Tuesday, March 27, 2012

[Victims of Court Corruption] Lawyer Sues for Right to Sue Judges




http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/26/45004.htm
Lawyer Sues for Right to Sue Judges

    SACRAMENTO (CN) - A law office claims in a federal class action that a section of a bill proposed in a state Senate bill unconstitutionally prohibits citizens from taking legal action against judges.
     Lead plaintiff Nina Ringgold, filing for herself and on behalf of her clients, claims that Section 5 of Senate Bill X2 11, which was filed in February, "purports to grant retroactive immunity notwithstanding the United States Constitution or federal law, and in disregard of whether the relief sought by the aggrieved person is under the United States Constitution or federal law, and it purports to amend or revise the California Constitution without the required constitutional procedures."
     Ringgold claims there is a "constitutional conflict and dispute between state and local agencies and the Commission on Judicial Performance, which prohibit the plaintiffs and citizens of the State of California from taking action to preserve their legal and constitutional rights."

     She claims that the "fact that the proceedings are being conducted without a valid or authorized judicial function in accord with the California Constitution should be disclosed to the litigants and they should be afforded an opportunity to decline to participate in the unconstitutional condition. Currently the courts where supplemental payment by the county without constitutional authority leads to a private organization housed in facilities owned and operated by the state. It would be one thing if this was a theoretical exercise, however, citizens who have been forced to participate in this unconstitutional enterprise (without disclosure) have been deprived of equal protection, due process, and fair proceedings consistent with the law."
     Ringgold claims there have been an "overwhelming number of grievances arising in the probate department and other areas. This is not just about budget matters but rather involve existing and severe constitutional structural problems. The probate department of the County of Los Angeles has a direct economic stake in the operation of the probate department (including through attorney fees, estate administration fees by the County Public Administrator (not an elected official), and other fees.
     Ringgold and co-plaintiff Justin Ringgold-Lockhart, her adult son and a client of her office, say they "have a constitutionally protected legal and property interest in the persons designated as owning the intangible property right in the power of appointment and discretion in a private family trust."

     They claim the state Senate bill "is being applied as a penalty for raising legitimate grievances concerning discrimination and operation of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, concerning the discriminatory operation of the probate department, and to impair Ringgold's ability to practice her profession."
     Ringgold's complaint states that both she and her son are African-American.
     The complaint states: "Through a nonappealable order the Los Angeles Superior Court appointed a trustee without bond who is liquidating a private family trust. The primary unencumbered and revenue generating real estate assets of the trust were sold in one of the worst real estate markets in United States history. While and [sic] the named trustee and counsel of record, plaintiff Ringgold used proper procedures to attempt to prevent the adverse sale she was determined to be a vexatious litigant in the first instance in the California Court of Appeal [sic]. The determination was made when no motion was ever filed in the state trial court in accord with the statutory due process procedures mandated by statute and it was made in the first instance in the appellate court to a named trustee and counsel of record when there would be no opportunity for appellate review."

     Ringgold claims it is unconstitutional for a "single justice of the state appellate court to render a determination of whether an appeal has merit and has been filed for purposes of harassment or delay when no statutory due process motion has been filed."
     Ringgold claims that after she "encountered a medical emergency and although acting as counsel of record, in order to penalize Ringgold for exercising her First Amendment rights and limit the legal issues which could be raised by clients of the Law Office, the court imposed a pre-filing requirement ... in order to seek an accommodation for disability." In cases that she was counsel of record, her clients "have been required to obtain court approval to file pleadings in pending litigation," the lawsuit claims.
     Ringgold sued Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Kamala Harris, the Commission on Judicial Performance of the State of California, and State Auditor Elaine Howle.
     She seeks to "establish a grievance procedure (including with respect to ADA requests, civil appeals, court reporter's department, an other matters), and method of monitoring and that the procedure be transparent to allow input from the public." She also seeks a special investigation into the Los Angeles County Superior Court probate department, and a "performance, financial, and investigative audit of the courts impacted by self-effectuating resignations."
     Ringgold, of Northridge, filed the case pro se.


[Victims of Court Corruption] Legal System Screaming For Your Money - Save the Courts, or Lose Your Freedom


The Legal System Screaming For Your Money
- Save the Courts, or Lose Your Freedom

Ron Branson

*    *    *

ABA (American Bar Association)
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/no_courts_no_justice_no_freedom_2012_law_day_theme_will_resonate_with_calls/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=ABA+Journal+Magazine+Stories

No Courts, No Justice, No Freedom: 2012 Law Day Theme Will Resonate with Calls for Court Funding

Posted Apr 1, 2012 5:10 AM CDT
By Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III



On January 18th, a group called the Open Courts Coalition filled a block of Grand Avenue in Los Angeles and held a rally to support funding for the state judicial system of California.

Yes, you read that right—a rally for our courts that brought together members of the legal profession, the business community and labor leaders. It was a defining moment, and one we hope will be repeated in the coming months as we stand up and speak out for full funding for our judiciary.

State court underfunding is a threat to our system of justice and all we believe in as Americans and as an association. It is harming clients, slowing our nation’s economic recovery and undermining our liberty.

The ABA is organizing what will be a powerful public education event to further highlight this issue for lawmakers and the public at large. The theme and title of Law Day 2012 on May 1 is the message we have taken from Maine to California: “No Courts, No Justice, No Freedom.”

Please join with your state and local bar associations, teachers and business, labor and civic leaders in this year’s celebration of the constitutional freedoms our courts protect, along with the rule of law they nurture. Our ABA call to action has already been sent to state bars, asking them to hold a major public event in every state and territory to highlight the need for adequate funding of our courts.

Since establishing the Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System in 2010, the ABA has gained a wealth of information about the debilitating effects of budget cuts on our courts. The National Center for State Courts, one of our valued partners in raising public awareness of this issue, advises that 42 states cut funding for their judiciaries in 2011. New York closes its courts daily at 4:30 p.m. to avoid overtime costs. Massachusetts has lost 1,100 employees through attrition.

We know that courts have adjusted to the new reality of this difficult economy through efficiency and innovation. But as Kentucky Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr. has said, “We’ve all learned to be resourceful and live with in our means, to change, to evolve, to re-engineer, but state courts are running out of options during the Great Recession.”

And in the face of shrinking budgets, expanding caseloads, political indifference and public ignorance, more people and groups like those in California are saying enough is enough.

The Massachusetts bar has started a new court funding campaign that produced videos and placed billboards along two interstates. The New York County Lawyers Association and the state’s bar association have held court funding programs and issued reports to draw attention to cuts there.

In addition to our Law Day efforts, we have placed columns on judicial funding in 27 state and local bar association publications. The ABA is also building bridges with civic and business associations that care deeply about our nation’s justice system. We have found unprecedented partners—the Chamber of Commerce, the Association of Corporate Counsel and the Federalist Society—and each has joined us to support full funding for our judiciaries.

The ABA has distributed to hundreds of state and local bar presidents and executive directors a tool kit that includes videos and other materials to help build support among legislators and in the community. Our task force, led by David Boies and Ted Olson, recently held a forum at the ABA Midyear Meeting in New Orleans, highlighting strategies that can be used effectively with legislators across our nation. The ABA has also established a new Internet portal on this court funding crisis that can be found at ambar.org/courtfunding.

The preamble of our Constitution says we must establish justice to form a more perfect union. Our courts must be open, available and adequately staffed to accomplish that goal. Let’s work together to achieve it in our time.

Otherwise, No Courts, No Justice, No Freedom.

Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III, Frost Brown Todd LLC, is a civil litigator and member-in-charge of FBT’s office in Florence, Ky., and also has an office with FBT in Cincinnati.


*   *   *
The Dangers to America of an Unaccountable Judiciary

Thomas Jefferson

We already see the [judiciary] power, installed for life, responsible to no authority … advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part.”