Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Truth is often wrapped in personal nightmares…

leave a comment »



Want to Explore the patterns?

I’m going to explore this site some more.

History of Judicial Crisis

History of Judicial Crisis


Since the late 1980s, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of Los Angeles County proper, has illegally paid the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges bonus payments, now about $46,000 per year, on top of their already generous salary and benefits, giving them a gross salary of almost a quarter of a million dollars ($249,413) each year, all in violation of the California Constitution. The highest ranking judge in the entire country, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, makes only $218,000, and Federal District Judges receive $157.000.

As of 2009, Los Angeles County taxpayers have paid over $300 million dollars for these judges’ bonuses . . .

~ The Money Trail

Los Angeles County’s Board of Supervisors’ Illegal Bonus Payments to Superior Court Judges Have Cost Taxpayers

Almost $1 Billion Dollars (Known, So Far), Illegally Enriched Developers, And Blatantly Trampled The People’s Rights


      How much lower might your own tax bills have otherwise been for the past twenty years?  Would there even be a budget crisis in California today, were it not for corrupt actors whose tentacles extend to the top branches of California’s government and judicial system?  

     One man’s gutsy refusal to cower in fear and grovel in acceptance has exposed the tip of an iceberg that the powerful have battled viciously to keep below the public’s radar.  Now, as millions in ill-gotten gains hang in the balance, our hero is thrown into solitary confinement in, literally, the worst jail in all America … Los Angeles County’s Men’s Central.

    Then, from out of nowhere, a miracle!  Then two!

    Now the guilty scurry for cover following the favorable US Supreme Court opinion just issued in a similar case, and the groans of owners of erupting ulcers echo far and wide as Lady Justice’s promise of consequences comes ’round to bear. 

      This is a true story … wrapped up in one man’s personal nightmare.

“Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country.”  —  President John F. Kennedy
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 “A biased proceeding is not a procedurally adequate one.  At a minimum, Due Process requires a hearing before an impartial tribunalWard v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 59-60, 93 S.Ct. 80, 83, 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972)This impartial tribunal requirement applies in both civil and criminal cases.  Indeed, the requirement that proceedings which adjudicate individuals’ interests in life, liberty, or property be free from bias and partiality has been “jealously guarded.”  Marshall v. Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238, 241-42, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 1613, 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980)Thus, this neutrality principle has been applied to a variety of settings, including administrative adjudications, in order to protect the “independent constitutional interest in fair adjudicative procedure.”  Id. at 241-42 n. 2, 100 S.Ct. at 1613 n. 2. And, it has been invoked in the context of post-termination administrative proceedings.  Walker v. City of Berkeley, 951 F.2d 182, 184 (9th Cir.1991) (failure to provide impartial decision maker at the post-termination hearing constitutes constitutional error).  Moreover, any bias in the administrative process in Sue’s case was not “cured” by the subsequent judicial review in state court.”

“Generally, an adjudication that is tainted by bias can not be constitutionally redeemed by review in an unbiased tribunal.  Fn 15 See Ward, 409 U.S. 57, 93 S.Ct. 80.”  …

“Nor, in any event, may the State’s trial court procedure be deemed constitutionally acceptable simply because the State eventually offers a defendant an impartial adjudication.  Petitioner is entitled to a neutral and detached judge in the first instance.  Id. at 61-62, 93 S.Ct. at 84.   Ward holds that subsequent state court procedures, even if they include de novo review, can not “cure” bias in the initial adjudication. 16 … The right to procedural due process is ‘absolute,’ and ‘the law recognizes the importance to organized society that those rights be scrupulously observed.'”  (Emphasis added.)

Clements v. Airport Authority of Washoe County (69 F.3d 321 (9th Cir. 1995)), at 333-334.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 16, 2010 at 1:30 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: