According to the Los Angeles Times, two Judges who presided over proceedings in the Lindsay Lohan case have been disciplined for misconduct by the Commission on Judicial Performance (which is based in San Francisco).
Surprisingly, the complaints against the two bench warmers were not brought by Ms. Lohan’s legal counsel.
In fact, it was a bitter Los Angeles County Court spokesperson by the name of Allan Parachini (who was fired for allegedly leaking info to the media during the course of the trial) who zipped off a complaint alleging wrongdoing by Judge Marsha Revel and Judge Eden Fox which prompted the probe which led to the disciplinary action.
Revel was slapped on the wrist for improper ex-parte communications with attorney Robert Shapiro (O.J. Simpson’s former legal counsel) who once sought the role of attorney of record during the course of the highly-publicized case.
Judges are required to ensure that lawyers representing both sides in a legal action are present when pressing legal issues are discussed in open court or in private in the Judge’s chambers. Deputy District Attorney – Danette Meyers (the prosecutor in the Lohan case) – was essentially shut-out when Judge Revel initially met with Shapiro to discuss his possible representation.
Judge Fox, on the other hand, was disciplined for denying Lohan bail on a misdemeanour charge that she was legally eligible for.
On appeal, Fox’s ruling was overturned – at which point – Lohan was released on a $300,000.00 bond.
In the opinion of the “whistle blower”, Judge Fox hurt the credibility of the court by going against the letter of the law.
Though there was no irreparable harm to Lohan because of the initial ruling in the lower court, the Commission agreed that Fox’s conduct warranted punishment in keeping with the severity of the offense committed.
Normally, disciplinary action of the sort that was taken in the Lohan case, is kept under wraps in official court records. But, because a party to the complaint (a Los Angeles Times source) disclosed the details of the complaint issues – and the subsequent outcome of the court's findings – the action by the Justices has become public.
As the reporter noted in the Los Angeles Times article, it is rare that action is taken against a Judge - and rarer still - that the punishment levied will amount to a hill of beans.
Judges have a tendency to protect their own, after all.
I know from whence I speak!
Years ago, I appeared IN PRO PER before Federal Judge Andrew A. Hauk in a Civil action I brought against a defendant. At one point, when I attempted to argue the merits of my case, Judge Hauk became annoyed and proceeded to threaten me in open court.
“You think you’re so smart! How would you like it if I tossed you in jail,” he snarled at me.
Everyone in the courtroom was stunned!
Even the court clerk cautioned the judge about his inappropriate conduct - but - the crusty old Jurist paid him no mind.
He was so unprofessional and belligerent, that I stormed out of the courtroom in disgust, as he screamed back at me angrily from the bench.
“You come back here! You come back here!"
I fled out the door.
Right away I filed a complaint against Judge Hauk for violating my rights and engaging in inappropriate conduct not befitting a sitting Judge.
At this point, it came to my attention that Judge Hauk was notorious in legal circles for belittling lawyers and litigants alike, and engaging in outrageous behaviour that scandalized members of the legal community and the public at large.
For example, in one case, he referred to immigrants as “faggots”!
In another, he labelled activists “pointy-headed do-gooders” - and boy - were they angered over that!
When a female lawyer got “testy” in his courtroom one fine day, he joked:
“Oh, they get that way about this time of the month."
Unfortunately for the litigants and lawyers he abused, Hauk was a "Teflon Judge”.
No complaint ever stuck, until I came along, that is.
Once I received word back that the Commission was launching an investigation, the Los Angeles Times called me and asked for an interview.
When the shocking incident appeared in the morning newspaper in all its mind-boggling detail, the news media were in a frenzy to interview me on-camera, too.
Fox News was one of the first to nab me.
Once a reporter confirmed the facts, she proceeded to track down Judge Hauk, who was located at a Judge’s Conference in the Los Angeles area.
As soon as Hauk was within striking distance, the ballsy gal thrust the camera in his face as he was exiting a building.
“Sir, they say you’re crazy. What about the investigation that's underway with the Commission on Judicial Performance in San Francisco about your alleged misconduct?”
He glared into camera and yelled back at her:
“Poppy Cock! Poppy Cock!”
Then, he angrily hobbled off.
That night, every fifteen minutes-or-so before the nightly newscast, Fox would run a clip of the upcoming News item featuring Hauk glaring into camera yelling "Poppy Cock!" (with a corresponding clip of me).
The voice-over went something like this:
"Is this Judge crazy? Should he be allowed to sit on the bench? News at 11!"
Of course, once the complaint went public, the Commission turned around and punished me (for granting interviews on television about the incident) by downplaying my role in the Hauk investigation and subsequent disciplinary action that followed.
Uh-huh!
Justices at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal (who handle complaints on Judicial Performance) are known to be disreputable and a corrupt lot. I discovered that first-hand.
Even still, Judge Hauk was banned from hearing any Civil Rights cases after that fiasco unfolded around-the-globe!
If I didn't get my due from the "Commission", I got it elsewhere, though.
"American Lawyer" ran a story in which I was portrayed as a "Hero" who felled Hauk when no one else ever could before in legal circles.
And, that - as Bugs Bunny would say - is all for now folks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment