - she teases.

Frankly, my dear, the obscure ditties you referred to aren't of much interest to any discerning film buff.

In this instant case, in the event of a curiosity factor, I just betcha they'll wait until the celluloid oddities end up on their last legs at a $4 matinee screening at the Regency in West Hollywood.

King was also inclined to rave about a "Black Tie" gala event scheduled to kick off the festival first night.

Golly, nothing sounds more exciting than a function filled to the rafters with a gaggle of puffed-up Lounge Lizards in stuffy formal attire waxing incoherently about a medium they know nothing about.

Speaking of desert creatures, they left no stone unturned in this regard.

King and the Festival folks - cross my heart - dragged out the ghost of Sonny Bono to hammer home the point that the festival erupted on the circuit initially with a smattering of glitz and glamour.

Why, an opening night celebration was once held at Bono's fancy digs, by golly!

What happened???

Truth of the matter is, the venue is downright creaky.

Laid-back, Ms. King?

How about sleepy and out-of-touch?

I give it a two "liver-warted" thumbs down".

Dinosaur exhibit down the highway has more appeal!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Profile of Judge Joseph S. Biderman of West Los Angeles Superior Court...guilty of abuse of power, corruption, and Rights Violations!

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.

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.

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.

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."

http://www.julianayrs.com