By now Californians and the nation are aware of the enormous salaries of the City of Bell, CA officials, and the aftermath reactions by Bell residents and others. Much of the reaction, as well as the knowledge of the salaries, is due to the investigation and publication of the L.A. Times. There is no dispute that the information should have been provided, especially to Bell city residents, because its clear that they were unaware of the salaries, and they should have been aware. And, the L.A. Times have conducted other investigations on middle class minorities(for the most part)(the majority of the Bell officials in question is minority), such as nurses (especially the Martin Luther King,Jr. Hospital nurses),union officials, probation workers, etc.. But, the question is: why doesn't the L.A. Times perform investigative reports on state and federal judges(who are public officials, by the way), and other federal officials suspected of criminal conduct (with supportive evidence), and even, in some instances,where the suspected conduct has been corroborated by action by the FBI? Could it be because the judges are white? Or, perhaps because they are judges? Or, maybe both (because they are white judges)? Or, is there some other "mutual interests", or other reasons why their conduct is not reported? The judges certainly, as mentioned, are public officials, like the Bell officials (and thusfar, the Bell officials have not been accused of misconduct or criminal conduct (although a fishing expedition has now begun) --- and certainly negotiating for and ultimately obtaining a high salary, alone, is not misconduct or criminal conduct---merely receiving high salaries)), and their conduct, like the Bell officials, is at least suspect; and there are more than one judge or other official (or several). I would be interested in the L.A. Times response. The judges I'm referring to are those with pending cases in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, such as Steven Hintz, Dickran Tevrizian, William Schwarzer, Cathy Catterson, etc.. I'm sure if the Times did reporting on these individuals, it would garner the same public response and outrage as the Bell officials reporting did, and for the same reason, i.e., outrageous conduct by public officials. And, the Bell officials did not commit or cause any direct harm to Bell citizens (only unintentional indirect harm, in the sense that perhaps the excess salaries could have gone to other public programs or salaries,e.g. laid-off workers ). On the other hand, the judges and other officials referred to here caused intentional direct harm,e.g., racial discrimination, fraud, false statement, and obstruction of justice, to citizens, but their conduct is not investigated or reported. Strange, very strange, don't you think?
Moreover, the result of the L.A. Times investigating and reporting on minority public officials is minority on minority in-fighting, i.e., minority Bell citizens calling for the ouster of minority public officials, while the white majority, including the L.A. Times, sit back and watch the fallout (including, now, the firing of a minority city attorney for Downey, who was city attorney for Bell when the salaries were assigned). It was similar with the M.L.K., Jr. minority nurses being pitted against the minority Watts community (but, the major uproar came not from the minority community, but the white press, print and broadcast). Of course, if questioned, the L.A. Times would likely state that its reporting had nothing to do with the fact that Bell is a minority city, rather, it was simply a happenstance of such an important nature that the American "public" (not just Bell residents) should be informed about it. Sure! Then why not investigate and report the outrageous conduct of some of the white judges?
Bell residents should be thankful to be informed of the outrageous salaries(and there is no question that the salaries, for public officials, are outrageous) of the various Bell officials in question, but they should be apprehensive about believing that it was done just for their benefit. It was done because it is a sensational newsstory that will sell newspapers for the Times now and in the future; and, because it did not involve white officials (the Times is careful not to state, from my reading of their stories, that Bell officials are the "highest" paid officials in their positions in the country, merely "among" the highest, which means that there are other officials in the country, and perhaps California, making as much or more than the Bell officials, and are probably white--and they have not been reported by the Times. But, yes, this is speculation. I could be wrong. So, L.A. Times, prove me wrong. Continue your investigation and provide some of the other high salaries at other California municipalities and nationwide and provide the race or color of those making those high salaries. Then I, and other members of the public, will be able to see if the Times reporting was biased or not.
In the end, this piece is not written so much to condemn the L.A. Times, although it should be condemned if its reporting is biased or racist, as much as to call for "fairness" in reporting. If the Times is going to report on the outrageous conduct of minority public officials, then it should also report on on-going or simultaneous outrageous conduct of white officials, especially the aforementioned judges and other officials with pending complaints against them in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles; otherwise, it is clearly biased or racist reporting.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
ROMAN POLANSKI AND THE UNINDICTED JURISTS OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES, CA .
LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
FEDERAL ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 611432
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
TEL: (805) 901-2693
July 21, 2010
ROMAN POLANSKI AND THE UNINDICTED JURISTS OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES, CA : WHY SWISS JUSTICE MINISTER EVELINE WIDMER-SCHLUMPF’S DECISION WAS NOT ONLY CORRECT, BUT ALSO NECESSARY.
