We have recused 2 Judges in Orange County and are going after 2 in Sonoma County!

 

Judge Rosenfeild and Judge Tansel of Sonoma County have been recused and now are under investigation threw the Judgical Counsel.  IF you like what you hear, then we will tell you more.  We are ACTIVISTS, We do what we say, we don't bark we bite!

 

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/NEWS/602220302/1033/NEWS01
 

If these 2 judges think it can't happen to them, THINK AGAIN! Judge accused of lying in DUI crash
State panel's investigation of Rushing includes charges of trying to avoid arrest
 

By RANDI ROSSMANN
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
 Published: Wednesday, Feb 22, 2006

While trying to get out of a drunken-driving arrest last year, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Elaine Rushing invoked her position and lied repeatedly, according to a complaint made public Tuesday by a state watchdog agency.
 
Rushing told a CHP officer that she bent the rules in her courtroom to help police and he should do the same for her, the complaint says.

She also told authorities she was in the back seat when her Porsche crashed in a ditch on Riebli Road - but the two-seat car had no back seat.

Rushing, 57, could be admonished, censured or even removed from the bench if the three-count complaint by the state Commission on Judicial Performance is sustained.

Contacted Tuesday, Rushing declined to comment.

Rushing is required to respond officially to the charges by Monday.

She was arrested June 21. Authorities said Rushing crashed into a stone wall outside a Crystal Drive home and drove away without contacting the owner. She later crashed into a ditch alongside Riebli Road.

In August, she pleaded no contest to drunken driving and was given a 10-day jail sentence to be served on work-release, three years' probation and mandatory alcohol counseling.

In two tests, her blood alcohol level registered .21 and .19, more than double the legal limit for driving.

Rushing, who had meted out long sentences in several high-profile drunken-driving cases, disqualified herself from criminal cases after he arrest but has been hearing civil cases.

Her case was settled in a plea bargain with prosecutors, who dropped a second count of drunken driving and a hit-and-run charge.

The CHP arrest report never was made public, but details were included in the commission's complaint.

In an effort to avoid being arrested, the complaint said she lied repeatedly to passers-by, firefighters and CHP officers.

Rushing also is accused of trying to get out of the arrest by repeatedly telling officers she was a judge and her husband was an appellate judge.

After she ran into the ditch, a motorist stopped to ask if she was all right and Rushing told the person to leave.

"When a second driver stopped and offered to call for help, you said, 'we're fine' (even though you were alone) and told her not to call anyone. You also falsely told her that your husband was with you," according to the commission's complaint.

When CHP officers and firefighters arrived, Rushing was sitting in the driver's seat.

But she told a firefighter an unknown woman had been driving and then changed her story to say an unknown man had been driving.

She also told the firefighter that the car keys had been taken by the male driver when he ran from the crash.

When CHP Officer Jeremy Holeman arrived to investigate, he asked Rushing what happened. She said she wasn't the driver and two other people had been in the car.

Rushing said she didn't know their names and had met them at a friend's home.

Rushing also told the officer she'd been sitting in the back seat at the time of the crash even though the car had no back seat, the complaint said.

"When Officer (Jeremy) Holeman asked you how much alcohol you had consumed, you first answered, 'two bottles,' then said, 'two glasses,' " the complaint said.

After being arrested on suspicion of drunken driving, her car was towed and she was driven to the CHP office in Rohnert Park before being released to her husband, Conrad Rushing, a state appellate court justice.

According to the complaint, as she was being driven to the CHP office, Rushing repeatedly invoked her office, as well as her husband's "in an effort to avoid being arrested."

The complaint also said Rushing told Holeman that in court she goes "against court policies for CHP and other officers" and said he should extend her the same courtesy.

When Holeman told Rushing that he'd determined she'd been driving and needed to question her and have her take sobriety tests, Rushing told him, "But I'm a judge, and I told you I wasn't the driver," the complaint said

Rushing then declined to answer questions or take any sobriety tests.

Rushing persisted in telling the officer she was a judge and he should not be arresting her while repeatedly requesting that he call her husband, the complaint said.

When handcuffed and placed into the patrol car, Rushing complained about the handcuffs and asked the officer if he had seen her Superior Court judge identification badge, continuing to ask him if he knew she was a judge.

Rushing suggested he take off the handcuffs but was told he couldn't remove them because it was CHP policy.

After telling Holeman the handcuffs were too tight, he helped Rushing out of the car, checked the handcuffs and had another officer check them to confirm they weren't too tight, the complaint said.

 

We are the Champions my friend!

