Americans are listening.
One of these is Full Disclosure Network, which produced a five part program on "Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption" This segment points up the ongoing case of attorney Richard Fine, incarcerated for contempt of court for over 100 days in Los Angeles for his attempt to disqualify L. A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe from hearing a case where Fine contends he was biased. Justice matters to Richard Fine.
Full Disclosure has won Emmies for former programs. Their producer, Leslie Dutton, promises they will not quit. In another report by Full Disclosure, Sterling Norris and Paul Orfanedes added their insights to the Judicial Watch's motion for Injunctive Relief in the Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles case BC351286. The case challenged the propriety payments by Los Angeles County to the Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court. These were found to be illegal. The decision was upheld by the California Supreme Court.
Both Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties resisted ending extra payments to judges, and those stories continue to unravel to public view. The larger issue touched on by Judicial Watch and documented by Full Disclosure Network goes to the deep perversion of California's system of justice. In the last few days San Bernardino District Attorney Michael Ramos has faced charges from one of his own victims, Jim Erwin. Erwin was charged with ten felonies for the delayed filing of gifts, normally ignored. Erwin says it was all political payback from Ramos and has been outgoing with facts. The power entrusted to run our institutions have become tools for oppression and theft.
America has never more needed transparency and accountability. We need to rethink our justice system and government.
The present justice system for courts and for law enforcement is a hodgepodge of unproven ideas, policy more like science fiction than fact. It depends on the moral rectitude of those who most easily profit from corruption.
The change-over from localized control began in the 1930s. Oversight from the public was substituted with 'oversight agencies,' staffed by more lawyers. In California, the Council for Judicial Performance and the Office of the Attorney General, charged with reviewing cases in California ignore this pivotal responsibility, continuing to collect their salaries, increase their 401Ks and take their vacations. Less that ½ of one percent of cases referred are reviewed, a shameful fact.
The Bar Association for California is never inclined to make trouble for fellow attorneys. Taken together, these examples above point to the source of the problem. The wolves are guarding the flock; those who stand to profit are positioned to ensure there is no accountability.
Today the concept of 'beta testing' has permeated the public consciousness and is understood as an essential protocol. If software can not be proven to work it should not be sold. Our justice system was 'software,' not buildings but the protocols to provide justice. It did not work. We can see the effects all around us.
We were naÃ¯ve, trusting. As a result attorneys, judges and law enforcement have become a hazard to all of us. There is no transparency, no accountability. Many now intend to enact change.
Judicial Watch, a non-profit with officers in Pasadena funded the litigation that resulted in Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles.
They demand solutions to these problems -
- a canny judge who makes sure any appeals on cases where he has 'gotten special considerations' is reviewed by a friend who receives a portion of the largess.
- a judge decides that selling verdicts will burnish his bottom line.
- a District Attorney guilty of crimes prosecutes those who threaten him.
- a judge tells the Clerk of the Court to substitute altered documents.
1 | 2