• Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Kevin Kinsella, well-known venture capitalist, this week (July 11) filed a suit in federal court against Judith McConnell, administrative presiding justice of the Fourth District Court of Appeal for California. Kinsella complains that McConnell deprived him of his rights under the Constitution.

About four years ago, Kinsella and his wife began divorce proceedings. They selected an arbitration organization named JAMS (formerly Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services) and one of its arbitrators, Sheila Prell Sonenshine, who had spent almost two decades as a superior court and court of appeal judge.

Judith McConnell

Judith McConnell

"She appeared to have a ton of business experience," says Kinsella, who was impressed with her purported credentials in the private equity business.

"She made a bizarre ruling indicating she had no understanding of the venture capital business," says Kinsella. He researched her background and found that she boasted of running a private equity fund for women only. He questioned that, arguing that such a fund for Caucasians only, say, would be unacceptable, and then found that the business was to be run by a convicted felon, but no money was ever raised for it.

Sonenshine resigned from the case, but Kinsella was not through. He discovered that the website for the Fourth District Court of Appeal could be used to access the website of JAMS but no other arbitration service. The JAMS arbitrators got rave reviews, he says. He figures that was a gross conflict of interest. He went to court against JAMS and Sonenshine for violating the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

JAMS and Sonenshine used a legal maneuver to block Kinsella's suit. A trial court agreed with Kinsella that this was an attempt to intimidate and silence critics. The trial court found that JAMS' website was purely garden-variety advertising. JAMS and Sonenshine filed a writ to overturn Kinsella's trial court victory. Kinsella moved to disqualify the Fourth District Court of Appeal in the matter because of the alleged conflicts. McConnell permitted the appellate court to sit in judgment of the matter when its own official website was publishing laudatory tributes to JAMS and Sonenshine.

Kinsella, filing this week's suit, says he has been deprived of his constitutional right to an impartial tribunal. The divorce has already settled.

I was not able to reach McConnell, her assistant, or the clerk of the court.

  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

MrsKramer July 15, 2016 @ 10:24 p.m.

Justice Judith McConnell is bad news. In November 2015, I filed a complaint against her with the USDOJ for her concealment of falsified court documents in Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. For six years, the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) has had the clear and convincing evidence of her case-fixing. When I first complained to them in 2010, she was chairwoman of the CJP.

Cover letter to my USDOJ complaint against McConnell. https://katysexposure.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/usdoj-letter-with-exhibits.pdf

0

SportsFan0000 July 16, 2016 @ 12:31 a.m.

With all due respect Mrs Kramer, as my grandfather used to tell me, you need to pick and choose your battles wisely. You appear to be an intelligent individual. However, you seem to be going about your battles entirely the wrong way. Do some research as to better ways to fight your battles. Do not "spin your wheels" on unwinnable battles. If your core issue of "veritox theory" has any merit(not saying it does or it doesn't,..I do not know), you need to figure out a much better way to approach this rather than just attacking everyone in sight.

0

Don Bauder July 16, 2016 @ 7:34 a.m.

SportsFan0000: Your grandfather was very wise. However, I don't have enough information to make a pronouncement yea or nay on Mrs. Kramer's experience. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 16, 2016 @ 7:29 a.m.

MrsKramer: McConnell as administrative presiding justice is in a job that often generates hostility. When she makes decisions on cases, she knows she can be stepping into a bee hive. One side may possibly scream. In this case, Kinsella appears to have a good argument. Best, Don Bauder

0

Jimgee July 17, 2016 @ 10:14 a.m.

Don, If memory serves, Judge McConnell ruled that changes made to the Padres' ballpark initiative (Prop C?) after the voters approved it were not substantial enough to require a new vote. Terrible decision.

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 7:15 a.m.

Jimgee: Yes, she made a terrible decision in one of the ballpark suits. That's why she got promoted to the appellate level. Best, Don Bauder

0

SportsFan0000 July 16, 2016 @ 12:38 a.m.

Had some experience with JAMS in a matter in N. California. I was not impressed at all. The Retired judge was gracious at getting coffee etc. However, She did not move the Parties in the direction of a compromise and a settlement. She appeared to take the side of the parties that were quite obviously in the wrong. It was a complete waste of thousands of dollars. I would not recommend JAMS to any business associates and/or friends.

0

Don Bauder July 16, 2016 @ 7:38 a.m.

SportsFan0000: That is disappointing. These arbitrators make plenty of money -- $500 an hour or more. They should not be permitted to stall cases to fatten their pay. (Admittedly, you did not suggest this happened.) Best, Don Bauder

0

SportsFan0000 July 16, 2016 @ 1:13 p.m.

San Francisco is a notoriously expensive place to be involved in any kind of legal dispute. The prices are exponentially higher for everything there. The Parties are subsidizing the very high cost of living and doing business in SF. Some of the Jams Offices like San Francisco charge a minimum flat rate for a certain number of minimum hours required...(It can ring up to thousands of dollars whether you use 5 minutes or 2-4 hours that may be paid by one side or split among the parties). If you add Attorneys fees, if the Parties bring Attorneys, (though not required, it may be advisable in more complicated cases), travel and lodging etc...It can add up to the cost of a European vacation.. And, that is the cheaper way to solve disputes/lawsuits in San Francisco..If you decide to go to trial then it can be much more expensive.

0

Don Bauder July 16, 2016 @ 1:39 p.m.

SportsFan0000: Yes, the cost of living in San Francisco and Silicon Valley is the highest in the nation. You pay too much for just about everything. However, salaries are much higher, too. In San Diego, the cost of living is 45 percent higher than the nation;s, but incomes are only 20 percent higher. Best, Don Bauder

0

nuttyworld July 18, 2016 @ 7:23 a.m.

ADR private judges can possibly be hired as arbitrators, judges, discovery masters, mediators - in other words, a broad range of roles requiring specialized talents. Whatever "reputation" brought an ADR retired judge or justice to that second career, he or she may have collected high marks in legal knowledge, temperament, and an understanding of what causes and/or settles disputes. Or, maybe not.

Many excellent jurists make lousy mediators, but maybe good arbitrators. There is no "accepted" training that is required of retired jurists to earn upwards of $1 million doing things they may be ill-suited to do. All lawyers (who have been practicing more than 5 years) know that mediation is often the location of brow-beating and intimidation to get a case settled, which for ADR professionals are like notches in the cowboy's belt. Mediators know where their repeat business comes from.

Some cater to those who are looking for a mediated resolution that benefits all parties, and they - thankfully - have a reputation for conscionable dealings. Others are part of a game that plays out in the mediation, one that may totally escape the attention of a key participant.

Under the law in almost every state, the mediation is a "no holds barred" event, where tight and broad immunity protects every participant from their lies, badgering, and comments - including such behaviors from the mediators or even from the litigant's own lawyers. The California Supreme Court decided a case of huge importance in January 2011. In that case, California's highest court declared, much to the celebration of ADR professionals and lawyers who like to settle cases, that nothing short of a crime can justify allow litigants to complain about whatever is done to them in connection with a mediation. The bottom line of that legal reality is that whatever the "professionals" do in or at the mediation is okay, even if it amounts to taking a wrongful advantage of a litigant (who is supposed to be the reason for the litigation and the mediation). The litigant, more often than not, gets the short end of the mediation stick.

The litigant also gets the short end of every stick inside the legal/judicial system because here's the truth: The legal system is almost always about money, and the litigants are the pawns of that money game. Although the law is what law school is all about, feeding everyone at the legal system's trough is what litigation is all about. As we learned from Watergate, "Follow the money." As long as that is true about our legal system, the voices demanding justice according to the law are few and far between.

It will be interesting to see what the appellate court does with Mr. Kinsella's state court writ in light of the federal court complaint. Hopefully, the outcome of JAMS' and Sonenshine's writ will be according to the law. That is the only thing, and the right thing, that should matter when it comes to the lawsuit against JAMS and Sonenshine.

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 7:20 a.m.

nuttyworld: Arbitration/mediation is often a bad decision. Be careful signing a document that binds you to arbitration and in theory bans you from suing. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 16, 2016 @ 7:40 a.m.

Ell Guapo: JAMS and the Fourth District should explain why, in effect, a highly-biased ad for JAMS can be accessed on Fourth District website. Best, Don Bauder

1

Visduh July 16, 2016 @ 11:16 a.m.

That judge has a long record of faulty rulings and embarrassment. I'd have thought she was long retired from the bench, but now she's at the appellate level. Don, you know that San Diego has had some truly bad judges, and that the establishment seems to get its way in most court cases. McConnell is one of those bad judges.

1

Don Bauder July 16, 2016 @ 1:41 p.m.

Visduh: I do know that McConnell has some enemies who think she is a very bad judge. I don't have enough information to make a judgment. Best, Don Bauder

0

SportsFan0000 July 18, 2016 @ 4:31 p.m.

Don, Many San Diego Judges tend to be very conservative and to favor large corporations (defendants) against plaintiffs that have been wronged...Consumers, smaller business, individuals etc..It is well known that Plaintiffs in major litigation actions get more respect from Judges in LA or SF...even though it is expensive to litigate there (ie if you want to spend the money and/or if the Plaintiffs Attorneys see the possibility of a big payday then they sometimes "front" the litigation fees, but take 1/3 or more of your judgment or settlement (ouch?!). Attorneys fees are supposed to be negotiable, but the better litigators may or may not negotiate much since their caseloads are usually pretty full(depends if they see your case as a "pot of gold" for themselves and their firm also).

0

Milo July 18, 2016 @ 7:07 p.m.

If you think a 1/3 contingency fee is painful for plaintiffs, or "ouch" as you wrote, try being a plaintiffs' attorney investing $100,000 of your time, and perhaps $50,000 in costs such as filing fees, depositions, and expert witness fees, and at the end of the day lose the case because of some rogue judge or jury.

If you think a 1/3 contingency is too much, then pay for the attorneys' fees as you go, even if you have to borrow money from a friend or relative, either of whom I am sure you can sell them on your dead bang winner of a case. Then you won't have to split any verdict with an attorney.

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 2:27 p.m.

Milo: You can get in trouble getting investors to put money behind a case on the theory that he or she will win big when the suit is won. Maybe it won't be won. And maybe you will get a judgment that is worthless. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 7:22 a.m.

SportsFan0000: Oh yes. Many San Diego judges are blindly pro-business, and blindly pro-downtown establishment. That was shown in the ballpark suits. Best, Don Bauder

0

MrsKramer July 16, 2016 @ 2:46 p.m.

Don, thanks for saying people shouldn't judge w/o knowing the subject. Respectfully, you're incorrect, SF, that I haven't picked my battles wisely.

I picked one to stop a scientific fraud in environmental medicine that is harming thousands. I was rewarded with McConnell's 4th/1st concealing falsified court documents in Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) to keep the fraud going.

She has to be prosecuted for me to win this battle. I don't have the finances of Mr. Kinsela to file a civil suit. That doesn't change that her unrepentant concealment of back-dated court docs in SLAPP is a felony under CA Penal Code 134; or that her felony court-doc-concealment continues to harm thousands.

No one from CA to DC seems to want to prosecute her. Many attys seem to fear her retaliation. I've been told many times of attys who like to help, but have families to feed.

I am doing the best I can with no legal counsel and no sunlight from the media on the SLAPP-fixing. They call me "Woman with Stones" http://survivingmold.createsend1.com/t/ViewEmail/r/D3B22E5665F6C9302540EF23F30FEDED/3871C7EA078D272F3D3F7F9A22A6E02E

I think Mr. Kinsela probably has a strong case for his rights being violated based on my superior knowledge that they use the 4th/1st to retaliate and silence critiques of ethics problems in the local courts.(Mine's not the only one)

Also, McConnell has been dancing close to the flames of JAMS/felons for decades. If you know the history of the SD Presiding Judge Michael Greer RICO matter from the 90's, you would know what I mean. Judy was Asst PJ of the Superior Court at the time. She submitted an affidavit to the Comm on Judicial Performance (CJP) on behalf of one of the later convicted judges.

Judge Malkis, Adams and Atty Frega went to jail. Greer turned states evidence to avoid jail. He went to work for JAMS. McConnell was appointed to the 4th/1st. It's rumored she was FBI investigated in the Greer matter.(See Depak Chopra's attorney's accusations circa 2000) She became CJP Chair.

So unless you can explain why I have: 1. an unvacated-void-on-its-face-back-dated judgment that concealed I was a trial prevailing party; and 2. a back-dated lien which states an entry of judgment date that is not possible to have occurred; and 3. repeated denials from the 4th/1st to recall/rescind their 2010 remittitur so those fraudulent docs can be vacated -- then please don't judge me as not wisely picking battles.

To understand how the greater fraud continues by Judy McConnell's unclean hands; watch this presentation I gave at conference last Nov. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJc5bKVUZ9k

I scored against the fraud last year -- but it's not enough to shut it down completely w/o McConnell being prosecuted for case-fixing SLAPP to keep it going.
http://www.wondermakers.com/Portals/0/ACOEM%20Abandons%20Mold%20Position%20Paper.pdf

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 7:25 a.m.

MrsKramer: Yes, many lawyers are afraid to take on the legal system, lest they be punished in subsequent suits for other clients. Best, Don Bauder

0

Milo July 16, 2016 @ 7:03 p.m.

Let me see if I have this right.

A former California Superior Court judge and Court of Appeal justice, Sheila Sonenshine, is a defendant, along with her current employer JAMS, in a false advertising lawsuit for allegedly lying to potential customers about her qualifications. Sonenshine’s case is currently under appeal before current Court of Appeal Justice Judith McConnell after Sonenshine and JAMS lost at the trial court.

McConnell, as the Presiding Justice of this Court of Appeal, not only allowed “laudatory tributes to JAMS and Sonenshine” to be published on the court’s official website, but she then refused to disqualify herself or this Court of Appeal from hearing Sonenshine’s appeal despite what appears to be an obvious, albeit alleged, conflict.

If I got this right, this reads like the local version of the Hillary Clinton/Loretta Lynch sisterhood, wherein the laws only apply to the little people.

0

Don Bauder July 17, 2016 @ 7:44 a.m.

Milo: The suit written up here is against McConnell, not Sonenshine and JAMS. The suit alleges that JAMS is getting, essentially, advertising on the Fourth District's website, and Sonenshine made incompetent rulings.

Kinsella and JAMS/Sonenshine have been involved in litigation. McConnell, as presiding judge, permitted the suit to go forward in the Fourth District despite the conflicts of interest. Best, Don Bauder

0

Milo July 17, 2016 @ 10:15 a.m.

I don't think I wrote anything that was contrary to or inconsistent with the article. It appears Kinsella's lawsuit against McConnell in federal court is related to Kinsella's earlier filed, and still pending lawsuit he filed against JAMS and Sonenshine in California state courts.

Because McConnell allowed her Court of Appeal to publish “laudatory tributes to JAMS and Sonenshine” on the court’s official website, and she then refused to disqualify herself or her Court of Appeal from hearing Sonenshine’s appeal despite this conflict, Kinsella has sued McConnell in federal court for denying Kinsella his right to an impartial tribunal - that impartial tribunal being McConnell's Fourth District Court of Appeal.

0

Milo July 17, 2016 @ 12:11 p.m.

P.S. There appears to be a pattern here with the Fourth District Court of Appeal using its taxpayer-funded website to tout former justices and their current six-figures or more commercial endeavors with JAMS.

Just last week, in another Fourth District Court of Appeal case against JAMS and one of its neutrals/former Fourth District justices - who happens to be a founder and owner of JAMS - John Trotter, the plaintiffs in that case filed a motion to disqualify the entire Fourth District Court of Appeal because, in part, of the laudatory tributes and advertisements for Trotter and JAMS on the Fourth District's taxpayer-funded website and at least the appearance of bias because of this and other facts alleging a conflict.

