Disqualification of Judge in CA

What does the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) say about Self-Represented litigants?

“A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client”:

KAY v. EHRLER, 499 U.S. 432 (1991)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=499&invol=432

“Even a skilled lawyer who represents himself is at a disadvantage in contested litigation. Ethical considerations may make it inappropriate for him to appear as a witness. He is deprived of the judgment of an independent third party in framing the theory of the case, evaluating alternative methods of presenting the evidence, cross-examining hostile witnesses, formulating legal arguments, and in making sure that reason, rather than emotion, dictates the proper tactical response to unforeseen developments in the courtroom. The [499 U.S. 432, 438] adage that "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" is the product of years of experience by seasoned litigators.” (at p. 437-438.)

What do judges and attorneys say about injustice and bias against self-represented litigants?

“A core principle of our judicial system is that it should provide equal justice for all. The Washington Constitution gives meaning to this pledge through the guarantee of meaningful access to the courts for all citizens. Yet it is self-evident to judges, practicing attorneys, and thoughtful persons, that in most instances indigent persons without counsel are not receiving the same quality of justice as those with counsel and are effectively deprived of meaningful access to the courts.

Studies show that indigent persons without counsel receive less favorable outcomes dramatically more often than those with counsel. The disparity of outcomes is so great that the conclusion is inescapable – indigent pro se litigants are regularly losing cases that they should be winning if they had counsel.” (bold added) [1]

“As a result of being consistently unable to secure counsel, “poor people largely cannot enforce what rights they have”, and the “laws that protect such basic needs as family integrity, shelter, medical care, food, and employment have become effectively meaningless for many people.” [2]

References:

[1] BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF RETIRED WASHINGTON JUDGES IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT, filed on 3/21/07 in Case No. 57831-6-1, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division One, called In re the Marriage of: Michael Steven King, Respondent, v. Brenda Leone King, Appellant, at p. 2-3. The link below will open the PDF file of the Brief.

http://www.brennancenter.org/dynamic/subpages/download_file_48463.pdf

[2] Paul Marvy & Debra Gardner, "A Civil Right to Counsel for the Poor", 32 Human Rights 8, 8 (2005) at p. 20-21 of BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE SIV JONSSON, filed 11/19/08 in the pending before the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska case No. S-12999 called Office of Public Advocacy, Appellant, v. Alaska Court System, Randall Guy Gordanier, Jr., and Siv Betti Jonsson. The link below will open the PDF file of the Brief.

http://www.abanet.org/amicus/briefs/office_of_public_advocacy_v_alaska_court_system.pdf

Our conclusion is that self-represented litigants are not only ignored by the CA courts at all levels, but judges intentionally denigrate, abuse, and even torture self-represented parties to make sure that they lose the physical and emotional abilities to seek justice.

When a party is self-represented, it absolutely does not matter that the party is the brightest person with great knowledge of law and that the self-represented party's arguments are as strong and convincing as the law of gravity. The law DOES NOT matter in CA courts because, thanks to the judicial impunity, what the judges say is De FACTO the law.

What we have learned in the last 5 years is that:

1) Most State judges are the most corrupted people in CA because they have DE FACTO absolute impunity and collect bribes from CA counties [1];

2) it is DE FACTO impossible to disqualify FOR CAUSE the prejudiced judge from a proceeding because the disqualification procedure, designed by CA Legislation, is intentionally violated by judges and DE FACTO becomes futile, as the case of Dr. Richard I. Fine and the case of Dr. Natalia A. Sidiakina clearly demonstrate;

Below are the CA statutory law-prescribed steps necessary for disqualification of a prejudiced judge:

1) The party ("justice seeker") requests disqualification of the judge by filing Request for Disqualification.

2) The judge refuses to recuse himself because he has interest in the outcome of the case and, naturally, wants to control it.

3) "Justice seeker" then files a Statement of Disqualification (CCP section 170.3).

4) The judge either orders it stricken, or ignores it and proceeds with the case. Additionally, the judge punishes "justice seeker" by ordering him/her to pay some unreasonable sums of money to the other party on whatever grounds.

5) "Justice seeker" then must file a Petition for Writ in the CA court of appeal to have them review the unlawful denial of the judge to recuse himself (CCP section 170.3(d)).

6) The court of appeal summarily denies "justice seeker's" Petition for Writ in violation of the CA Constitution Article 6 Section 14.

7) Then "justice seeker" has to file "Petition for Review" in the CA Supreme Court. CA Supreme Court has discretion to grant or deny the review. As one can predict, the CA Supreme Court DENIES the review.

After completing steps 1 through 7, "justice seeker" is ruined financially and emotionally, and does not believe in justice any more, which is EXACTLY what the judges wanted "justice seeker" to accept from the very beginning. Judges' goal is achieved.

In case of Dr. Richard I. Fine [see References], Dr. Richard I. Fine is NOT an ordinary person who can accept DE FACTO injustice and abuse from the CA judges because his self-esteem is very high. For him to accept steps 1 through 7 is equal to suicide. He is not there yet. So he takes further steps:

8) "Justice seeker" files request for Certificate of Appealability in the US District Court.

9) The US District Court's judge denies the Certificate of Appealability on whatever ground.

10) "Justice seeker" files in the US Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Appeal of denial of Certificate of Appealability.

11) If the US Circuit judge AFFIRMS the denial of Certificate of Appealability, that's the END of disqualification story.

12) If the US Circuit judge REVERSES the denial of the US District Court judge and grants the Certificate of Appealability (Mr. Fine's case), "justice seeker" will proceed with Appeal.

13) The judges of the US Courts of Appeal for the Ninth District ARE PREJUDICED against annoying self-represented "justice seeker" (naturally, no attorney in his sound mind will agree to represent "justice seeker" because attorneys' success in courts depends on good relationship with judges, i.e. attorney's kissing judges' a... and taking judges' s...). Most likely, the Ninth Circuit judges will find NO GROUNDS for reversal and AFFIRM the CA Court of Appeal denial of Petition for Writ.

14) "Justice seeker" files a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court has discretionary authority to deny or grant the review. It is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that the US Supreme Court will grant the review because the US Supreme Court judges know that the due process rights of SELF-REPRESENTED parties (about 95% of the US population or 237.5 million people) are being violated in ALL COURTS IN ALL CASES IN THE US, thanks to capitalism and survival of the fittest. Most likely, the US Supreme Court will deny the review. END OF STORY.

As we just proved above, it is DE FACTO IMPOSSIBLE to disqualify a prejudiced judge in CA. We suspect the same is true for other states of the USA.

For Mr. Fine, the disqualification process became the way of life simply because he psychologically unable to give in to injustice.

For all other residents of the US, it's helpful to pray that they never get dragged into a court, especially when the judge is prejudiced against them or their attorney for whatever reason.

What is interesting to see is that the US capitalism leads to the creation of a self-destructing society, i.e. the society that purposefully destroys its own children regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Please read the Petition in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed on May 11, 2007 on behalf of the USA's abused children and mothers:
http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/sites/documents/0000/0096/Web_Petition-C.pdf

Please read the Petition above, it is the EYE OPENER on what kind of VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS are taking place in the family courts across the US.

___________________________________________

References:

[1] Dr. Richard I. Fine's speech at Los Angeles Town Hall Meeting on 2/26/2009 regarding the evidence that CA trial court judges, with the exception of San Francisco Superior Court, ARE TAKING BRIBES FROM COUNTIES AND DECIDE CASES IN COUNTIES' FAVOR (Dr. Fine was sent to jail by CORRUPTED Judge Yaffe of Los Angeles Superior Court 5 days after this speech, Dr. Fine WILL REMAIN IN JAIL until SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) rules that he must be released. Dr. Fine's case is scheduled for hearing before SCOTUS in October of 2010):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8TGCCIg8JI&feature=PlayList&p=B79EA2BCD02288E5&playnext_from=PL&index=2

[2] "Free Richard Fine" site- History of Judicial Crisis in CA:

http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/history-and-background-of-payments-and-violations-resulting-in-california-s-current-judicial-crisis

[3] 4/23/10- SCOTUS denied Petition for Stay of Execution of Richard Fine:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/28/861748/-Richard-I.-Fine,-Prisoner-of-Conscience

[4] National Review article on Dr. Richard I. Fine:

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWYwNjFmNTYyNjc0MDk1MWRlMjY1NmI0OTVlNTJjNWY=

[5] SCOTUS order of denial of Richard I. Fine’s Application for Stay of Execution:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042610zor.pdf

[6] Dr. Richard Fine's Support Team blogpost:

http://righttrumpsmight.blogspot.com/2010/04/petition-denied-liberty-cried-new.html

[7] Videos on Dr. Richard I. Fine: