4/14/06 Gary L. Zerman Reply to “Judging the Judges”, California
Lawyer, April 2006
California Lawyer Editor:
I (along with Ron Branson and our Judicial Accountability Initiative Law www.jail4judges.org) am the subject of "Judging the Judges - A grassroots
movement seeks revenge against offending jurists." [April]. Your first
sentence reads: "If Gary Zerman has his way, judges across the country will
soon find themselves a lot more exposed to angry litigants." Contrary to
your assertion, I have always sought, and still seek, when I (or anyone) goes
to court, to simply get my (their) day in court: a fair judge, a proper finding
of the facts, a proper application of the law and that a measure of justice be
done. And when that is not done because of judicial misconduct (or worse),
I do seek to hold those judges accountable.
You want to term that revenge? I can't stop you. (Actually, revenge is
where: in July of 1993 Giani Luigi Ferri went shooting his lawyers (and
others) at Petit & Martin in San Francisco, killing 9, wounding 6; in
November of 2003 William Strier started shooting at his new attorney
Gerald Curry, who luckily danced around the tree for cover at the Van Nuys
courthouse; and, in February 2005 Bart A. Ross laid in wait for federal
Judge Judith Lefkow at her home in Chicago, but instead killed her husband
& mother. See the essay "The Plague of Violence" in your August 1993
edition that predicted something like this.)
Ironically, I noted that in your same April edition, the MCLE self study
article was "Judges Behaving Badly". It started with Socrates' famous
admonition: "Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer
wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially." Conspicuously
absent from Socrates' admonition was - immunity. Perhaps that was Plato,
who came up with "Philosopher Kings". But fact is, there is no Easter
Bunny. Nor are there Philosopher Kings. (Even if there were, we never
wanted them in America. We fought a revolution to get rid of kings and
royalty ruling over us. Instead we chose a Republic and the jury system,
albeit today less and less.) Nor just because you give one the title "judge"
and a $29.00 cloth robe, does that insure the judge comes with a halo. In
fact the almost absolute power given to a judge, can cause just the opposite
condition. See Bracey v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) recapping the
federal sting "Operation Greylord" in Chicago and learn about "bagmen",
1
"bribes" and 14 judges who went to jail. Why haven't there been more
Operation Greylords?
Typically your piece was slanted, using biased terms such as "revenge",
"angry litigants", "so steamed up about" and "rails ... against", foregoing the
usual pejoratives "disgruntled", "vexatious", "gadfly", and "pest". Thanks
for that. You did though, in habitual journalistic favoritism omit our core
arguments about the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity (AJI), that: 1)
there is NO authority in our Constitution giving immunity to judges (nor do
any of the USSC cases on AJI ever cite any); 2) judges giving judges AJI
violates the doctrine of separation of powers - the so-called checks &
balances (nor do any of the USSC cases mention this); 3) AJI turns the
sovereignty of We the People on its head, by placing the judiciary over,
above and beyond the People, making the servant the master; and, 4) why
has our USSC condoned eugenics? See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349
(1978). Note, neither Chief Justice Roberts, nor Justice Alito, were asked
any of these questions at their recent Senate Judiciary Committee
confirmation hearings. Checks & balances?
Your piece asserted that "... judicial immunity ... has never been absolute."
Correct in theory, but almost totally wrong regarding application. Name the
last judge impeached? Federal or state. (We have a joke around J.A.I.L. Impeachment of judges is like Haley's Comet, it comes around once every
64 years.) Judges can be criminally prosecuted, but in fact seldom, if ever
are; and if they are, still usually get a break on punishment. See "L.A.
County's Dual Standard of Justice Marches On", 1/11/98 LA Times, p.M6,
by Charles Lindner, asserting this "insider justice" happens because of the
"closed fraternity" between judges and prosecutors. You citied 2004
Commission on Judicial Performance statistics: that of 1,114 complaints
received, 8% led to staff inquiries and 4% to investigations. Pitiful. A
manufacturing concern handling complaints in that fashion would be out of
business - pronto. But here we are dealing with people and their rights,
which calls for greater integrity than products or services. You omitted stats
for discipline actually imposed. Review of the 10-Year Summary of
Commission Activity, notes a grossly inordinate amount of "0" (goose eggs)
and "<1%" (less than one percent) tallies for actual discipline.
The federal system is worse, with over 99% of complaints against federal
judges routinely dismissed. For example, see 'WITHOUT MERIT: The
Empty Promise of Judicial Discipline", by Elena Sassower, Massachusetts
2
School of Law, The Long Term View, Vol. 4, No. 1, p.90 (1997),
www.judgewatch.org. More recent, see "9th Circuit's Kozinski Blasts L.A.
Judge, Majority in Discipline Case", 10/4/05 The Recorder, by Justin
Scheck, www.law.com, with the first sentence: "Can federal judges be
trusted to police themselves? Alex Kozinski isn't so sure." In re Complaint
of Judicial Misconduct, No. 03-89037, Judicial Council, 9th Circuit,
9/25/05, where the complaint was dismissed for the 3rd and final time
(despite finding the involved judge deliberately acted without legal
authority), Justice Kozinski wrote in dissent: "... It does not inspire
confidence in the federal judiciary when we treat our own so much better
than everybody else." Bingo!
Your piece ends quoting Chief Justice George: "... What's disturbing about
this current effort is that the attacks seem to be escalating and gathering
momentum. That's worrisome." We agree. Meet with us Chief Justice
George and let's work together to solve these crucial problems in our judicial
system. Please be a leader. Or will your reply be "Let them eat cake." We
hope to hear from you. GLZ.
California Lawyer: My full name is Gary L. Zerman. I reside at 23935
Philbrook
Avenue Valencia, California 91354, and my tel# is (661)259-2570.
3