When the Swiss Justice Ministry decided not to extradite Roman Polanski back to the United States, its decision was correct because : (1) Polanski had pleaded guilty for having sex with a minor (a charged crime) and he had served the sentence that the judge, California judge Laurence J. Rittenband, had ordered (a 90-day psychiatric study prison sentence at Chino, CA)(being released by prison authorities after serving 42 days). Polanski did not try to escape punishment for his crime, and he served his time; (2) the real victim, Samantha Geimer, has publicly forgiven Polanski for his criminal acts and no longer seeks his further prosecution; (3) the U.S. government refused to turn over evidence that likely would have demonstrated that Polanski had been convicted and served his sentence; and (4) the U.S. government refused to turn over some of the same evidence (i.e., a prosecutor’s testimony of a “secret” meeting among the trial judge, prosecutors, and Polanski’s attorneys, where it is alleged that judge Rittenband intended to re-sentence Polanski and force his deportation) that would likely demonstrate judicial misconduct with the intention to violate Polanski’s due process and equal protection of the law rights (the judge intended to force Polanski’s deportation through threat of a longer sentence—de facto deportation of course, because, legally, deportation would be a federal matter and would have to have been dealt with by the old INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service)(so Rittenband lacked authority to legally deport Polanski) and the purported de facto deportation was based on Polanski’s status as a non-citizen---generally, only a non-citizen can be deported; therefore, judge Rittenband was going to treat Polanski disparately different based on his citizenship status)). As it turned out, part of judge Rittenband’s intended and unconstitutional acts occurred anyway, that is, the forced deportation of Polanski. When Polanski fled and returned to France, he voluntarily deported himself to avoid the second part of judge Rittenband’s intended acts, i.e., re-sentencing with a longer sentence. I will discuss this second part of the intended acts ahead, infra.
Roman Polanski did not flee from punishment or sentencing, he fled from the anticipated and intended misconduct of a judge (in contract law and language, he contemplated an “anticipatory breach” of the plea agreement by the judge plus additional misconduct, i.e., knowing and intentional violation of his constitutional rights) and the likelihood that the United States government would not correct or overturn the judge’s actions. That brings us to why Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf’s decision was necessary.
The Swiss Justice Ministry’s decision not to extradite Polanski to the United States was necessary because : (1) if the Swiss government extradited Polanski back to the U.S., it would contribute to and support the second part of judge Rittenband’s intended and unconstitutional acts, that is, re-sentencing Polanski to a longer sentence, after he had already served his sentence (and although judge Rittenband has passed, it is likely that his replacement would, in some way, give effect to judge Rittenband’s decision), and (2) if the Swiss government did not act to correct the misconduct of the trial judge, Rittenband, by, in effect, enforcing Polanski’s original and served sentence, it is very unlikely that the United States government would do so, were Polanski and his case extradited back to the United States. Why? Because the United States has a pattern and history of not disciplining its judges, both state and federal. It is rare when the United States discipline its judges, state or federal, and usually it is done in “secret” (and usually the “secret discipline” is early retirement or resignation, with no relief to the victim of the judge’s actions). Of course, the United States can point to specific cases of judicial discipline through prosecution and/or impeachment, e.g., federal district court judges Alcee Hastings , Samuel Kent, and currently pending, Thomas Porteous, and the misconduct proceedings of Ca Central District judge Manuel Real, but, in the mix of things, with the likely numerous number of judges that actually commit misconduct or criminal conduct, government discipline of these judges is rare. And, this is so, even when the judges cause serious and/or significant harm (meaning their actions ruin lives and careers—and, as a matter of full disclosure, my life and legal career were ruined by the misconduct/ criminal conduct of bad or corrupt judges) to its own citizens, not to mention non-citizens or foreigners.
It is very likely that the Swiss government knew of America’s history of dealing with its judges, perhaps in some way through Polanski’s attorneys, and it had a lack of confidence that the United States would correct judge Rittenband’s misconduct if the case was extradited. And, after the Swiss requested the information that they believed would shade some light on the judge’s misconduct, and the United States refused to provide this information (which “created ‘persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case’ ”, L.A. Times, July 13, 2010, “Director freed on legal technicalities”), it probably only served to reinforce the Swiss government’s lack of confidence that the U.S. would discipline the judge (and reverse or prohibit his intended actions), so it decided it would be fairer to Polanski to not risk his being treated unfairly by a government with a tendency not to correct or discipline its judges for their misconduct, and, consequently, to not send him back to the United States. “In these circumstances, it is not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty that Roman Polanski has already served the sentence he was condemned to at the time”, a statement by the Swiss justice ministry , according to the L.A. Times, Id. This brings me to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles.
If the Swiss government wanted any evidence that the U.S. does not penalize or reverse the vast majority of its judges for their misconduct, it need only review the Complaint file of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles regarding state and federal judges. The following are just a few of the cases that I am personally aware of, which are still pending in the U.S. Attorney’s Office (and have been pending since June, 2007). In none of the cases have the U.S. Attorney’s Office responded to the victims of the charged crimes (except a lone telephone call made after a month-long demonstration in front of the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles and a fraudulent letter sent to the victims claiming that the U.S. Attorney could not pursue the complaint) or penalized any of the judges (with the only action of any kind being “secret” and persuasive early retirement or resignation, and at least several with retirement benefits). When the term “charged” is used in the examples or information below, it means what the complainants “complained” about or “charged” in their complaint.
1. Steven Hintz, Ventura County Superior Court judge : charged with conspiratorial racial discrimination causing my unlawful and unconstitutional eviction from my home-law office and causing the unlawful shutdown of my law practice. I submitted evidence showing, among other things, that Hintz prejudicially determined the outcome of an unlawful detainer jury trial by answering a jury question that was required to be answered by the jury itself; that he prejudicially forecast, in open court, that he would not grant me (a black lawyer) a stay of legal proceedings, without me even asking for one; and finally, that Hintz prejudicially and unlawfully kept his word and denied a stay (after being ordered to hold a hearing by an appellate court). The totality of these actions caused the loss of my home and law practice.
RESULTS OF U.S. ACTION : NO PENALTY for Hintz (but early retirement with pension benefits). His rulings or actions have NOT BEEN REVERSED (after nearly 7 years of litigation since the actions). Hintz is now running for another government office, Treasurer-tax collector, and, in doing so, has committed election fraud and voting rights violations. And, there has been NO RELIEF for the victim of his actions or crimes. My home-law office has not been returned, nor have I been compensated for the loss of my law practice.
2. Barry Klopfer, Ken Riley, and David Long, Ventura County Superior Court judges (acting as appellate judges) : charged with racial discrimination and/or conspiracy to deny constitutional rights based on race and for filing a false statement in an appellate opinion, in violation of federal criminal law, for the purpose of supporting a racially discriminatory judgment (Hintz’s).
RESULTS OF U.S. ACTION : NO PENALTY for any of the judges (but early retirement for Klopfer). Judges Long and Riley continue to sit on the bench in Ventura County. Long has recently run unopposed for his judgeship (but Ventura County voters know nothing about the criminal complaint or the facts of the case because the local media refused to inform them). Their actions have NOT BEEN REVERSED . And, there has been NO RELIEF for the victim.
3. Dickran Tevrizian, U.S.District Court judge, Cent. Dist.of CA : charged with multiple actions amounting to the denial of constitutional rights based on race or racial discrimination (again, I, as a black lawyer, was one of the victims of Tevrizian’s actions; the other was my white client, Jeanette Andrews), e.g., denial of a TRO and a preliminary injunction without a hearing for either and in violation of a local district court rule; denial of counsel to my white plaintiff client without a hearing; denial of a pro hac vice motion, without a hearing, by a black lawyer after a white counsel of record had to withdraw because of dictates by the state bar of California; ignoring the law in order to set aside a default by the government (the Navy); and, entering a summary judgment for the Navy without jurisdiction or authority to do so.
RESULTS OF U.S. ACTION : NO PENALTY for Tevrizian (but early retirement and benefits). There has been NO REVERSAL of Tevrizian’s rulings or actions, and there has been NO RELIEF for the victims (no compensation for Jeanette Andrews, even though the Navy defaulted, based on their counsel’s actions, and my law office has not been returned).
4. Terry Hatter, Jr., U.S. District Court judge, Cent. Dist. Of CA : charged with ignoring the law for the purpose of denying an individual, Harold James Griffith, social security disability benefits, after the person had been unlawfully denied benefits for over 20 years .
RESULTS OF U.S. ACTION : NO PENALTY for judge Hatter (but early retirement to senior judge status). There has been NO REVERSAL of Hatter’s decision to deny social security disability benefits to Griffith. And, there has been NO RELIEF for the victim.
5. William Schwarzer, U.S. District Court judge, Northern Dist. of CA (acting as an appellate judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals): charged with, among other things, ignoring the proper or correct standard for determining an aspect of a social security disability case; making up a false standard for the same matter; and violating a federal statute directed at prohibiting the denial of government benefits based on race ( I relied on my race in representing a white client).
RESULTS OF U.S. ACTION : NO PENALTY for Schwarzer (he was already retired—senior status). His judgment was NOT REVERSED , and there was NO RELIEF for the victim, Harold J. Griffith. He was not granted past or present social security benefits, even though an administrative law judge had found him to be disabled, as a matter of medical evidence and social security disability law, and ordered benefits be paid.
These are just a few of the cases that I am aware of, and there are more, and it doesn’t include any cases that I am not aware of .
So Swiss Justice Minister Widmer-Schlumpf’s decision to deny extradition to the United States was correct for the above-stated reasons, and the decision was necessary : (1) because the Swiss Ministry likely had no confidence that the U.S. government would correct the misconduct of judge Rittenband, thereby leaving Minister Widmer-Schlumpf with no choice (especially after the U.S. government refused to produce documents or testimony that might help enhance the Swiss’s confidence---which is further proof of the U.S. government’s protection of the misconduct of its judges) but to deny extradition ; and (2) to assure that Roman Polanski receive fundamental fairness regarding his American proceedings and to assure that his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law are protected.
Furthermore, Polanski will likely be able to travel worldwide (although he may not choose to), including Europe, Africa, and Asia, because even for other countries with extradition treaties with the U.S., the Swiss decision will likely represent precedent for most of those countries, and they will likely require the same information that the Swiss required in order to extradite Polanski (and Polanski’s attorneys will help assure that this happens) . And, of course, the U.S. will refuse to provide it. Thus, no extradition. The only country that Polanski will not be able to travel to is Israel , and that’s because of the “special” relationship between the U.S. and Israel . Perhaps a hint to the future resistance of the international community to the extradition of Polanski might be found in a recent extradition request by the United States, see the L.A. Times, “U.S. extradition request rejected”, July 17, 2010, where “A panel of international judges decided not to extradite a Kosovo terrorism suspect to the United States and then set him free, a European Union official said.” “Nicholas Hawton of the EU said the U.S. request to extradite ethnic Albanian Bajram Asllani, 29, did not demonstrate “well-grounded suspicions” that he plotted terrorist attacks.” Id.
Moreover, it is my understanding that Polanski’s attorneys will seek to have a third or independent party to investigate the misconduct of judge Rittenband. Well, to that notion, I say “Good Luck”! I, on behalf of myself and two clients, have requested the appointment of a U.S. Special Prosecutor, John Durham, to act as an independent special prosecutor to investigate the above-described cases-complaints of judicial misconduct/criminal conduct and other pending cases-complaints in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles . I have yet to receive a response from Mr. Durham or the new U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles, or the Attorney General, Eric Holder, which further evidences the U.S. government’s continued shielding of its judges’ misconduct and/or criminal conduct. Google John Durham and review my letter to him.
The Los Angeles Times, in an editorial, “Pandering to Polanski”, July 13, 2010, states “Switzerland’s refusal to extradite the director appears to be a case of ‘celebrity justice.’ ” I would suggest that if anyone received “celebrity justice”, it was judge Rittenband (whom the L.A. Times do not name in its editorial piece). And, the celebrity justice was provided by the U.S. government. The same celebrity justice that the government provides most of its judges. Does anyone believe that if there were misconduct or criminal conduct by Polanski’s attorneys, or prosecutors for that matter, affecting the outcome of the U.S. extradition request for Polanski , that the U.S. would not have readily turned over evidence of that conduct to the Swiss government, if requested, in order to have Polanski extradited? The only reason the U.S. refused to turn over that “secret” information is because it incriminated judge Rittenband as to judicial misconduct. Again, the Swiss did the right thing, and it had nothing to do with Polanski’s celebrity . It had everything to do with protecting Polanski’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law.
Finally, the newly appointed U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, Andre Birotte (who is Black), according to the Los Angeles Times, is “creating a specialized unit to prosecute public corruption and civil rights cases, such as those involving politicians or police officers accused of crimes.” And, the mission of the unit will be “to bring to justice those public officials and public employees who violate the public’s trust.” Well, he has a caseload of complaints, supported by probable cause evidence, sitting and waiting for his mission in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles presently. Let’s see what happens. Let’s see if he will keep his word, or will he be the same as the removed Thomas P. O’Brien. I’m looking forward to seeing the first case brought by the “new” public integrity section. I bet it won’t be a judge! If Birotte does begin to prosecute just some of the judges (and other officials) whose cases are pending in the Los Angeles office of the U.S. Attorney, it will go a long ways towards changing the United States’ image, both at home and abroad.
FEDERAL ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 611432
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
TEL: (805) 901-2693
July 21, 2010
ROMAN POLANSKI AND THE UNINDICTED JURISTS OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES, CA : WHY SWISS JUSTICE MINISTER EVELINE WIDMER-SCHLUMPF’S DECISION WAS NOT ONLY CORRECT, BUT ALSO NECESSARY.
When the Swiss Justice Ministry decided not to extradite Roman Polanski back to the United States, its decision was correct because : (1) Polanski had pleaded guilty for having sex with a minor (a charged crime) and he had served the sentence that the judge, California judge Laurence J. Rittenband, had ordered (a 90-day psychiatric study prison sentence at Chino, CA)(being released by prison authorities after serving 42 days). Polanski did not try to escape punishment for his crime, and he served his time; (2) the real victim, Samantha Geimer, has publicly forgiven Polanski for his criminal acts and no longer seeks his further prosecution; (3) the U.S. government refused to turn over evidence that likely would have demonstrated that Polanski had been convicted and served his sentence; and (4) the U.S. government refused to turn over some of the same evidence (i.e., a prosecutor’s testimony of a “secret” meeting among the trial judge, prosecutors, and Polanski’s attorneys, where it is alleged that judge Rittenband intended to re-sentence Polanski and force his deportation) that would likely demonstrate judicial misconduct with the intention to violate Polanski’s due process and equal protection of the law rights (the judge intended to force Polanski’s deportation through threat of a longer sentence—de facto deportation of course, because, legally, deportation would be a federal matter and would have to have been dealt with by the old INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service)(so Rittenband lacked authority to legally deport Polanski) and the purported de facto deportation was based on Polanski’s status as a non-citizen---generally, only a non-citizen can be deported; therefore, judge Rittenband was going to treat Polanski disparately different based on his citizenship status)). As it turned out, part of judge Rittenband’s intended and unconstitutional acts occurred anyway, that is, the forced deportation of Polanski. When Polanski fled and returned to France, he voluntarily deported himself to avoid the second part of judge Rittenband’s intended acts, i.e., re-sentencing with a longer sentence. I will discuss this second part of the intended acts ahead, infra.
Roman Polanski did not flee from punishment or sentencing, he fled from the anticipated and intended misconduct of a judge (in contract law and language, he contemplated an “anticipatory breach” of the plea agreement by the judge plus additional misconduct, i.e., knowing and intentional violation of his constitutional rights) and the likelihood that the United States government would not correct or overturn the judge’s actions. That brings us to why Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf’s decision was necessary.
The Swiss Justice Ministry’s decision not to extradite Polanski to the United States was necessary because : (1) if the Swiss government extradited Polanski back to the U.S., it would contribute to and support the second part of judge Rittenband’s intended and unconstitutional acts, that is, re-sentencing Polanski to a longer sentence, after he had already served his sentence (and although judge Rittenband has passed, it is likely that his replacement would, in some way, give effect to judge Rittenband’s decision), and (2) if the Swiss government did not act to correct the misconduct of the trial judge, Rittenband, by, in effect, enforcing Polanski’s original and served sentence, it is very unlikely that the United States government would do so, were Polanski and his case extradited back to the United States. Why? Because the United States has a pattern and history of not disciplining its judges, both state and federal. It is rare when the United States discipline its judges, state or federal, and usually it is done in “secret” (and usually the “secret discipline” is early retirement or resignation, with no relief to the victim of the judge’s actions). Of course, the United States can point to specific cases of judicial discipline through prosecution and/or impeachment, e.g., federal district court judges Alcee Hastings , Samuel Kent, and currently pending, Thomas Porteous, and the misconduct proceedings of Ca Central District judge Manuel Real, but, in the mix of things, with the likely numerous number of judges that actually commit misconduct or criminal conduct, government discipline of these judges is rare. And, this is so, even when the judges cause serious and/or significant harm (meaning their actions ruin lives and careers—and, as a matter of full disclosure, my life and legal career were ruined by the misconduct/ criminal conduct of bad or corrupt judges) to its own citizens, not to mention non-citizens or foreigners.
It is very likely that the Swiss government knew of America’s history of dealing with its judges, perhaps in some way through Polanski’s attorneys, and it had a lack of confidence that the United States would correct judge Rittenband’s misconduct if the case was extradited. And, after the Swiss requested the information that they believed would shade some light on the judge’s misconduct, and the United States refused to provide this information (which “created ‘persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case’ ”, L.A. Times, July 13, 2010, “Director freed on legal technicalities”), it probably only served to reinforce the Swiss government’s lack of confidence that the U.S. would discipline the judge (and reverse or prohibit his intended actions), so it decided it would be fairer to Polanski to not risk his being treated unfairly by a government with a tendency not to correct or discipline its judges for their misconduct, and, consequently, to not send him back to the United States. “In these circumstances, it is not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty that Roman Polanski has already served the sentence he was condemned to at the time”, a statement by the Swiss justice ministry , according to the L.A. Times, Id. This brings me to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles.
If the Swiss government wanted any evidence that the U.S. does not penalize or reverse the vast majority of its judges for their misconduct, it need only review the Complaint file of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles regarding state and federal judges. The following are just a few of the cases that I am personally aware of, which are still pending in the U.S. Attorney’s Office (and have been pending since June, 2007). In none of the cases have the U.S. Attorney’s Office responded to the victims of the charged crimes (except a lone telephone call made after a month-long demonstration in front of the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles and a fraudulent letter sent to the victims claiming that the U.S. Attorney could not pursue the complaint) or penalized any of the judges (with the only action of any kind being “secret” and persuasive early retirement or resignation, and at least several with retirement benefits). When the term “charged” is used in the examples or information below, it means what the complainants “complained” about or “charged” in their complaint.
1. Steven Hintz, Ventura County Superior Court judge : charged with conspiratorial racial discrimination causing my unlawful and unconstitutional eviction from my home-law office and causing the unlawful shutdown of my law practice. I submitted evidence showing, among other things, that Hintz prejudicially determined the outcome of an unlawful detainer jury trial by answering a jury question that was required to be answered by the jury itself; that he prejudicially forecast, in open court, that he would not grant me (a black lawyer) a stay of legal proceedings, without me even asking for one; and finally, that Hintz prejudicially and unlawfully kept his word and denied a stay (after being ordered to hold a hearing by an appellate court). The totality of these actions caused the loss of my home and law practice.
RESULTS OF U.S. ACTION : NO PENALTY for Hintz (but early retirement with pension benefits). His rulings or actions have NOT BEEN REVERSED (after nearly 7 years of litigation since the actions). Hintz is now running for another government office, Treasurer-tax collector, and, in doing so, has committed election fraud and voting rights violations. And, there has been NO RELIEF for the victim of his actions or crimes. My home-law office has not been returned, nor have I been compensated for the loss of my law practice.
2. Barry Klopfer, Ken Riley, and David Long, Ventura County Superior Court judges (acting as appellate judges) : charged with racial discrimination and/or conspiracy to deny constitutional rights based on race and for filing a false statement in an appellate opinion, in violation of federal criminal law, for the purpose of supporting a racially discriminatory judgment (Hintz’s).
RESULTS OF U.S. ACTION : NO PENALTY for any of the judges (but early retirement for Klopfer). Judges Long and Riley continue to sit on the bench in Ventura County. Long has recently run unopposed for his judgeship (but Ventura County voters know nothing about the criminal complaint or the facts of the case because the local media refused to inform them). Their actions have NOT BEEN REVERSED . And, there has been NO RELIEF for the victim.
3. Dickran Tevrizian, U.S.District Court judge, Cent. Dist.of CA : charged with multiple actions amounting to the denial of constitutional rights based on race or racial discrimination (again, I, as a black lawyer, was one of the victims of Tevrizian’s actions; the other was my white client, Jeanette Andrews), e.g., denial of a TRO and a preliminary injunction without a hearing for either and in violation of a local district court rule; denial of counsel to my white plaintiff client without a hearing; denial of a pro hac vice motion, without a hearing, by a black lawyer after a white counsel of record had to withdraw because of dictates by the state bar of California; ignoring the law in order to set aside a default by the government (the Navy); and, entering a summary judgment for the Navy without jurisdiction or authority to do so.
RESULTS OF U.S. ACTION : NO PENALTY for Tevrizian (but early retirement and benefits). There has been NO REVERSAL of Tevrizian’s rulings or actions, and there has been NO RELIEF for the victims (no compensation for Jeanette Andrews, even though the Navy defaulted, based on their counsel’s actions, and my law office has not been returned).
4. Terry Hatter, Jr., U.S. District Court judge, Cent. Dist. Of CA : charged with ignoring the law for the purpose of denying an individual, Harold James Griffith, social security disability benefits, after the person had been unlawfully denied benefits for over 20 years .
RESULTS OF U.S. ACTION : NO PENALTY for judge Hatter (but early retirement to senior judge status). There has been NO REVERSAL of Hatter’s decision to deny social security disability benefits to Griffith. And, there has been NO RELIEF for the victim.
5. William Schwarzer, U.S. District Court judge, Northern Dist. of CA (acting as an appellate judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals): charged with, among other things, ignoring the proper or correct standard for determining an aspect of a social security disability case; making up a false standard for the same matter; and violating a federal statute directed at prohibiting the denial of government benefits based on race ( I relied on my race in representing a white client).
RESULTS OF U.S. ACTION : NO PENALTY for Schwarzer (he was already retired—senior status). His judgment was NOT REVERSED , and there was NO RELIEF for the victim, Harold J. Griffith. He was not granted past or present social security benefits, even though an administrative law judge had found him to be disabled, as a matter of medical evidence and social security disability law, and ordered benefits be paid.
These are just a few of the cases that I am aware of, and there are more, and it doesn’t include any cases that I am not aware of .
So Swiss Justice Minister Widmer-Schlumpf’s decision to deny extradition to the United States was correct for the above-stated reasons, and the decision was necessary : (1) because the Swiss Ministry likely had no confidence that the U.S. government would correct the misconduct of judge Rittenband, thereby leaving Minister Widmer-Schlumpf with no choice (especially after the U.S. government refused to produce documents or testimony that might help enhance the Swiss’s confidence---which is further proof of the U.S. government’s protection of the misconduct of its judges) but to deny extradition ; and (2) to assure that Roman Polanski receive fundamental fairness regarding his American proceedings and to assure that his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law are protected.
Furthermore, Polanski will likely be able to travel worldwide (although he may not choose to), including Europe, Africa, and Asia, because even for other countries with extradition treaties with the U.S., the Swiss decision will likely represent precedent for most of those countries, and they will likely require the same information that the Swiss required in order to extradite Polanski (and Polanski’s attorneys will help assure that this happens) . And, of course, the U.S. will refuse to provide it. Thus, no extradition. The only country that Polanski will not be able to travel to is Israel , and that’s because of the “special” relationship between the U.S. and Israel . Perhaps a hint to the future resistance of the international community to the extradition of Polanski might be found in a recent extradition request by the United States, see the L.A. Times, “U.S. extradition request rejected”, July 17, 2010, where “A panel of international judges decided not to extradite a Kosovo terrorism suspect to the United States and then set him free, a European Union official said.” “Nicholas Hawton of the EU said the U.S. request to extradite ethnic Albanian Bajram Asllani, 29, did not demonstrate “well-grounded suspicions” that he plotted terrorist attacks.” Id.
Moreover, it is my understanding that Polanski’s attorneys will seek to have a third or independent party to investigate the misconduct of judge Rittenband. Well, to that notion, I say “Good Luck”! I, on behalf of myself and two clients, have requested the appointment of a U.S. Special Prosecutor, John Durham, to act as an independent special prosecutor to investigate the above-described cases-complaints of judicial misconduct/criminal conduct and other pending cases-complaints in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles . I have yet to receive a response from Mr. Durham or the new U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles, or the Attorney General, Eric Holder, which further evidences the U.S. government’s continued shielding of its judges’ misconduct and/or criminal conduct. Google John Durham and review my letter to him.
The Los Angeles Times, in an editorial, “Pandering to Polanski”, July 13, 2010, states “Switzerland’s refusal to extradite the director appears to be a case of ‘celebrity justice.’ ” I would suggest that if anyone received “celebrity justice”, it was judge Rittenband (whom the L.A. Times do not name in its editorial piece). And, the celebrity justice was provided by the U.S. government. The same celebrity justice that the government provides most of its judges. Does anyone believe that if there were misconduct or criminal conduct by Polanski’s attorneys, or prosecutors for that matter, affecting the outcome of the U.S. extradition request for Polanski , that the U.S. would not have readily turned over evidence of that conduct to the Swiss government, if requested, in order to have Polanski extradited? The only reason the U.S. refused to turn over that “secret” information is because it incriminated judge Rittenband as to judicial misconduct. Again, the Swiss did the right thing, and it had nothing to do with Polanski’s celebrity . It had everything to do with protecting Polanski’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law.
Finally, the newly appointed U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, Andre Birotte (who is Black), according to the Los Angeles Times, is “creating a specialized unit to prosecute public corruption and civil rights cases, such as those involving politicians or police officers accused of crimes.” And, the mission of the unit will be “to bring to justice those public officials and public employees who violate the public’s trust.” Well, he has a caseload of complaints, supported by probable cause evidence, sitting and waiting for his mission in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles presently. Let’s see what happens. Let’s see if he will keep his word, or will he be the same as the removed Thomas P. O’Brien. I’m looking forward to seeing the first case brought by the “new” public integrity section. I bet it won’t be a judge! If Birotte does begin to prosecute just some of the judges (and other officials) whose cases are pending in the Los Angeles office of the U.S. Attorney, it will go a long ways towards changing the United States’ image, both at home and abroad.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Voting rights violations,public officials, and Ventura County, CA: A Letter to County Clerk James Becker
LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
Federal Attorney
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA. 90061
(805) 901-2693
April 28, 2010
James B. Becker
Assistant County Clerk and Recorder
Hall of Administration
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Dear Mr. Becker:
Re: Treasurer-Tax Collector Candidate Steven Hintz
As a matter of full disclosure, particularly for other Treasurer candidates and Ventura County voters (of which I am a member of the class), and especially in reference to Election Code sec. 13107(b)(1), the following information is provided.
The former judge Hintz has designated his ballot profession as “Retired Judge”.
However, his retirement was not “voluntary” , rather, it was involuntary, based on his being faced with incriminating evidence of criminal conduct pursuant to a federal criminal complaint filed against him (and, I believe, being caused to retire by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as an alternative to arrest and/or grand jury indictment )).
On June 25, 2007, I, along with two clients of mine, filed a federal criminal complaint against multiple individuals, including Mr. Hintz, charging them with multiple offenses, including violation of civil rights, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and obstruction of justice.
More specifically, for Hintz, he was charged with violating my civil rights based on my race (I am Black)(however , my two clients are white). He was charged with causing and continuing my unlawful and unconstitutional eviction from my home-law office in Ventura, California, and, consequently, causing the unlawful and unconstitutional shutdown of my law practice. I supported my complaint with evidence.
On the very same day, June 25, 2007, or thereabout, but after we filed our complaint, Hintz retired from the Superior Court bench. As we have argued and stated to the Department of Justice, without rebuttal from the Department, pursuant to FBI investigation of our complaint, the FBI, armed with the evidence supporting our complaint, offered judge Hintz the option of retiring from the bench on that day or thereabout or facing arrest and/or a likely grand jury indictment. Hintz chose to retire. Therefore, his retirement was involuntary and caused by FBI persuasion. However, “there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonably prudent voter”, faced with the designation “retired judge” would assume that Hintz’s retirement from the bench was completely and freely voluntary. That would be misleading, and the voter would have been misled.
CA Election Code sec. 13107(b)(1) states: Neither the Secretary of State nor any other elections official shall accept a designation of which any of the following would be true: It would mislead the voter.
In this instance, not only would the “retired judge” designation mislead Ventura County voters with respect to the involuntary nature of Hintz’s retirement, but it would also mislead them with respect to Hintz’s character (because if he, indeed, would have faced arrest or a grand jury indictment because the evidence would have supported it, it would mean that the FBI had found sufficient probable cause evidence that Hintz had committed the crime or crimes with which the complainants had charged, that it (the FBI) would present him with the option of retiring (or facing arrest and/or indictment)). And this reflects on his character .
In sum, as a matter of full disclosure regarding Steven Hintz’s ballot designation of “Retired Judge”, I, Laurack D. Bray, know and/or can show that a federal criminal complaint was filed against judge Hintz on June 25, 2007, and that judge Hintz retired on June 25, 2007 or thereabout (and after we filed our criminal complaint, and pursuant to that complaint); and, while I was not privy to any agreement between the FBI and judge Hintz (so I must state “I believe”), I believe that judge Hintz was given an alternative or option to retire (or face arrest and/or indictment), and he chose to retire. This scenario certainly could be flushed out at a hearing with testimony under oath.
Nevertheless, I believe that the ballot designation of “Retired Judge” would be misleading to Ventura County voters because they would assume that the retirement was freely and voluntary, rather than the result of an alternative or choice based on incriminating evidence of federal and felony criminal conduct.
While it appears that most instances of inappropriate or misleading ballot designations are brought to the attention of the Clerk-recorder by way of a challenge by an opposing candidate for office, pursuant to EC 13107, that is clearly not the only method of doing so. All EC 13107 requires is that the fact of a misleading designation is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State or elections official. Once that occurs, “Neither the Secretary of State nor any other elections official shall accept a designation of which any of the following would be true: (1) It would mislead the voter.” This letter serves to bring to your attention that Candidate Steven Hintz’s ballot designation of “Retired Judge”, under the circumstances, and in my view, as a Ventura County voter, is misleading. Hintz’s designation is especially misleading in the Treasurer-tax collector’s position, because there is another candidate, Thomas K. “Keith” McLaughlin, who also has the designation of “Retired” on the ballot. With all other qualifications being equal between Hintz and McLaughlin, and with certain voters having narrowed the final two candidates of choice down to McLaughlin and Hintz, it is more likely than not that a voter’s awareness of McLaughlin being voluntarily retired (I assume) and Hintz being involuntarily retired would make a difference in the choice he or she would make between the candidates. At minimum, the voluntary-involuntary characteristic would be a factor considered by the voter. As it stands now, Hintz’s retirement will be viewed the same as McLaughlin’s retirement by the voter, when, in fact, it is not the same.
It appears that the County of Ventura, on behalf of Ventura County voters, is required to offer Candidate Hintz an opportunity to make a showing that his designation is not misleading, and thereafter to make a determination and take the appropriate action. Otherwise, it will be a disservice to Ventura County voters on election day.
Finally, one other former Superior Court judge, Barry Klopfer, was also named in the criminal complaint, and he also “retired” after we filed our complaint. We believe he retired under the same circumstances as judge Hintz. Further, judge David Long, who is running unopposed for his judge position on the Superior Court, is also named in our complaint, and while he was not made to retire by the FBI, he remains under federal criminal investigation, as our criminal complaint is still pending. None of the charges has been dismissed based on a lack of evidence. The previous prosecutor, who oversaw the complaints when Hintz and Klopfer retired, has now been removed from office—and a criminal complaint was filed against him—and, to my knowledge, the new U.S. Attorney has not been officially appointed.
I will forward a copy of this letter to the California Secretary of State.
Sincerely yours,
Laurack D. Bray, Esq.
Cc: Secretary of State
League of Women Voters, Ventura County
Federal Attorney
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA. 90061
(805) 901-2693
April 28, 2010
James B. Becker
Assistant County Clerk and Recorder
Hall of Administration
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Dear Mr. Becker:
Re: Treasurer-Tax Collector Candidate Steven Hintz
As a matter of full disclosure, particularly for other Treasurer candidates and Ventura County voters (of which I am a member of the class), and especially in reference to Election Code sec. 13107(b)(1), the following information is provided.
The former judge Hintz has designated his ballot profession as “Retired Judge”.
However, his retirement was not “voluntary” , rather, it was involuntary, based on his being faced with incriminating evidence of criminal conduct pursuant to a federal criminal complaint filed against him (and, I believe, being caused to retire by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as an alternative to arrest and/or grand jury indictment )).
On June 25, 2007, I, along with two clients of mine, filed a federal criminal complaint against multiple individuals, including Mr. Hintz, charging them with multiple offenses, including violation of civil rights, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and obstruction of justice.
More specifically, for Hintz, he was charged with violating my civil rights based on my race (I am Black)(however , my two clients are white). He was charged with causing and continuing my unlawful and unconstitutional eviction from my home-law office in Ventura, California, and, consequently, causing the unlawful and unconstitutional shutdown of my law practice. I supported my complaint with evidence.
On the very same day, June 25, 2007, or thereabout, but after we filed our complaint, Hintz retired from the Superior Court bench. As we have argued and stated to the Department of Justice, without rebuttal from the Department, pursuant to FBI investigation of our complaint, the FBI, armed with the evidence supporting our complaint, offered judge Hintz the option of retiring from the bench on that day or thereabout or facing arrest and/or a likely grand jury indictment. Hintz chose to retire. Therefore, his retirement was involuntary and caused by FBI persuasion. However, “there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonably prudent voter”, faced with the designation “retired judge” would assume that Hintz’s retirement from the bench was completely and freely voluntary. That would be misleading, and the voter would have been misled.
CA Election Code sec. 13107(b)(1) states: Neither the Secretary of State nor any other elections official shall accept a designation of which any of the following would be true: It would mislead the voter.
In this instance, not only would the “retired judge” designation mislead Ventura County voters with respect to the involuntary nature of Hintz’s retirement, but it would also mislead them with respect to Hintz’s character (because if he, indeed, would have faced arrest or a grand jury indictment because the evidence would have supported it, it would mean that the FBI had found sufficient probable cause evidence that Hintz had committed the crime or crimes with which the complainants had charged, that it (the FBI) would present him with the option of retiring (or facing arrest and/or indictment)). And this reflects on his character .
In sum, as a matter of full disclosure regarding Steven Hintz’s ballot designation of “Retired Judge”, I, Laurack D. Bray, know and/or can show that a federal criminal complaint was filed against judge Hintz on June 25, 2007, and that judge Hintz retired on June 25, 2007 or thereabout (and after we filed our criminal complaint, and pursuant to that complaint); and, while I was not privy to any agreement between the FBI and judge Hintz (so I must state “I believe”), I believe that judge Hintz was given an alternative or option to retire (or face arrest and/or indictment), and he chose to retire. This scenario certainly could be flushed out at a hearing with testimony under oath.
Nevertheless, I believe that the ballot designation of “Retired Judge” would be misleading to Ventura County voters because they would assume that the retirement was freely and voluntary, rather than the result of an alternative or choice based on incriminating evidence of federal and felony criminal conduct.
While it appears that most instances of inappropriate or misleading ballot designations are brought to the attention of the Clerk-recorder by way of a challenge by an opposing candidate for office, pursuant to EC 13107, that is clearly not the only method of doing so. All EC 13107 requires is that the fact of a misleading designation is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State or elections official. Once that occurs, “Neither the Secretary of State nor any other elections official shall accept a designation of which any of the following would be true: (1) It would mislead the voter.” This letter serves to bring to your attention that Candidate Steven Hintz’s ballot designation of “Retired Judge”, under the circumstances, and in my view, as a Ventura County voter, is misleading. Hintz’s designation is especially misleading in the Treasurer-tax collector’s position, because there is another candidate, Thomas K. “Keith” McLaughlin, who also has the designation of “Retired” on the ballot. With all other qualifications being equal between Hintz and McLaughlin, and with certain voters having narrowed the final two candidates of choice down to McLaughlin and Hintz, it is more likely than not that a voter’s awareness of McLaughlin being voluntarily retired (I assume) and Hintz being involuntarily retired would make a difference in the choice he or she would make between the candidates. At minimum, the voluntary-involuntary characteristic would be a factor considered by the voter. As it stands now, Hintz’s retirement will be viewed the same as McLaughlin’s retirement by the voter, when, in fact, it is not the same.
It appears that the County of Ventura, on behalf of Ventura County voters, is required to offer Candidate Hintz an opportunity to make a showing that his designation is not misleading, and thereafter to make a determination and take the appropriate action. Otherwise, it will be a disservice to Ventura County voters on election day.
Finally, one other former Superior Court judge, Barry Klopfer, was also named in the criminal complaint, and he also “retired” after we filed our complaint. We believe he retired under the same circumstances as judge Hintz. Further, judge David Long, who is running unopposed for his judge position on the Superior Court, is also named in our complaint, and while he was not made to retire by the FBI, he remains under federal criminal investigation, as our criminal complaint is still pending. None of the charges has been dismissed based on a lack of evidence. The previous prosecutor, who oversaw the complaints when Hintz and Klopfer retired, has now been removed from office—and a criminal complaint was filed against him—and, to my knowledge, the new U.S. Attorney has not been officially appointed.
I will forward a copy of this letter to the California Secretary of State.
Sincerely yours,
Laurack D. Bray, Esq.
Cc: Secretary of State
League of Women Voters, Ventura County
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)