ElectricLawyer

My mother is a terrorist

My odyssey began earlier this week when ING Direct closed the joint account I had with my mother, set up so I could deposit her monthly $882 SSI check (her only money). The bank said it was required to close it after I told them she could not speak to them, as she no longer speaks, as she is 87 years old, deep in dementia and in hospice care.

So now I'm trying to open another joint account. Well, thanks to some version of the Patriot Act, my mother needs a state ID to open an account. Guess what? She has not had a driver's license in 20 years (thank God), and since she can no longer leave the board and care home, she can't get a state ID, which requires a personal presence.

I'm sure President Bush would say that we have now prevented another dangerous terrorist from depositing funds in the U.S. She does look dangerous, doesn't she?

Our tax dollars at work.

Furious with ING Bank

I had a joint account with Netbank with my mother, who suffers from advanced dementia. Netbank went bankrupt (or whatever banks do), and ING acquired its assets. After several months of allowing me to transfer funds from the joint account to my account (because the ING account does not have checking services), suddenly they refused to do so. I called and was told that because they are an online bank, they have to talk to their clients personally. When I told them my mother no longer speaks, they closed our account. I now have to find a brick and mortar bank that will allow me to open a joint account without seeing my mother. Meanwhile I have to come up with this month's board-and-care payment.

More good stuff on Judge James Brooks

Stuff just keeps rolling in. Turns out Judge Brooks was admonished by the Commission on Judicial Performance for sarcastically telling a defendant with heart problems his "little ticker might stop" in jail. The Commission published three prior private admonitions. In one, Judge Brooks referred to Latino defendants collectively as "Pedro." In another case he told a defendant that "you have more names than the Tijuana telephone book," and in a third he issued a bench warrant for an Asian-American defendant for "$10,000 or 20,000 yen." The document may be found here.

Now get this: in 1989 the Orange County Constitutional Rights Foundation named him Judge of the Year! What is that about, and who are these folks?

Judge Brooks has done this before

One of my sources brought this case to my attention. In Hernandez v. Paicius  109 Cal.App.4th 452, 455 (Cal.App.4.Dist.2003) the court of appeal starts by saying, "First, we note the remarks of the trial court give the appearance the court held preconceived ideas based on stereotypes of undocumented aliens. The comments raise doubts about the fairness and impartiality of the proceeding and cast the judicial system itself in a bad light in the eyes of the litigants and the public at large." The decision ends by saying, "One hundred years ago, our Supreme Court cautioned against judges making oral pronouncements wholly out of accord with recognized principles of fairness. It stated: “The trial of a case should not only be fair in fact, but it should also appear to be fair. And where the contrary appears, it shocks the judicial instinct to allow the judgment to stand.” [Citations.] Such a case is presented here. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial, with directions to the presiding judge of the superior court to assign the matter to a different judge."

So the bottom line on Judge Brooks is that the case I reported earlier today is not just a misguided attempt at heavy-handed humor. Judge Brooks has a serious problem. So why isn't the Commission on Judicial Performance doing anything about it?

My ears are open, folks. Give me more.

What Was He Thinking? Orange County Judge James M. Brooks

Orange County Judge James M. Brooks "conduct was sufficiently egregious and pervasive that a reasonable person could doubt whether the trial was fair and impartial and reverse on that ground. On remand, the case shall be assigned to a different judge."

"It is obvious that much of the judge's conduct was not malicious but rather a misguided attempt to be humorous; and defendants' lawyer played into it, often acting as the straight man. But a courtroom is not the Improv and the presider's role model is not Judge Judy. We can only imagine what was in the jurors' minds as they endured a 30-plus day trial in this atmosphere or the impression of the judicial system they took away with them posttrial."

The reviewing court found impropriety in Judge Brooks' action of watching a video which defendants sought to introduce without the presence of plaintiffs, then overruling plaintiffs' objection to admission (ex parte contact). It found a "lack of courtesy and decorum" in allowing and helping to create a "circus atmosphere, giving defendants' lawyer free rein to deride and make snide remarks at will and at the expense of plaintiffs and their lawyer. That was misconduct. (Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3(B)(3) ['A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings'].)" The "overruled" signs, supplied by defendants' counsel and used by the judge to rule on objections also showed lack of courtesy and decorum. Allowing defendants' counsel to read extensively from an inadmissible deposition of a non-party, and overruling objections in a demeaning manner was misconduct, as was the use of humor to belittle plaintiffs: "Here the judge and defendants' lawyer had fun by making plaintiffs' lawyer the butt of their jokes. They took turns providing straight lines and punch lines to each other in a way that could only convey to the jury that they were a team and plaintiffs' counsel was an outsider."

The court quotes one of Judge Brooks' comments in toto: "Midway into the trial, the court stated, 'Jeffrey [the clerk], we're going to the soccer style method here. Red card, 50 bucks each. Okay. If I say, red card plaintiff, write it down, 50 bucks. Red card defense, 50 bucks. [¶] We'll keep a running tab. End of trial, we'll collect it from them and we may take you guys [presumably the jury] to lunch at a very nice place. Okay. Court has enough money for now, and that will either stop the talking or give you a very nice lunch.'" "Use of the 'soccer-style' 'red card' procedure was glaringly inappropriate, also violating the requirement of judicial decorum. In addition, in employing it the court demonstrated favoritism toward defendants."

Comment that disparaged one plaintiff's testimony ("aren't they clever") implied that witness was not telling the truth, which was also improper.

Failure to object did not waive claims because objections would have been futile. Court's comment to jurors that they should disregard what he said constituted "only a dribble of water incapable of quenching a blazing fire." "Having served in that capacity [as jurors], we are well aware of the tremendous power the comments and attitude of a trial judge have on a jury. That power was repeatedly abused during this case and a passing admonition was not enough to cure it."

Fact that Judge Brooks was also rude to defendants' counsel "does not ameliorate the misconduct .... to the extent this is true, neither side received a fair trial."

Haluck v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (Fourth Dist., 6/1/07, G035681) 07 C.D.O.S. 6457

And we think California judges can be strange?

Justice Elizabeth Weaver of the Michigan Supreme Court, in a series of dissents, accuses her colleagues of "bully tactics," "abuses of power" and "grossly unprofessional conduct."

This lady even has her own self-aggrandizing web site, unlike any judge's web presence I've ever seen.

What's going on in Santa Barbara?

This just in: Division 6 of the Second District of California has removed Santa Barbara Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen from the prosecution of Jesse James Hollywood (I don't make this stuff up, folks). It seems that Zonen was consulting with movie producers who were making a movie based on the case he was prosecuting. According to the Santa Barbara Independent's story back in July, Zonen worked with filmmaker Nick Cassavetes in the filming of  Alpha Dog and shared probation files and police reports with Cassavetes. The opinion states that "Heather Wahlquist, who assisted in the creation of Alpha Dog, declared that Zonen appeared 'to be ‘star-struck’ and eager to assist the film-makers.'" The case is Hollywood v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County (2006) __ CA4th __, 2d Crim. No. B188550.

So I ask: what is going on in the Santa Barbara DA's office? And could the District Attorney have been completely unaware of all this? I noticed that on June 6, 2006, a new District Attorney was elected (although the District Attorney's website still features the old DA). That may be the reason the court did not recuse the entire office.

Santa Barbara DDA Joyce Dudley - a followup

It seems that Ms. Dudley, the prosecutor rebuked by the court of appeal yesterday for writing novels based on cases she was currently prosecuting, has written another book, called "Justice Served." Amazon.com describes it thusly: "Jordon Danner is a tenacious, edgy prosecutor who frequently deals with crimes against children and those who perpetrate them. Jordon is also a mother who has an unflappable belief in for justice for all. Because of a new state law, that extends the statute of limitations, she has less than 24 hours to decide whether to file a 25-year old child molestation case. The plot unfolds during these electrifying hours, while Jordon carefully reviews the touching and poignant interweaving of the lives connected to the alleged perpetrator. In the end, Jordon ensures that justice is served." I've also heard there's a third book on the way.

It would be interesting to find out if these other books are also based on cases she prosecuted. It also makes it clear that her boss, District Attorney Thomas W. Sneddon, Jr. must have been fully aware of what she was doing.

What was she thinking? Santa Barbara DDA Joyce Dudley

RECUSAL - DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WRITES A BOOK BASED ON CASE SHE IS PROSECUTING
Haraguchi v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County (People) (2006) Cal.App.4th (Second Dist., 10/5/06, B19116)
    Justice Yegan, speaking for a unanimous panel of the Second District, reverses the denial of a motion to recuse Santa Barbara Deputy District Attorney Joyce Dudley, on the grounds that she has a conflict of interest: while prosecuting the petitioner for rape by intoxication, she was promoting a self-published novel about a rape by intoxication cases which includes details from petitioner's case. The court states: "We will grant the petition ... with the hope that this case of first impression will make a case of lasting impression."
    Still with me, or have you fainted from too much laughter? The novel is called Intoxicating Agent and is published by a vanity press called Infinity Publishing. In a story published on the website of the Santa Barbara Independent, Dudley is quoted as admitting that her protagonist, a Santa Barbara Deputy District Attorney named Jordon Danner, is a "pumped-up version of herself" and in an article published on Dudley's website, she says Danner is "Joyce on steroids." The novel describes Danner as having the "poise and sexiness of a dancer, the brains of a scholar, and the protective passion of a mother."
    Despite the glaring similarities between the book and the real-life prosecution, Dudley opposed the recusal motion by declaring that the book had nothing to do with the case. And the trial judge (unnamed in the opinion) buys it, saying: "it doesn't appear ... as though there is a conflict .... The publication ... appears to be coincidental ...".
    The court of appeal stated: "Dudley is using her official position to obtain personal financial gain .... No current public employee should be permitted to exploit his or her official position ... to earn extra income," and notes that her position is "a major selling point for the book" and exploited on the front and back covers.
    Ed. Note: I could not think of a more bizarre story if I tried. I think Ms. Dudley deserves this week's What Was She Thinking award (maybe even this year's, but there are so many other candidates). Link

HP Execs, Lawyers Charged

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a felony complaint in Santa Clara Superior Court against HP's Patricia Dunn, Ronald DeLia (misspelled in the complaint), Matthew Depante, Kevin Troy Hunsaker, and Bryan C. Wagner. The first count is, not surprisingly, conspiracy (the prosecutor's darling) with 17 overt acts. Count 2 is fraudulent use of wire to obtain customer records by means of false pretenses (PC 538.5). Count 3 is taking, copying, etc. computer data (PC502(c)(2)). Count 4 is using personal information without authorization (PC 530.5(a)). Arrest warrants are requested. If you'd like to read all the documents yourself, check them out on Findlaw.

Dunn is the former Chair of the Board of Hewlett Packard, DeLia and Depante are the investigators hired by HP (Security Outsourcing Solutions and Action Research Group respectively), Hunsaker is the former chief ethics officer, and Wagner was employed by Action Research. For a "dance card" of the players, see the site for Toomre Capital Markets.

What's interesting about Wagner is that even though he's charged with conspiracy along with everybody else, not a single overt act mentions him by name. My reading of Penal Code section 182(b) is that it requires that an overt act be charged, but maybe that doesn't have to happen until the information is filed following the preliminary hearing. ("(b) Upon a trial for conspiracy, in a case where an overt act is necessary to constitute the offense, the defendant cannot be convicted unless one or more overt acts are expressly alleged in the indictment or information, nor unless one of the acts alleged is proved; but other overt acts not alleged may be given in evidence.")

Who is missing from this list? Well, former general counsel Ann Baskins. I'll give you only one guess as to why. My guess: she'll be the chief witness for the prosecution, singing like a bird.