Sunday, May 27, 2007

Delays In The Prop. R Court Case: Appearance of Impropriety?

To: David Hernandez
The Judicial Council of California
The Judges of the Superior Court
… other interested parties


Below is a statement from David Hernandez which notes
the several dates set for this hearing.

I was in the court building on April 11, 2007 hoping
to see Judge Janavs hear the case. That date was
well before the City Election (March 6, 2007) and the
decision, which could have effected the results of the
election, was not made. That is Public Loss #1.

The delay and reassignment of Judges was, apparently,
justified by an agreement that Judge Janavs was
“prejudiced against the city.” Whether true or just
the “appearance of impropriety,” the reputation and
qualifications of Judge Janavs were challenged. If
she is “prejudiced against the city” should she be
allowed to sit on this or any cases? If she is not,
shouldn’t her reputation and qualifications be
reconfirmed and the case litigated promptly in
meaningful time?

Then the case was rescheduled with Judge David Jaffe
to preside on (or about) May 15, 2007 only to be put
off again to June 7, 2007. Possible reasons include a
full docket, counsel’s need for more time to prepare,
etc., etc., etc. What justified this further delay?
Public Loss #2.

I am no attorney but all of us know the principles:
1. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
2. “In public life, the appearance of impropriety IS

Judge Jaffe has ruled against actions taken by the
City of Los Angeles in other cases. Is he to be
“disqualified,” too. Were those rulings “illegal” or
just unpopular with the involved elected officials?
If so why was he suggested for and why did he accept
juridiction over this case? Why wasn’t the question
of his fairness answered before he was appointed to
replace Judge Janavs? Is it possible to “rule against
the City of Los Angeles?” Don’t justice and the legal
rights of the citizens of the our city trump the
interests represented by the legal counsel of the City
of Los Angeles? Did we witness a necessary delay or a
real need to change the judge or was this just a
method to delay the process? Public Loss #3.

Who oversees the propriety of these actions? These
changes of judges? These repeated delays in dates?
If it is the involved courts, only, then the fox is
watching the chicken coup. Is there an
“administrative” structure to the Superior Court?
Does it have policy making and practice review
responsibilities? Public Loss #4.

Who is competent to and willing to respond to these

The People of the City of Los Angeles have a right to
know. Some of those elected on March 6, 2007 may be
serving improperly already.

Here is a web-page from the Superior Court of Los
Angeles. It promises a F-A-I-R policy. It does not
provide an email address where questions like those,
above, can be directed (only non-descript telephone
numbers). Can anyone reading this email help get
these answers?

Daniel Wiseman

No comments: