Did YOUR Judge NOT rule in favor of Justice?

---

Did YOUR Judge NOT rule in favor of Justice?
If you want to know why you hear so much about bad judges, police, lawyers, government and courts then look no further than the number one cause “victims”. Each year millions of people in America are victimized by public servants, lawyers and government. The next problem is who do you call when this happens to you? Better yet will they listen or do they do something? If you personally have been a victim you’ll know most of the time nothing is done and no one cares. This is the main cause of distrust and anger today. A broken system run by the same people who commit the crimes who are in charge of being those we are told to turn to when they commit crimes. Police for example have no business being in charge of investigations where their own are known suspects. Judges are nothing more than lawyers who made it to the bench and having lawyers or judges oversee them is totally nonobjective or sane.  They ole saying comes to mind here, “You never put the fox in charge of guarding the hen house”.

America has become a country of victims, that is unless you find your way into a public servant position. Often roles with built in immunity are in fact the problem because what happens when those who are hired are really criminals and con-artists?

Santa Clara County California Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian is a prime example and poster boy for “Corrupt Judges” which have overwhelming victim number however government and authorities do nothing. In face evidence shows police and sheriff departments are being used to help terrorize and victimize anyone who comes forward with evidence. Via false incarcerations, fraudulent police reports and terrorizing the public with threats and harm.

See these stories:
They all revolved around the same Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian who covered up the death of Robert Moss. Used law enforcement to terrorize Heidi Yaumen a disabled women and imprison Cary-Andrew Crittenden who helped Heidi by reporting the crimes and corruption of Santa Clara County.
Santa Clara County Judge Socrates Manoukian Influences Authorities to Harass those who Report evidence of Abuse
Santa Clara County Judge S. Peter Manoukian EXPOSED for fixing court cases lies to Police in attempt to discredit anyone exposing him
America’s Dishonorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian
Out of Control Santa Clara County California Racketeering by Judges and Government
Why is Santa Clara County Hiding the deaths of Robert Moss and Charles Copeland
What is Santa Clara County Court Barbara Ann Cathcart trying to Hide from the Public?
Victim reports corruption spends 258 Days in Jail, No Trial, No Affordable Bail

Judges:
Bad Judges exist. We all know they do. [See Judges as Criminals?] Very few practicing lawyers are willing or able to expose Bad Judges publicly, for they are at great risk when they must later appear again before the exposed Bad Judge. Exposure of rotten judicial apples offends and embarrasses the entire judiciary. When a lawyer, in diligent pursuit of his client’s interests, dares stand up to Bad Judges, the “system” locks arms, and seeks to punish or suppress the iconoclastic lawyer. The system’s resistance to admitting the existence of a bad judge can be astounding. Yet someone must stand up to challenge this cancer within the Judiciary. Bad Judges need to be weeded out.  It is to the fair, competent judges that the following is dedicated. How To Deal With A Bad Judge, Revealing Many Ways For Dealing With Bad Judges

SECRET CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

The most serious misconduct by judges is that which is the least likely to subject them to discipline. It is not what they do in their private lives, off the bench, but what they do on the bench in the course of litigation. The obvious image is the judge who runs his courtroom as if he owns it, who looks down from his elevated bench and treats litigants and their attorneys in an imperious and abusive fashion. But even where a judge is, as he is supposed to be, patient and dignified in his demeanor, every court appearance, just like every written motion, involves a judge ruling on a procedural or substantive aspect of a case. And there are judges who, while presenting a veneer of fairness, are intellectually dishonest. They make rulings and decisions which are not only a gross abuse of discretion, but which knowingly and deliberately disregard “clear and controlling law” and obliterate, distort, or fabricate the facts in the record to do so.Why would a judge be intellectually dishonest? He may be motivated by undisclosed bias due to personal or political interest. Judicial selection processes are politically controlled and closed, frequently giving us judges who are better connected than they are qualified. And once on the bench, these judges reward their friends and punish their enemies. Although ethical codes require judges to disclose facts bearing upon their impartiality, they don’t always do so. They sit on cases in which they have undisclosed relationships with parties, their attorneys, or have interests in the outcome, and do so deliberately because they wish to advantage either one side over another or sometimes themselves.They exercise their wide discretion in that side’s favor. That’s the side for whom deadlines are flexible and for whom procedural standards and evidentiary rules don’t apply. A common thread running through judicial misconduct cases is litigation misconduct by the favored side. Meanwhile, the other side struggles to meet inflexible deadlines and has its worthy motions denied. In extreme cases, a judicial process predicated on standards of conduct, elementary legal principles, rules of evidence, simply ceases to exist. On Judicial Misconduct and Discipline WITHOUT MERIT:  THE EMPTY PROMISE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

Our legal system is based on the fundamental principle that our courts are an independent branch of government in which fair and competent judges interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The independent role of our judicial system is central to American concept of justice and to our concept of the “rule-of-law”. Built-in to the Code of Judicial Conduct are the principles 1. that judges must treat their judicial office as a public trust and 2. that judges must strive to maintain and enhance the public’s confidence in our legal system. In his or her role as an adjudicator of the facts and the law, a judge resolves disputes and is a highly visible symbol of government under the rule-of-law.The Code of Judicial Conduct establishes the standards of ethical conduct for judges. The Code contains 1. broad statements called Canons, 2. specific rules which are set forth in Sections under each Canon, 3. a Terminology Section, 4. an Application Section, and 5. Commentary. The Canons, the specific rules Sections, the Terminology Section, and the Application Section provide substantive rules for judicial conduct. Complaints Against Judges

This document contains questions and answers to assist with filing a complaint alleging a federal judge has committed misconduct or has a disability that interferes with the performance of his or her judicial duties. Filing a Judicial Conduct or Disability Complaint Against a Federal Judge

Two judges had sex with women in their chambers, one with his former law students, the other with his court clerk. A traffic court judge delegated his job to his clerk. While the judge was in chambers, the clerk heard pleas and imposed sentences. A family law court judge excoriated two parents who appeared before him as “rotten” and the mother a “train wreck” and a “liar.”

The judges, among 43 disciplined last year by California’s Commission on Judicial Performance, received rebukes ranging from public censure or admonishment to a confidential “advisory” letter. The state watchdog agency documented the transgressions in an annual report that provides a behind-the-scenes look at errant behavior on the bench and how it is addressed. 43 California judges were reprimanded for misconduct last year

COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

Anyone who has contacted the State of California Commission on Judicial Performance knows they’re a front for fraud, lies and ignorance. Run by “the same criminals who commit the crimes write the reports”.  Don’t believe this then read on
The commission’s mandate is to protect the public, enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintain public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system. While the majority of California’s judges are committed to maintaining the high standards expected of the judiciary, an effective method of disciplining judges who engage in misconduct is essential to the functioning of our judicial system. Commission proceedings provide a fair and appropriate mechanism to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Anyone may submit a complaint to the commission. See Filing a Complaint and Overview of Commission Proceedings.

This is the underlying story of how judges taking illegal county and court payments and county supervisors making such payments to increase their own salaries corrupted the California judicial system.

California’s Judges Are the Highest Paid State Judges in the U.S. California Superior Court judges can earn $186,000 per year in state salary plus state benefits before receiving “Supplemental Judicial Benefits” under the formula of Govt. Code 68203.

Superior Court [Trial Court] judges in Los Angeles County currently earn as high as $379,604 in total annual wages [$310, 268 –regular pay; $69,336- other pay] and $51,116 in total annual retirement and health cost in a regular pay range classification of $189,041 according to the Office of the State Controller Government Compensation in California 2015.

Why Does LA County Pay “Supplemental Judicial Benefits”?

In 1988, LA County Supervisors justified the payments stating they were necessary to “attract and retain qualified people to serve as judges on the LA Superior Court.”

This reason was reiterated 20 years later in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4^th 630 (2008) Review Denied 12/23/2008 [Sturgeon I] in which the Court stated at page 638 in relevant part:

“here there can be little doubt the benefits that the county provides its judges enhance the recruitment and retention of judges who serve in Los Angeles. Indeed, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the county relied upon a 1988 report on judicial compensation that found judicial salaries were not by themselves sufficient incentive to retain or recruit judges in the Los Angeles area.”

On its face, such explanation doesn’t make sense. Paying a sitting judge a “supplemental benefit” will not retain him in office as he/she must face an election to retain his/her judicial office. It will not recruit a judge as the judge is already in office.

Nor does it appear that over time the “Supplemental Judicial Benefits” attracted more successful, experienced private lawyers to apply to be politically appointed for judgeships or to run for judgeships more than the usual government lawyers such as deputy district attorneys, deputy public defenders, county counsels and state employees. The Dirty Truth Behind California’s $400 Million of “Supplemental Judicial Benefits”