Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Judges Are Not Subject To The Law.

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    Judges Are Not Subject To The Law JAIL4Judges responds to Mr. Cullins most recent message below: Dear George Cullins: ghc@nctimes.net I am very appreciative
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 22, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       
      Judges Are Not Subject To The Law
       
       
      JAIL4Judges responds to Mr. Cullins' most recent message below:
       
      Dear George Cullins:   ghc@...
       
      I am very appreciative of what you are doing, and also for sending copies of this string to the various California legislators. You are hitting upon the fundamental cause that triggered the writing of J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) --- the nonperformance of penalties and sanctions against judges, i.e., they are not being enforced.
       
      Let me cite you to Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution: "The Legislature shall prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record. A judge of a court of record may not receive the salary for the judicial office held by the judge while any cause before the judge remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision."
       
      That provision in our Constitution is crystal clear, yet it is that very provision that I talk about below that I sought to have enforced. The judge of whom I have complained is Judge Alan B. Haber. I sought, by writs of mandates all the way through the State Supreme Court and on up to the U.S. Supreme Court, with merely the word "Denied" all the way up.
       
      Further, as I said, I went to the State Attorney General's Office with my complaint, and they told me that they have a conflict of interest and are the judges' defense counsel. I must say here, that I hand delivered an affidavit to the payroll department for Los Angeles County judges to cease and desist making further payment of salary to Judge Alan B. Haber. I informed them that he was in violation of Article VI, Sec. 19 of the California Constitution which requires withholding of salary as a sanction for being in violation; and that if they had questions regarding this provision, to consult with the State Attorney General. Result --- nothing! No enforcement of that provision!
       
      I've taken this question even to the Governor's Office where his office gave me very nice and courteous lip service, saying they would look into it. Upon my follow up, they have since refused to even acknowledge my existence.
       
      I then took this violation to the California Legislature and was directed to the Chief Counsel for Chairman Philip Eisenberg of the Judiciary Committee of the State Assembly. As counsel studied this matter, he said "This is a real head-scratcher. I've never seen anything like this before," and that he would look into it. I've followed up and found the "finger-pointing" game to such a point that all my paperwork turned up missing, and the entire matter dropped, nor could it be revived despite all efforts.
       
      The underlying statute which Judge Haber was obligated to act upon within 90 days, pursuant to Art. VI, Sec. 19, was Code of Civil Procedure §585(b) on defaults. It provides that the judge shall hear the evidence and shall render judgment in plaintiff's favor for such amount as is just from the evidence. This statute uses "SHALL" twice, and could not be any clearer.
       
      I then took it upon myself to assist the Legislature by writing for them a proposed enforcement clause for §585(b), directly within the statute itself, that provided that whenever a judges fails to determine such amount that is just under this statute within 90 days, the clerk of the court shall, upon application thereof following the 90th day, enter a judgment by clerk for the full amount plead in the complaint.
       
      With no action on that proposal, I started requesting the removal of the entire subsection (b) of CCP §585 from the books as a dysfunctional measure on the books that just takes up space on paper, and is totally unenforceable and useless against judges. It deceives the People of the State of California into believing that this statute is law.
       
      Code of Civil Procedure §585(b) is still on the books, as well as Art. VI, Sec. 19 of the California Constitution, and there is clearly the sanction of nonpayment of salary for noncompliance. But just try to get it enforced!
       
      It was mainly because I saw virtually every statute providing for sanctions against any California judge as totally unenforceable, with the Attorney General admitting they will not go after judges for such violations, that J.A.I.L. was designed.
       
      Assuming you are successful in getting your "enforcement" into statute as you say, why would you think it would be any more enforceable than the enforcement provisions already provided for against California judges?
       
      This is purely why we MUST have J.A.I.L. in place, as JAIL makes judges personally liable to the plaintiff if the Special Grand Jury finds the judge violated the law, and they did it willfully. It also provides for "three strikes and you are out" for judges, and does not depend upon the Attorney General for enforcement.
       
      Please pass this on to the legislators with whom you are in contact. Thank you very much, and I look forward to your response.
       
      -Ron Branson-
      Author/Founder J.A.I.L.

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:47 PM
      Subject: Re: Judges are among the greatest disrespectors of law.

      Ron:
      I know this, but I keep trying to alert people of the problem of certification.

      I helped create AB 195, written in 1996, that modified Penal Code §190.8. We, knowing what you just stated, put sanctions in the bill. The sanctions, knowing you can't take judges' pay away from them, was to deny them to be paid until they had completed the certification of the record of trial. The Pres Pro Tem of the Senate at the time, Bill Lockyer, would not let the bill out of Committee unless we took the sanction out. We wanted the time frames for the appeal procedures to be in place, so we took the sanctions out. The bill was passed and has now modified §190.8. 
       
      The next year we tried to reinstate sanctions to force compliance, and SB 591 was written and died in Committee.  Lockyer is Anti DP [death penalty] by his action, although he mouths another tune.
      As you know, no bill is worth its salt if there are not sanctions to force compliance. So Lockyer has made a paper tiger out of AB 195. But it could expedite the appeal process, in death penalty cases,  if we could get the denial of pay inserted as a sanction. Some judges have denied certification of the record of trial over 10 years. 
       
      In our case, the killer is a serial killer that has two DPs. Judge Thomas in Santa Monica delayed certification for 7 years and 7 months.  In San Diego, Judge Lasater delayed certification for 5 years and 5 months.  PC §190.8 stated, at that time, certification must be completed by 90 days after sentencing. So you see, sanctions are needed. Do you think Judge Thomas would have delayed certification if he didn't get paid until certification was completed?
      Under the NEW §190.8, the Judicial Council has broken certification down into two phases, Completeness and Accuracy. The new PC §190.8 only applies to those cases where the TRIAL began after 1 January 1997. As far as I know, as of the last report I received, only one judge has complied, of all of the DP sentences issued under the new PC §190.8
      Massie, who is scheduled to be executed in March, has been on death row since 5/25/79. If we could shorten the appeal, by forcing certification to be completed in the time frame specified, we could send a stronger message that will help reduce murders. It is the strength of the message of the punishment that reduces crime. Informing the masses that they can kill and have only a .0001143 chance of being executed is as weak as the message can get, other that eliminating executions.

      George H. Cullins
      Justice Against Crime  ..  Judicial Crime.


      jail4judges wrote in response:

        Say George, the judges, as a practical matter, are not subject to the law. I went to the Attorney General's office about a certain judge violating the law. The California Constitution says, "Subject to the Governor, the Attorney General shall see that all laws are uniformly and adequately enforced." While they would not state in their office, as I was leaving the office and entering the elevator, a Deputy Attorney General entered the elevator with me, and between floors he said, "Mr. Branson, you are asking us to go after the judges in California. We cannot do that because we have a conflict of interest. When you sue these judges, we are their defense counsel. When we bring action, we appear before these judges, and we want them on our side. We cannot go after law-breaking judges." So there we have it. Section 190.8 is merely one of thousands of laws the judges do not respect. 
       
      -Ron- 
       

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 2:24 PM
      Subject: Re: Taking the Challenge to join J.A.I.L.
       
      Do you address the criminal action of Judges that fail to comply with the law, Penal Code 190.8, in certifying the record of trial so the appeal con even commence. Law says that the Judge and both the Prosecution and the Defense must have the record of trial cerified within 240 days after sentencing a person to death row. 
       
      I ask how many judges have complied with this law since AB 195 made changes in 190.8?  AB 195 became law 1 January 1997.  As far as I know, in my limited accessability, only one judge has complied.  With an average of 35 sent to death row every year, this means that 139 judges have violated the law and the Chief Justice does nothing to rectify the problem in a meaningful manner. Lots of lip service, but no action.  The [California] Attorney General knows this because I have informed him and he doesn't file charges.  Let me run a stop light, and I am hooked.
      We have a murderer scheduled to be executed in mid March.  He has been on death row since 25 May 1979.  The only reason he is scheduled is because he asked that his appeal be stopped.  NOT BECAUSE OF ANY ACTION BY OUR JUDICIAL PROCESS.
      I have read a lot of your e-mails and I have never received one that brings this failure to the attention of your readers.
      There are two things that reduce the murder rate: assigment of a meaningful punishment, and expediting of the appeal.  Massie was given a meaningful punishment, but the appeal has been drug out 22 years when it was required by law to be accomplished within 320 days after sentencing,  under the old Penal Code §190.8. Crime is controlled by the punishment executed in an expedient manner. How expedient is 7,944 days when the law states 320?  
       
      Remember, California, as of today, has executed 8 killers out of nearly 70,000 murders. When California started executing, the murder rate was 12.9 per year, 4,095 annual murders. Now that those 8 have been executed, the rate is down to 5.9 or 2006 per year.  Don't you think that the public should be informed of this?

      George H. Cullins   ghc@...
      Justice Against Crime  ..  Judicial Crime

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.