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1141121115672

 

Another Calif. Judge Accused of Abusing Position
Julie O'Shea

Less than a week after California's Commission on Judicial Performance launched formal proceedings against a Sonoma County judge who allegedly tried to use her position to avoid a DUI arrest, another jurist is facing a similar predicament in Riverside County.

Judge Bernard Schwartz pleaded no contest to misdemeanor charges of driving with a blood alcohol level of more than twice the legal limit while in Pismo Beach last summer.

The commission announced Monday that it had begun formal proceedings into allegations that Schwartz repeatedly tried to avoid arrest and receive preferential treatment because he is a judge.

"It is alleged that these actions constitute willful misconduct in office … that brings the judicial office into disrepute," the commission said in a prepared statement.

Schwartz was pulled over July 16 after police observed his car "swerving all over the road." He was arrested after failing two sobriety tests.

The judge, appointed to the bench by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003, claims he only had "a couple of glasses of wine," and at one point questioned the officers at the scene: "Is this really necessary, all this stuff we have to go through?"

According to the CJP complaint, Schwartz, who is up for re-election this year, told the arresting officers that "this is not a good time."

The officers repeatedly told the judge that they were simply trying to be "fair and unbiased."

Schwartz allegedly told the officers: "You know what this is going to do; this will substantially impair my career."

One of the officers responded: "If I let you go, it could impair my career."

Proceedings against Schwartz are getting under way just a week after the CJP announced it would be scrutinizing similar charges against Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Elaine Rushing, who tried to use her position and that of her husband, 6th District Court of Appeal Justice Conrad Rushing, to avoid being arrested for drunken driving in June.

Rushing was arrested after driving into a ditch on the side of a Santa Rosa road and damaging a stone wall. Her blood alcohol level was found to be more than twice the legal limit. Rushing eventually pleaded no contest to the incident.

In December, San Bernardino County Judge Donald Alvarez was publicly admonished for failing to report his DUI arrest and conviction to the commission in a timely manner.

And in 2000, Orange County Superior Court Judge Gary Ryan, who is now with JAMS, received a public admonishment for a DUI.

According to the complaint, Schwartz was taken down to the Pismo Beach police station and told he would be held in custody until the next morning or until his wife, who was several hours away, could pick him up.

"There is no professional courtesy here anymore," an angry Schwartz allegedly told officers that night.

Officers told the judge that he was being treated the "same as everybody else. What you are asking for is special treatment."

Schwartz allegedly agreed, saying, "To some degree, I guess."

Schwartz is represented by Edward George Jr., a Long Beach attorney who didn't return calls for comment Monday.

 

 

http://www.livefreenow.org/jurypower/power3.htm

GRAND JURY POWER TO CHARGE CORRUPT/CRIMINAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS

Before continuing, I need to assure the Grand Jury that it has the power and jurisdiction to investigate and charge the following parties even though some of them are judges and commissioners of the Municipal Court of Orange County.

First, the Grand Jury does have the power to bring charges before the accused in the form of a "presentment." Please see the accompanying copy from the 4th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary where, on page 912 it states: "A presentment differs from an indictment in that it is an accusation made by a grand jury of their own motion, either upon their own observation, or upon evidence before them;…"

In the 6th edition of the Black’s law dictionary on page 1184, it states: " Presentment. The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offense, from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the government. A presentment is an accusation, initiated by the grand jury itself [not by the district attorney], and in effect an instruction that an indictment be drawn.

In the expanded legal dictionary/digest called "Words and Phrases", on page 363. It defines the grand jury as: "The ‘grand jury’ is inquisitorial body of county, drawn and summoned from among its best citizens, and must investigate all violations of law under presiding judge’s direction and make presentments in accordance with such investigations."

In the second column of this page it continues: " ‘Grand Jury’ is not judicial but accusing body, permitted to act upon knowledge obtained by members from any source.", and "’Grand jury’ is informing and judicial tribunal, exercising functions which are original, complete, and susceptible of being exercised on its own motion [without D.A.’s initiation] and on such knowledge as it may derive from any proper source."

A California District Court of Appeal, in the case of Samish v. Superior Court, 28 C.A.2d 685 (1938), on the bottom of page 688 and continuing into page 689 quoting from the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Penal Code, fully explains the powers, jurisdiction and duties of the grand jury. I shall quote of a few excerpts:

"But when grand jurors possess personal knowledge or are furnished with reliable information indicating that a crime has been committed by someone within borders of the county, it is the duty of the grand jury to fearlessly and fairly investigate the charges and indict the culpable party if the evidence warrants that finding.[from U.S. Supreme court cases of Blair v. United States and United states v. Philadelphia].", and

"In the Blair case, supra, discussing the rights of a grand jury to investigate crime, Mr. Justice Pitney said: ‘ It is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety, or forecasts of possible result of the investigation,…’", and

"In the case of United States v. Philadelphia, etc., supra, the court said; ‘ The power of the grand jury extends to the broadest kind of an inquisitorial proceeding, and it may, before a bill of indictment is framed, investigate at the instance of the court or the district attorney,

Or at its own instance, a suspected or an alleged crime, and determine whether it has been committed, and if so, who committed it. The grand jury has jurisdiction to proceed under its inquisitorial powers without any specific charge against a particular person or corporation being before It." and

"The grand jury has authority and it becomes it’s duty to inquire into all public offenses "committed or triable in the county’ in which the jury is impaneled. (Sects. 915, 923, Pen. Code.) Section 915 [now Section 917] provides:

‘The grand jury may inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the county, and present them to the court by indictment." and

"Section 923 [now Section 919] provides in part: "The grand jury must inquire… into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county [even judges]." and

" Section 903 [now Section 911] of the Penal Code prescribes the form of oath to be administered to the grand jury which clearly contemplates an investigation of all public offenses ‘committed or triable in the county’."

Judges and court commissioners are public officers. They are not above the law; no one is above the law. Please be mindful of the fact that the judges or the district attorney may mis-inform you and tell you that you "have no jurisdiction into investigating judges or courts", but such a statement would simply be not true.

When the criminal activities of the below named parties started, I wrote a letter to you on March 25, 1996, and in your April 4, 1996 response, you indicated (I assume based on false legal advice of a deputy district attorney) that the Grand Jury has no jurisdiction before the courts, and that this matter will no doubt be resolved.

I had not asked you to get into matters before the courts; instead I had reported crimes committed by the court personnel; and you have total jurisdiction to investigate crimes committed by anyone, even judges, even from the bench. If a judge were to steal and destroy court records in court would you say that you had no jurisdiction to charge him with murder just because he was a judge and committed the crime while performing a judicial function?

Clearly you would have jurisdiction to charge such a judge with murder, and as outlined above, it would be your legal duty to do so. The criminal acts charged in this complaint are not murder charges, but nonetheless are CRIMES as provided by law and you do have the legal jurisdiction and duty to indict the culpable parties even if they happen to be judges and even if they committed the crimes from the bench!

Please take a look at the copy of the court case of People v. Martin, 135 Cal. App.3d 710 (1982) which I have provided you, where an L.A. Judge named Brown and an attorney friend of him were indicted by the Grand Jury for Conspiracy to obstruct and pervert justice (same charge as the accused in this complaint are accused of), convicted (which was upheld in the appeal) and sentenced to State Prison the same as an ordinary citizen.

Please take a close look also at the case of Lorenson v. Superior Court, 35 C.2d 49 (1950), where the California Supreme Court ruled on page59 and 60 of the case that "A conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws is an obstruction of justice an indictable offense at common law." This is another main charge which the officials (including Municipal Court Judges) in this complaint are accused of.

At the end of People v. Coleman, 83 Cal. App.2d 812 (1948), the court resolutely concluded: "One of the statutory duties of the district attorney is to draw all indictments … ‘attend before and give advice to the grand jury whenever cases are presented to it for their consideration.’ There is no requirement, however, that it is the duty of the grand jury to request or accept that advice. The obvious itendment is that the district attorney must draw all indictments only when requested by the grand jury for its advice and assistance… An indictment is the independent act of the grand jury. To require the signature of the district attorney thereto would destroy the independency of action of that body and defeat the primary purpose of its existence."

The court clearly concluded that the grand jury is free and independent in indicting the accuseds without approval or concurrence of the District Attorney. Recently a California Court of Appeal in the Case of Bradley v. Lacey, 53 Cal.App4th 883 (March 25, 1997), concluded this about Grand Jury’s powers: "It is apparent from the foregoing description of the grand jury’s powers with respect to public offenses that it is not the mere handmaid of the district attorney…. The decision whether or not to indict., to initiate a criminal prosecution, resides entirely with the grand jury."

 

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/107.htm

To: Private@yahoo.com
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:45:19 -0800
Subject: http://www.thecourtwatcher.com/
From: Harold Ervin <hervin@juno.com>

Mr.Private, The party I told you about has this web site: http://www.thecourtwatcher.com/.  I believe it best if you contact their web site directly which has a chat group discussion each Saturday.  This person is a friend and I believe I would be out of order to ask for them to spend special time to help someone who is not a member of their group.  Please become a member, it's free, and I am sure their chat group and web site will be a great help to you.  Of all similar groups on the Internet, this is the very best---hands down.  God's Blessings, Harold Ervin.