You may want to look into this recently filed, very similar motion to disqualify the Fourth District in Case Numbers G051731 and G052301.

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 7:41 a.m.

Milo: There is another suit against the Fourth District Court of Appeal, too, filed by a different person. Best, Don Bauder

0

MrsKramer July 17, 2016 @ 5:38 a.m.

Seems Mr. Kinsella and his legal counsel were wise to take this matter out of the California state courts and into federal court. There is a systemic problem in the CA judicial branch which is feeding McConnell's and company's self perception of being above the law, with no fear of punishment.

The Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) is mandated by the CA Constitution to admonish judiciaries for unethical behavior. In reality, the CJP is a toothless watchdog, which often times covers-up the bad behavior. McConnell is their former chairwoman.

On August 10, 2016 discussion of a Bureau of State Auditors (BSA) audit of the CJP is to be heard before the CA Joint Legislative Audit Committee.

One can read of it in the below link: http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/cje-advocacy/current-legislation/

0

Don Bauder July 17, 2016 @ 7:47 a.m.

MrsKramer: The CJP is not a defendant in this suit. Best, Don Bauder

0

MrsKramer July 17, 2016 @ 9:19 a.m.

Please call me "Sharon". Correct that Mr. Kinsella's federal suit against McConnell does not name the CJP. His suit is merely one example of ethics problems in the CA courts.

The problems continue b/c the CJP has been a toothless watchdog -- to the point that orgs from across the state (and nation?) are calling for an audit of the CJP. This is what I was showing you in the above link to the Center for Judicial Excellence.

FYI, there is another federal suit involving case-fixing (for lack of a better term) by San Diego jurists. I THINK it should have some decision within the next few weeks. In this federal matter, the CJP is a named defendant.

It's the California Coalition of Families and Children suit. http://www.weightiermatter.com/uncategorized/ninth-circuit-appeal-update-united-states-court-appeals-takes-may-4-hearing-date-off-calendar/6913/

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 7:44 a.m.

Sharon (MrsKramer): Self-regulatory bodies are known for their toothlessness. Best, Don Bauder

0

dissogirl July 17, 2016 @ 12:47 p.m.

if you look at other Appellate district websites for the State of California, no other mentions a former justice working at a "rentajudge" firm...

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 7:47 a.m.

dissogirl: If somehow the public votes in favor of the Chargers billionaires getting a fat government subsidy, subsequent complaints may be be heard by those in a rentajudge firm. Best, Don Bauder

0

MsCollins July 17, 2016 @ 5:44 p.m.

It is so obvious that McConnell rented out her official website like a bus bench to JAMS. All the effusive bios are similar and they look just like the bios of these retired judges on the JAMS website.

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 7:50 a.m.

MsCollins: Has somebody tried to post negative assessments of certain judges on the JAMS/Fourth District website? Would the Fourth District refuse to print negative reviews? Best, Don Bauder

0

BeckyHolmes July 17, 2016 @ 6:45 p.m.

By posting Sonenshine’s bio on her taxpayer-funded public website, McConnell is endorsing Sonenshine’s bio as true, right? If she didn't think it were true, then why would she be publishing it at taxpayers expense? But the essence of Kinsella's lawsuit is that Sonenshine’s resume is fraudulent, so how does Kinsella get a fair shake here when the Administrative Presiding Judge of the entire 4th District, McConnell, has already endorsed his opponent in the lawsuit?

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 7:54 a.m.

BeckyHolmes: Kinsella does not think he is getting, or will get, a fair shake, and the fact that the laudatory JAMS website can be accessed through the Fourth District Court of Appeal website is one of several reasons he feels he will get no justice. Best, Don Bauder

0

Harry_back_to_work July 17, 2016 @ 6:50 p.m.

Since 2003, when the California legislature passed 425.17 to curb abusive anti SLAPP motions from large for-profit corporations – just like JAMS - no appellate court in the State of California has ever set aside a grant of the exemption except what appears to be happening now. Anyone who thinks that this is a “coincidence,” after 13 years on the books, when McConnell’s former buddies from the 4th District Court of Appeal appear as defendants here is hopelessly naïve. Sonenshine and JAMS have obviously dialed 911 to have their former colleagues come to save them.

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 7:57 a.m.

Harry_back_to_work: Abusive anti-SLAPP motions are often invoked by big business. Best, Don Bauder

0

MrsKramer July 18, 2016 @ 10:30 a.m.

CCP 425.17 was never really about stopping unethical application of CCP 426.16. It was about making those who spoke out of wrongs and were retaliated against under the color of law -- look like they were crying "foul" over nothing.

I am told that 4th/1st Justice Cynthia Aaron was a big proponent of the creation and implimentation of CCP 425.17. I have no documentation to prove that, but for good cause I believe it to be true.

The 4th/1st has a bad habit of misquoting codes not based on facts in evidence or rules of law. For six years they've been burying the evidence that a back-dated void-on-its-face judgment wrongfully did not state I was a trail prevailing party entitled to costs.

They can't lawfully recall and rescind their 2010 remittitur so the void-on-its-face 2008 judgment may be vacated w/o exposing that they fixed a SLAPP suit over a matter impacting the public health and safety of tens of thousands of people.

No one will punish them for criminal concealment of falsified court docs in SLAPP. NO ONE.

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 7:59 a.m.

MrsKramer: Good points. How does one fight back against alleged misjudgments by the appellate court? Best, Don Bauder

0

nuttyworld July 21, 2016 @ 7:03 p.m.

The system doesn't care about misjudgments. Misjudgments are in the eye of the beholder (or loser). Our legal system was not created as a way to determine truth or "correct" judgments. It was created to be a system, founded in due process, to bring finality to disputes when people are unable to achieve a final resolution on their own. Anyone who thinks it is more than that, does not understand the system. It aims to be fair, and to apply the law equally to all people - with a blindfold on. That is why the key to due process is an impartial adjudicator. We have no "right" to a smart judge (or justice) or a correct one. There is no "correct." We get one shot at a judge who is free of bias, a shot specially designed by a lawyer for a client, hopefully a talented lawyer who persuades that particular judge to his side's thinking. A higher, appellate court will weigh-in, of course, and may change things, depending on the power of argument and persuasion, and interpretation of the law. Good, honest, sincere judges (which is probably most of them) look at the law and struggle with the "right" legal decision (knowing, with certainty, that the loser will think they are wrong). But this effort by judges to reach the "right" decision depends - and constitutionally so - upon their being unbiased. Once one suspects the judge/justice is biased, all expectations of due process, and a judicial ruling based on the proper influences, fly out the window, and the system is corrupted thereby.

0

Don Bauder July 29, 2016 @ 7:01 a.m.

nuttyworld: It aims to be fair. Maybe CLAIMS to be fair is closer to verisimilitude. Best, Don Bauder

0

MrsKramer July 18, 2016 @ 10:54 p.m.

Oooo-kay. Well, it looks like I may have shut down yet one more discussion of problems in the San Diego courts by my directly stating and providing the evidence that Judy McConnell belongs behind bars for the rest of her life -- for case fixing and concealment of falsified SLAPP documents purposed to harm the lives of thousands.

Ya know that saying "Evil flourishes when good men stand by and do nothing"? That's the nightmare I have been living for now over a decade. C'est la vie. I'm not shutting up until that woman is behind bars. Too many lives remain at stake for me to be silenced.

See "Justice Judith McConnell, Grow a conscience. People are dying from your fraud upon the court." https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/justice-judith-mcconnell-grow-a-conscience-people-are-dying-from-your-fraud-upon-your-court/

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 8:01 a.m.

MrsKramer: If you won't shut up until McConnell is behind bars, you may be talking for a very long time. Best, Don Bauder

0

MrsKramer July 21, 2016 @ 6:32 a.m.

Don,

What do you mean "may be"? For now ten years I've been screaming about McConnell, Aaron, and MacDonald writing a 2006 anti-SLAPP opinion in which they concealed that the plaintiff and his attorney were lying to manufacture reason for malice in a SLAPP over scientific fraud in policies and toxic torts. For ten years I'm been screaming about her concealment that a retired Deputy Director of CDC National Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was a concealed party to the SLAPP.

For six years I've been screaming about Huffman, Benke and Irrion burying the evidence in a 2010 Appellate Opinion that McConnell, Aaron, and MacDonald fixed their 2006 anti-SLAPP Opinion as they proceeded to additionally conceal that the face of the judgment from the case is a fraud. It didn't acknowledge that I was a trial prevailing party. That is a Penal Code violation under 134 to conceal falsified and back-dated court documents. It's punishable by up to four years in prison.

Ya know what would help me to stop having to scream for another decaed as lives are still being destroyed by McConnell's continued burying a phoney court docs in SLAPP? Some media sunlight on her and fellow 4th/1st justices' decade of unrepentant and unpunished case fixing SLAPP to defraud the United States public. Hint! hint!

0

Don Bauder July 29, 2016 @ 7:05 a.m.

MrsKramer: I got your hint. Best, Don Bauder

0

kkenyon July 19, 2016 @ 11:19 a.m.

The cause of this whole mess is, of course, that crooked judge from Orange County who falsified her résumé. What Bauder didn't mention is that she was a defendant (along with her son and a now deceased scam artist) in the largest class action lawsuit for fraud in the US, charged with bilking their clients out of $250 million. The case settled for the plaintiffs for $41.5 million. She boasted about founding RSM-Equico (a global M&A Investmen Bank) but skipped the unsavory part.

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 8:04 a.m.

kkenyon: Writers must do self-editing, often for brevity's sake. This is why this case was omitted. Best, Don Bauder

0

shirleyberan July 19, 2016 @ 7:36 p.m.

I wish Southbay advocates knowledgable about superintendent Brand's questionable career had the stamina you guys have.

0

nuttyworld July 20, 2016 @ 7:20 a.m.

Of course, it isn't just stamina. A lot of elements have to come together to create an opportunity to make a dent in the way our "leaders" - in all phases and roles of influence over the lives of "ordinary" people - conduct their positions of trusted power. Abraham Lincoln famously said, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." Sadly, what many of our leaders do with power is shameful.

Sometimes, like with Mr. Kinsella and the behavior of the Fourth District's appellate panel that accepted JAMS' request against Mr. Kinsella to review JAMS' trial court loss. It just doesn't look good when public judges give private judges a lift. Especially when public appeals' judges, through the issuance of appellate opinions, have rendered the ADR private judging industry probably among the most lucrative second-careers in our country. Not bad to make a nice living for twenty-five years and then make an obscene living from the reputation you got from that earlier nice living.

Published opinions have cemented "arbitration" as a way (maybe "the best way") to resolve huge numbers of consumer disputes, leaving arbitrators in demand and companies like JAMS full of business. Of course, those arbitration clauses also favor the interests of big business in this country, giving them a forum of private judges who are always happy to get an assignment from some high-priced, big-firm lawyers. Published opinions have also given solid immunity protection to private judges, just like it gives to public judges. Thus, the post-retirement, private judging career is both lucrative and essentially liability-free. Such a deal.

When a consumer like Mr. Kinsella is allowed under the law to sue JAMS without immunity protection, no appeal's court should come to its aid, especially not one that puts out information on its own website that promotes the business and reputation of JAMS. I mean, honestly.

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 8:09 a.m.

nuttyworld: You raise an excellent point. It appears that the Fourth District may be helping JAMS and possibly other arbitrators so that appellate judges retiring from the bench will have a lucrative post-bench career. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 20, 2016 @ 8:06 a.m.

shirleyberan: People with complaints about the Fourth District have not only stamina, but also intestinal fortitude. Best, Don Bauder

0

MrsKramer July 21, 2016 @ 7:30 a.m.

Did you know that the CA Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) receives over an average of 1250 complaints each year for judicial misconduct? At that in the past decade the CJP has only publicly disciplined 65 judges for misconduct? That is less than .6% of all complaints received for now a decade, resulting in discipline that the public is made aware of.

To my knowledge, the CJP has never publicly admonished an appellate justice for misconduct. That is 0% of all complaints received.

The "independent state agency", CJP, receives over four million tax dollars annually to police misconduct of jurists in the CA courts. Over ten years, that equates to approximately $40 million tax dollars to publicly admonish a mere 65 judges and no justices.

Without any directive of further oversight, Governor Brown just increased the annual budget of the CJP to $4.7 million and the Legislative Public Safety, Budge Subcommittee approved it. http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/2016-17/StateAgencyBudgets/0010/0280/department.html

There is a CA Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) hearing on Aug 10th in Sacramento. People are calling for one or all of the elected-legislators who sit on that committee to sponsor a Bureau of State Auditor (BSA), forensic audit of the CJP.

The multiple requests for audit are going to be delivered to the JLAC on the 10th. One can read about it (and what you could do to help) here: http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/cje-advocacy/current-legislation/

0

Don Bauder July 21, 2016 @ 1:07 p.m.

MrsKramer: I did not know those numbers. Disgusting. Best, Don Bauyder

0

MrsKramer July 21, 2016 @ 3:15 p.m.

Those are true statistics about the dysfunctional CJP burying the clear and convicting evidence from public view of the above-the-law mentality among California judges and justices, .

Here's a telling one. It is a video from March of this year. It's Marin County attorney Barabara Kauffman. The stats she is quoting is both private and public admonishments. She's complaining about the CJP sitting on the clear and convincing evidence of a Marin county judge concealing and continuing to use back-dated court documents -- sound familiar? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vCQOIP2yts

I'm kind of surprised the Reader has picked up this story. A lot of Bay area papers have (see link above).

0

Don Bauder July 22, 2016 @ 3:21 p.m.

MrsKramer: Why should you be surprised that the Reader has picked up this story? The Reader picks up a lot of stories mainstream media won't touch. Best, Don Bauder

0

MrsKramer July 25, 2016 @ 2:25 p.m.

No. I meant b/c the Reader has not picked up the larger story of Mr. Kinsella's problem w/court ethics problems, being experienced by many throughout CA. Bay area and LA papers have been writing of it for the last few months. As I understand it, there are some national investigative journalists working on the story. Mr. Kinsella's story is not an isolated incident.

0

Don Bauder July 27, 2016 @ 3:33 p.m.

MrsKramer: This would be quite a job. Maybe we can get somebody at the Reader interested in pursuing it. Not me -- at age 80, I am too old to tackle such a story. Best, Don Bauder

0

samgreene July 26, 2016 @ 1:54 p.m.

Judith McConnell's career has been colored by her dishonest decisions. What can we do about bad judges? Here is part of an article on Huffington Post entitled We Need Criminal and Civil Justice Reform, which has excellent solutions:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carla-dimare/we-need-criminal-and-civil_b_7943532.html

• Trial and appellate judges must list connections with parties and lawyers before them. It costs nothing for this transparency. Don’t you want to know if the judge on your case is golfing, jogging or dining with your opponent or his lawyer?

• Challenged judges cannot declare themselves unbiased. Motions must go to a different courthouse. It makes no sense to allow judges to judge themselves. Yes this actually happens.

• Consider abolishing judicial immunity for judges who act with malice. Giving judges immunity for malicious acts is illogical and dangerous. Police officers and other public officials who act with malice can be sued, so why immunize judges? If judges were required to pay a lawyer to defend their malicious acts, malicious rulings would diminish.

• Every order and opinion must accurately cite to the record. This must be non-negotiable. Judges and justices with agendas write orders and decisions based upon invented statements masquerading as “facts.” These people work for the taxpayers and if they cannot do a simple task like accurately state facts and law, then they need to find another job.

• Consider judicial term limits. It would purge the bad apples, but it would also remove great judges, which may not be beneficial.

• Any lawyer who donates or causes a donation to a judge (judge’s family, family member’s boss, etcetera) whom the lawyer is appearing before shall be publicly reprimanded along with the judge who knowingly accepts the money or equivalent. Do it again, disbarment.

• Abolish lawyers’ groups that act as fronts for judicial patronization. Say goodbye to your annual Las Vegas junkets, judge and justice of the year awards, and fund-raising dinners for judges up for reelection. These groups benefit a handful of lawyers (you can guess the type) and represent the antithesis of justice.

• Strengthen whistle blower protection to protect anyone who reports judicial misconduct. There is a reasonable perception that if you speak up, you will be retaliated against or harshly accused of seeking revenge. A few Ninth Circuit justices, including Kozinski, who was admonished for his collection of sexually explicit images, sanctioned lawyers who tried to disqualify a biased judge. Everyone in this country should be concerned about this level of oppression—trying to silence anyone who has the courage to question a biased judge. One underpinning of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime was no one could criticize him. Through rulings, judges can display an all-pervading control of collective behavior and thought itself. Whistle blowers need our protection.

0

Don Bauder July 27, 2016 @ 3:39 p.m.

samgreene: Any lawyer or defendant who gives something of value to a judge before whom he is appearing should get more than a public reprimand. Prison would be a better option, depending on the value of the gift. The recipient judge should get similar treatment.

Your points are very well taken. Best, Don Bauder

0

MrsKramer July 27, 2016 @ 2:39 p.m.

Mr. Greene,

Everything you write, I know to be true from personal experience. I am highly of the opinion that Judy McConnell needs to be exposed and held out like the Poster Child for the needed changes which you state.

The reasons why with the linked supporting evidence are too long to put into one Reader post. I am attaching my reply to your statements in the below pdf.

http://freepdfhosting.com/4a325d430f.pdf

It's been such a horror story for thousands of people caused by unbridled corruption in our local courts -- primarily Judy's -- that people have a difficult time comprehending that this could and is happening. It is and it has been for now over a decade.

Don, thank you for allowing me to post this here.

0

Don Bauder July 27, 2016 @ 3:40 p.m.

MrsKramer: This topic deserves a thorough airing. Best, Don Bauder

1

MrsKramer July 28, 2016 @ 6:43 a.m.

Thank you, Don. I need more than a thorough airing by just comments on an article, to save lives. I need someone to write of how in a 2010 Appellate Opinion, Huffman, Benke, and Irrion buried the evidence that the judgment on record was back-dated and void on it's face (which is a felony under CA Penal Code 134) and did not acknowledge I was a prevailing party in trial. And that they also buried the evidence that McConnell, Aaron, and MacDonald suppressed the evidence in their 2006 anti-SLAPP Opinion that the plaintiff was committing perjury and his attorney was suborning it to manufacture reason for malice, which is another felony. This plaintiff is a toxic tort expert defense witness for many insurers and also the USDOJ.

And that all six of the appellate justices buried the evidence that a retired Deputy Director of CDC NIOSH was an improperly undisclosed party to the litigation on the 2005 and 2009 Certificate of Interested Persons.

THAT will cause the fraud I first exposed in my 2005 writing, that they fixed the case to aid to continue, to come to a screeching halt in workman's compensation practices, physician education (with the use of federal funds), and in toxic torts -- nationwide.

What also needs to come to light, is that the void-on-its-face judgment from the first SLAPP was used as the sole foundational document to the second SLAPP being in 2010, where they jailed me coram non judice for refusing to sign a false confession of being guilty of libel.

Then issued a permanent injunction that I am never to write of how they framed me by fraud upon the court over the words "altered his under oath statements".

0

Don Bauder July 29, 2016 @ 7:10 a.m.

MrsKramer: All has not been lost. You have been given the space to make your case in the Reader. Best, Don Bauder

0

MrsKramer July 28, 2016 @ 6:44 a.m.

Court transcript, March 12, 2012 where they brought me before Judge Thomas Nugent in shackles and chains after two nights in jail (because I wouldn't sign a false confession of being guilty of libel) and tried to coerce me to sign the false confession again. Had I signed it, it would have been committing perjury and have absolved all their sins.

(Note that this transcript says I had an attorney. That's false. They were trying to force a corrupt one on me so I could not speak for myself. I made the horrible woman, who I never retained as an attorney, go sit in the audience and I spoke for myself.

Also note that this says I would be returned to the jail and released from there. That too is false. They had my clothes sent to the NC Court and I was released from there. I am pretty sure that if my husband had not gotten wind that this hearing was going to take place and he, my mother and sister were in the court room -- I would have been taken "downtown to the psych ward" and doped into permanent brain damage.

I'm not kidding one iota. This is billions of dollars of fraud that is STILL being covered up by the burying of the evidence that the 2008 VOID JUDGMENT is a back-dated void on its face legal instrument that still on record.

While I was in jail for civil contempt (of a court with no subject matter jurisdiction) my alleged civil offense somehow morphed into a criminal office -- and Gore's goonies recorded a false criminal record against me with the FBI. For six months they claimed they could not remove it because their computer system could not do it.

A criminal charge was required for the corrupt attorney to help them get me down to the psych ward under Penal Code 1368 -- and they had been making noises that that is what Judge Nugent wanted to happen. It's all in the court records and transcripts.

The Court Transcript of March 12, 2012 http://freepdfhosting.com/0cce163e7b.pdf

I need some attorney with kahonees to get this matter out of McConnell's dirty hands controlling it, and file a motion for the 2010 Remittitur to be recalled and rescinded so the 2008 Void Judgment can be vacated. That's it and the whole game collapses.

But that's not going to happen until I get some real sunlight on this and the case is first tried in the court of public opinion -- which requires a brave journalist. (hint, hint)

0

Don Bauder July 29, 2016 @ 7:13 a.m.

MrsKramer: I have suspected through the years that those who sue pro per are less likely to get justice. Best, Don Bauder

0

MrsKramer July 30, 2016 @ 12:25 p.m.

Mr. Bauder,

That's true and is one of the primary reasons there is a call for audit of the Commission on Judicial Performance. But that's not my case. I didn't sue and I wasn't in properia persona. I was sued. I spent about a half of a million dollars on attorneys - some Century City big time libel law lawyers - and court costs, until I ran short of money. (We were putting two kids thru college at the same time. Yikes!)

Since MCCONNELL fixed the case whenever the 4th/1st got their grubby fingers on it (2006, 2010, 2013) I decided to continue Pro Per (2008). What was the point in spending good money on lawyers when she was just going to fix it anyway?

In 2010 one of my attorneys offered to step back in at no charge for appellate oral arguments. I told him "no thank you". Because at that point in time, a licensed lawyer could not say what really needs to be said to shut down the entire fraud w/o running the risk of being retaliated against and losing their license. (those nasty 4th/1st justices did just that to the late Phillip Kay. It ruined and shortened his life).

The fraud being covered up is vast, but the linchpin to prove it is simple. I've got a back-dated void on its face lien on my property that shows a date of entry of judgement and cost award that is not possible to have occurred.

Judy McConnell will not recall and rescind the remittitur so the lower court may have jurisdiction to vacate the twice-back-dated void judgment so the back-dated lien may be lawfully removed from public record and my credit report.

She can't ethically act at this point in time, w/o exposing she's been case fixing SLAPP for over a decade to defraud the U.S. public with contractors of the USDOJ.

They don't contract with the SLAPP plaintiffs anymore. Just talked to them yesterday. The USDOJ knows what McConnell has done and is continuing to do.

So will she ever be punished for her crimes against humanity by case-fixing and concealing back-dated court docs in SLAPP over a matter impacting public health? Probably not.

Will she be retiring soon so she can't harm anyone else? I think there is a good possibility.

0

Don Bauder July 31, 2016 @ 6:11 a.m.

MrsKramer: This reminds me of the Filner case. The prosecutors let him know that they would break him financially if he didn't capitulate to them. They also told him he would be tried criminally if he didn't confess. It was a disgusting example of what is going on in so-called "law enforcement." Best, Don Bauder

1

MrsKramer Aug. 1, 2016 @ 7:08 p.m.

K. Here we go! A CA Assemblymember has sponsored a request for audit of the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Center for Investigative Reporting: https://www.revealnews.org/blog/lawmakers-want-judges-to-be-more-accountable-after-stanford-case/

The matter gets heard before the CA Joint Legislative Audit Committee on Aug 10th. If they approve the audit request, all KINDS of DIRT in the courts -- including San Diego's -- is going to come to public light.

What typically happens with these types of audits is that people being audited suddenly have a desire to retire.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 2, 2016 @ 7:29 p.m.

MrsKramer: There is a REQUEST for an audit. But look how many legislators are lawyers. The question is: will there BE an audit? Best, Don Bauder

0

MrsKramer Aug. 14, 2016 @ 8:53 a.m.

Hi Don,

Sorry for my delay in responding to your question. Didn't know you asked one. Someone just sent this to me. The answer is YES! An audit of the CJP is now underway.

On August 10th, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) voted unanimously to approve the request for audit.

One can read the specifics of it here: http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/2016/08/10/8102016-press-release-california-judicial-watchdog-faces-first-audit-in-56-years/

One can read what it means for those injured by McConnell keeping the lynch-pin of fraud over the Toxic Mold issue intact here; (i.e. her unethical and unlawful repeated refusals to recall a pernicious remittitur, which blocks the vacating of back-dated SLAPP docs) https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2016/08/10/toxic-mold-the-ca-comm-on-judicial-performance-to-be-audited/

It's been a decade of playing a deadly game of Cat and Mouse with Fat Cat McConnell. With this audit, score one for the Mouse!

0

MrsKramer Aug. 16, 2016 @ 6:18 a.m.

Don,

Did you see yesterday's UT article about the audit of the CJP? http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/aug/15/judicial-audit/

“When judges know that their oversight agency is going to take every complaint seriously and be held publicly accountable, that is going to result in less misconduct,' said Joe Sweeney, founder of Court Reform, who has been pushing for the audit for months."

Joe Sweeney is to appear before a judge in Contra Costa County today, to begin a 25 day jail sentence for alleged Civil Contempt of Court. What he really did was well within his rights as a U.S. citizen. He's been posting the evidence on the Net that the judges and justices have been case-fixing his divorce in favor of his fabulously wealthy ex-wife and her parents.

This judge is about to break the laws which govern incarceration for Civil Contempt, if Joe goes to jail today.

"Cause a CJP Audit on Wed & Ordered to Jail by Friday? https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2016/08/15/cause-an-audit-of-the-cjp-on-wed-be-ordered-to-jail-by-friday/

0

Sign in to comment