|
|
The Commission on Judicial Performance
WRITTEN STATEMENT ALLEGING FACTS
by; Christopher A. Brown, 6/18/00
To the Commission on Judicial Performance,
Per the statute requirements of rule 109 only a written request is needed to justify an investigation by the commission. This written statement substantially exceeds the requirement of rule 109 in that the included documents establish as fact, indicating well beyond allegation, serious willful, judicial misconduct in office and persistent failures or inability to perform the duties of office that bring the office into disrepute.
Rule 109. Commencement of Commission Action
"Upon receiving a written statement alleging facts indicating that a judge is guilty of willful misconduct".
It is vital to the future safety of myself and my children and the U.S Citizens of the State of California that the proper, discretionary performance of judicial officers be assured, rightfully, with respect to the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of the State of California.
REQUEST
I request with these written allegations that include orders and other supporting documents assembled as to the best of my ability to demonstrate for the Comission on Judicial performance, the need for an investigation of willful, judicial misconduct in office and the persistent failure or inability to perform the duties of office.
Based on rule 109 (a) (3), I Christopher A. Brown request that a preliminary investigation determining if formal proceedings should be instituted and a hearing held upon the performance of all judges mentioned in this statement.
Judge Joseph Lodge
Judge Joseph Lodge
After judge Willam Gordon's willfull misconduct in case 220298, was my eviction from my residence at that time (S.B.co SUP. CRT 229276 copy included). My landlord filed an unlawful detainer which was answered. Judge Joseph Lodge began the proceedings in my absence and I arrived to find the plaintiff landlord being questioned by his attorney. (see included minute order, 4-01-99.) Stress, anxiety and psychological trauma increased from the decisions of judge Gordon in September in case 220298 causing me absentmindedness and I forgot to bring vital evidence. My request 4-01-99 for a continuance was denied. The Judge decided in favor of the landlord and I filed an exparte motion for new trial (included). In 1997 Judge Joseph Lodge had disqualified himself in the "driving with a suspended license" matter because he knew my mother. Included is a copy of the minute order with the clerks notation at the bottom left. Attached to the motion for new trial was 15 pages of new evidence included here with the notice of intention to move for new trial. The motion for new trial was denied as shown by the included copy and the order in a handwritten notation by the judge states it was denied because the motion was not filed by noon on April 8, 1999. Included is a copy of the order and the receipt of the clerks office when the motion was filed on April 8, 1999 at 10:34 AM. This is judicial misconduct in office.
REQUEST
I request that this written statement and its information be considered for the commencement of action by the commission as described in rule 109 (a) based on; willful misconduct, persistent failure and inability to perform duties of office, prejudicial to the administration of justice bringing the judicial office into disrepute with improper action and dereliction of duty, BY Judge Joseph Lodge of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court.
INDEX
of supporting documents to written statement alleging facts of willfull misconduct of;
Judge Willam Gordon
Judge William Gordon
May 16, 1997 at the hearing of a motion for "Judicial review" (S.B.Sup. Crt.#209449) of the decision to withhold my California drivers license due to the non payment of child support, judge William Gordon, Department 6 of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court refused to hear information defining a conspiracy targeting the respondent in the action Christopher A. Brown and denied the motion. The motion included a statement concerning public safety phrased as "public emergency" referring to extreme behaviors and listed, 1 suicide and a explosion/fire suicide killing 2.
Immediately following the hearing I left the court house and drove approximately 2 miles to discover I had been followed by investigators of the District Attorneys Office who asked to see my drivers license as I exited my car. They called the Santa Barbara Police Department who cited me for driving without a valid license and my vehicle was towed. (see included citation)
The presence of the investigators indicate that judge had pre-decided my request for review, informed the district attorneys office and coordinated with investigators to enable them to be in position to follow me.
On August 12,1997 I filed a civil action against the County of Santa Barbara. The county counsel filed a Demurrer which was granted on October 27, 1997 by judge Frank J. Ochoa without leave for the plaintiff to amend. On January 13, 1998 judge Ochoa assigned the civil action to judge William L. Gordon.
On May 7,1998 I filed a motion in civil action 220298 to disqualify the assigned judge, William Gordon and attached the transcripts from the motion of May 16, 1997 (S.B.Sup. Crt.#209449) reviewing the decision to withhold my drivers license. The judge at the hearing of the motion, June 1, 1998, denied the motion ignoring the prejudice demonstrated in the transcripts (S.B.Sup. Crt.#209449) concerning my allegations re made or defined in case 220298. (see motion and included transcripts of May 16, 1997). An attorney was paid to advise me on the motion and advised that I use 170.6, he also advised I disqualify the department. The initial filing was rejected by the clerk who informed me I must disqualify the judge, stunned by the negligence of the attorney I continued as well as I could. C.C.P 170.6 has a ten day automatic recusal which the attorney did not advise me of, the later part of 170.6 states that a prejudice judge should not hear a case if prejudice can be established. Every intent of the code is to avoid a prejudice judge from hearing an action. My civil action (220298) as a pro per plaintiff alleged that conditions only addressable by a court of law had already caused deaths. The inability of the District Attorney to investigate forced me to later legal action of 220298 as my only reasonable recourse to protect myself and my family. In the conditions presented to judge Gordon it is not reasonable, rational or discretionary or right to hold the proceedings to the letter of the law. When human lives are alleged to have been lost and are at stake, official discretion, presupposed to be rightful and lawful, dictates that the judge shall protect the public security of persons and property by recusal or advise the pro per litigant of his mistake, the proper code, and reschedule the matter.
The motion to disqualify was continued from June 1, 1998 to June 1 as shown on the included copy of the notice of continuance entered May 26, 1998. The included copy of the minute order entered June 8, 1998, under nature of proceedings, states only "Defendant, Motion for order to compel answers" and mentions nothing about the denial of the motion to disqualify. If I were an attorney I would know the judge Gordons decision was appeal able and rightfully should be appealed with every expectation of a reversal. I would know that an order was needed before the appeal and I would know that a motion to amend the minute order would be required to obtain the denial order of the court. I am not an attorney resulting in the passage of over a year of time before searching the file for the order only to find it did not reflect the correct nature of the proceedings. The decision of judge Gordon in case 220298 described next has destroyed my life and compromised the lives of my children. After the small claims action against the judge I learned that the appeal can be made within 60 days of the issuance of the order.
I made a motion in judge Gordons court to amend the minute order of June 8, 1998 to reflect the correct nature of the proceedings with the hope that I might appeal the decision. My order was granted. However judge Gordon chose to deprive me of obtaining a rightful, just, and fair function of the courts by applying the language NUNC PRO TUNC as is seen on the included copy of the minute order entered April 4, 2000.
At trial on September 8, 1998, case # 220298 before judge William Gordon, two subpoena duces tecum, properly filed and served upon the custodians of public records were denied by the County of Santa Barbara. (see included subpoena denial letters) Judge William Gordon allowed the contempt of court despite my objections and layman's request to hold the county accountable then decided in the defendants favor citing that I "had no evidence or witnesses" after failing, page 25, line 26 of included transcripts of September 8, 1998, to call the defendant to the stand per plaintiffs request to the judge at page 25, line 23 of the attached transcripts. Page 26 line 2 shows the judge is aware of my limited legal abilities and continues with his willful misconduct in office and the persistent failure or inability to perform the duties of his office.
On September 29, 1999 I filed a small claims action (SC-999556 copy of plaintiffs claim and a copy of the proof of service is included) against Judge William Gordon for fraud claiming that I had been defrauded of the fair and impartial trial due by law when filing and paying the fees. The included order of assignment entered November 3, 1999 shows that all Santa Barbara Superior Court judges had disqualified themselves from hearing the case. On October 29, 1999 as shown on the plaintiffs claim, orders to defendant, a representative appeared for the judge/defendant who did not appear. A violation of law.
Retired Judge Dana Senit Henry was appointed to hear the small claims case on the continued date of November 9, 1999. At the trial the representative of the defendant, who again did not appear, again allowed by the judge with no law cited allowing the defendants absence, stated that the judge had immunity and was not liable for damages from judicial decisions. My request for default judgment based on non appearance by defendant was denied.
The small claims judge had books of California law brought to the courtroom and read from them a passage that stated, "judges had immunity from discretionary judicial actions."
Having recently read from Websters dictionary located in the Santa Barbara law library concerning discretion, I recited from memory concerning the nature of official discretion, "discretionary actions in official capacity must always be both, rightful and lawful." Clearly placing the allowance of contempt of court outside of official discretion creating liability for judge William Gordon.
The included copy of the declaration of Sylvester Hilleary Williams dated May 20, 2000 esablishes the small claims judges performance as well as the defendant judges perfomance as fact.
I asked the small claims judge examine the motion to disqualify as well as the subpoena denials and the judge refused. The judge continued by saying that she would not reverse the decision of William Gordon in the earlier case. I pointed out that no reversal was required only a judgment as to the William Gordons allowing contempt and defrauding me of his duty, my right to give witnesses and evidence in his court. The judge dismissed my action against William Gordon and stated that the Commission on Judicial Performance was the proper place to air my grievance.
REQUEST
I request that this written statement and its information be considered for the commencement of action by the commission as described in rule 109 (a) based on; willful misconduct, persistent failure and inability to perform duties of office, prejudicial to the administration of justice bringing the judicial office into disrepute with improper action and dereliction of duty, BY Judge William L. Gordon of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court.
Rule 109. Commencement of Commission Action
(a) (Receipt of written statement) Upon receiving a written statement alleging facts indicating that a judge is guilty of willful misconduct in office, persistent failure or inability to perform the duties of office, habitual intemperance in the use of intoxicants or drugs, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, or that the judge has a disability that seriously interferes with the performance of the duties of office and is or is likely to become permanent, or that the judge has engaged in an improper action or a dereliction of duty, the commission may
Based on rule 109 (a) (3) I Christopher A. Brown request that a preliminary investigation determining if formal proceedings should be instituted because "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute" has occurred and a hearing held upon the performance of all judges mentioned in this statement.
(3) If sufficient facts are determined in the course of a staff inquiry or otherwise, make a preliminary investigation to determine whether formal proceedings should be instituted and a hearing held.
I Christopher A. Brown declare under the penalty of the laws of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing written statement alleging facts is true and correct and that all copies provided with this WRITTEN STATEMENT ALLEGING FACTS are true copies.
Date; 2/28/01
Christopher A. Brown
Here is the Commisions response of January 2000. (Below is the response to the latest written statement.
Rule 109. Commencement of Commission Action
How does this response correlate to rule 109?
Here is the response of March 2001.
