Blogonaut

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM BLOGONAUT

2011-12-24T08:24:00.000-08:00

PHIL SPECTOR APPEALS MURDER JUDGMENT TO US SUPREME COURT

2011-12-19T12:28:00.000-08:00

SCOTUS Justice Kennedy Spector savior?

Per an anonymous commenter on this site, Philip Spector, convicted in Los Angeles of murdering failed movie actress Lana Clarkson, has been granted extra time to file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court.

According to SCOTUS docketing information, the extension request was filed by Spector appellate counsel Dennis P. Riordan, and was granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until December 15, 2011.

This signals that the United States Supreme Court may soon review what some, including this blog, have viewed as a tainted judgment of conviction infected with structural error by the trial court.
Stay tuned……

LA JUDGE WHO SHOCKED DEFENDANT WITH 50,000 VOLTS IN TROUBLE AGAIN

2011-10-19T10:46:00.000-07:00

Hon. Joan Comparet-Cassani, Judge (red jacket, right)

The judges of Los Angeles County have been keeping the Commission on Judicial Performance or CJP—California’s judicial watchdog and disciplinary agency busy.

In March the CJP publicly admonished Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Harvey Gliss for remarking in open court in the presence of the relatives of a black defendant:

“I guess the only thing that will make the defendants plead was for the judge to come out in a white sheet and a pointy white hat”. Instead, the defendants requested the judge’s disqualification. Read the discipline here.

Then in August the CJP publicly admonished the Hon. Joan Comparet-Cassani, Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Her offense? Improperly revoking a criminal defendant’s pro per status because her honor refused to believe that the defendant was capable of personally drafting the two procedural motions he had just filed without assistance from someone.

If you think that a self-represented criminal defendant has every right to receive help when drafting motions to be filed in court you would be right. But not only was her honor ignorant of the defendant’s right to self-representation—including the very limited circumstances under which his pro se status could be revoked—Judge Congeniality was extraordinarily rude go the man in court:

THE COURT: Okay. Who did you get this form from?

THE DEFENDANT: I did it myself, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don’t believe that.
THE DEFENDANT: Well, I had somebody -- I wrote it and I

had somebody type it for me.

THE COURT: But it -- parts are added in, so it’s a proforma

form.

THE DEFENDANT: Excuse me?

THE COURT: I said, parts are added, so it looks proforma to

me. You got this from somebody.

THE DEFENDANT: I wrote it in handwriting, and I had

somebody type it up for me.

THE COURT: No, I don’t believe you.

THE DEFENDANT: I did, Your Honor. That’s the truth.

THE COURT: But you copied it from something.

THE BAILIFF: Ma’am, if you continue to react, you’ll be in

the hallway.

THE DEFENDANT: I have a piece of discovery right here that –

THE COURT: Excuse me. I’m reading this. You gave it to

me.

(A Pause in the Proceedings.)

THE COURT: You did not draft this. There’s no way.

THE DEFENDANT: I did, Your Honor. That’s the honest

truth.

THE COURT: No, there’s no way.

THE DEFENDANT: I did, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don’t believe you; it’s that simple. I don’t

believe you. You did not draft this […]

But the truly extraordinary thing about this story is how in the world was Judge Comparet-Cassani on the bench to even commit this conduct?

In the current disciplinary report the CJP reveals that Judge Congeniality has a prior record of discipline For ordering an in-custody defendant’s 50,000 volt “shock-belt” activated for 8 seconds, not because he posed a security threat, but because Judge Comparet-Cassani did not like the man’s attitude!!!! So why is this Natzi-like judge from hell still on the bench?

In reaching its decision, the commission viewed as aggravating factors two prior
matters in which Judge Comparet-Cassani was disciplined for misconduct similar to that at issue here, namely, abuse of authority with regard to a pro per criminal defendant and poor demeanor. In 2000, the judge was privately admonished, in part, for ordering a sheriff’s deputy to activate an electronic stun belt being worn by a pro per criminal defendant that was designed to deliver a 50,000 volt electric shock for approximately eight seconds. The judge ordered the belt activated during a hearing not to prevent courtroom violence, but because of the defendant’s verbal interruptions. The admonishment also included two prior incidents, one involving the defendant who was shocked and one involving another defendant, in which the judge threatened the use of the belt as a means of controlling non-violent courtroom behavior.

So why is this judge still on the bench? You tell us, because we haven’t a clue.

MEL GIBSON EX RECEIVES $750K INSTEAD OF $15M

2011-09-01T17:04:00.000-07:00

We authored several posts regarding the Russian scam artist’s dubious claims against actor Mel Gibson, culminating in a $15M settlement agreement, which the Russian—who also sued actor Timothy Dalton for child support—reneged on when she learned that Gibson’s ex-wife was to receive a reported $650M in their divorce.

At long last, though, the case has been resolved.

The Russian will get a mere $750,000, her daughter by Gibson will receive the same child support she was always going to get by law, and the Russian has been ordered to keep her mouth shut—which should not be hard now that no one is listening anyway.

What can we say, except “we told you so!"

Hat tip: Kelly Green.

NOT GUILTY!

2011-07-05T20:40:00.000-07:00

Why is this man smiling?

OK, we were not going to go near the Casey Anthony case for a number of reasons.

But since the major networks and even a prestigious law blog jumped on the Trials & Tribulations, golly Jose Baez is the most incompetent lawyer E-V-E-R bandwagon, and in view of the stunning NOT GUILTY verdict, we could not resist a brief post.

Having second chaired a death case early in our legal career and dutifully attended the 3-day death-penalty-boot-camp sponsored by the California Appellate Project, we are aware that the realities of death litigation are so grim that counsel are urged to set aside all lofty notions of an outright win in favor of a strategy of saving your client’s life.

Second, jurors that are “death qualified”, that is swear under oath that they could and would impose a death sentence if the facts warrant it, are more prone to convict during the guilt phase than a panel that includes jurors philosophically opposed to the death penalty--which question cannot even be asked of potential jurors unless death is on the table.

Third, death penalty appellate specialists stress that—other than avoiding the death of your client as your overarching objective—your goal is object, object, object—even if the law appears settled against you on a particular point. You just don’t want to be that lawyer whose client gets the needle after the United States Supreme Court decides that the death penalty is unconstitutional because you did not make that motion at trial, thereby waiving it for later review. Likewise with any number of lesser "waivable" but potential appellate issues. Therefore, all of those “dumb” objections that Baez was ridiculed for making were actually precisely what any competent lawyer SHOULD DO in a death penalty case.

But the bottom line is this: Under a media spotlight, with a very unsympathetic client and in opposition to some very compelling and prejudicial prosecution evidence, Baez did the near impossible: Not only did he save his client’s life, she was acquitted not only of murder but of the other serious charges as well, suffering a conviction only for lying to police—and local police at that (not the FBI). The trial lawyer’s equivalent of walking on water. In the context of a capital murder case, the defendant might as well have been convicted of disturbing the peace, so stunning and complete was Baez's victory for his client.

So, to all of you in the media, the blogosphere, and the general public who bought into the party line that Jose Baez is an incompetent idiot, to quote Toby Keith “How do you like me now?”

Ha! We love it! Jose Baez was giving the prosecution the old rope-a-dope, and just about everyone fell for it! "Incompetent" defense counsel wins the "social media case of the century"! Every criminal defendant facing the death penalty should have a lawyer this "incompetent" :).

Read more: Anthony not guilty of killing daughter

Happy Easter!

2011-04-24T09:39:00.001-07:00

Christos Anesti!

WOMAN INJURES HERSELF CLAPPING, SUES "CLAPPER" INVENTOR

2011-04-20T14:39:00.000-07:00

Once again we feel compelled to repeat our slogan “we don’t’ make this stuff up”, nor could we.

You all know that annoying late-night commercial for that ridiculous device you cannot imagine anyone ordering, the one where you can clap on and off the nightstand lamp (instead of just reaching over and twisting the switch), also known as “The Clapper”?

It seems that an elderly New York woman named Edna Hubbs clapped a little too enthusiastically trying to get the frick’n lamp to turn-off already, and the poor dear aggravated her arthritis.

I mean, who knew that if you repeatedly slap your hands together hard enough it might actually hurt?

Naturally her attorney sued the Clapper’s inventors.

Alas, a New York Court of appeal panel said “clap-off” to this bogus lawsuit.

Related: CAUTION:THISSUPERMAN SUIT WILL NOT ENABLE YOU TO FLY—Are Consumer Product Warning Labels Out of Control? (Ariz. St. L.J.)

SECOND TEEN IN A MONTH SURVIVES GG BRIDGE PLUNGE

2011-04-18T20:26:00.000-07:00

We posted here about the Windsor High School student on a March, 2011 field trip to the Golden Gate Bridge who boasted to fellow classmates of his bridge jumping prowess, then when questioned made the leap few survive—pulled out of the water by an ageing surfer with nothing more severe that a stern lecture.

Now Reuters brings us a second teen, this time a 16 year old girl who made the leap and survived today—in April of 2011--barely one month later!

Reported the news service:

“The teen was found "conscious and responsive" beneath the suspension bridge at about 11:15 a.m. on Sunday, said U.S. Coast Guard spokesman Levi Read.”. "Normally when we're talking about a jumper from the Golden Gate Bridge, the numbers show it's not a high probability that they're going to survive," Read said.

That is an understatement; over 98% of all bridge jumpers die on impact—the distance mid-span from roadway to water is 270 feet, figure 10 feet per floor, or the equivalent of a jump from the 27th floor of a building.

At this height water begins to resemble concrete more than water.

Contrast the world record professional high dives:

The world record for the highest dive into water is held by, depending on who you ask, Dana Kunze (172 feet and walked away) or Oliver Favre (177 feet but broke his back.) Not taking air resistance into account, their velocity on impact would have been 72 or 73 miles per hour.

And now this update to the story:

An Alamo family out for a weekend sail found the teen jumper in the water and pulled her to safety. reports the San Jose Mercury News.

Their first thought was that they had spotted a whale breaching the water. However, they then saw the usually happy, waving pedestrian crowd on the bridge pointing to the water. What they found was a 16-year-old girl, an unconscious, bloodied bridge jumper who they helped keep afloat until professional rescuers arrived.

California Highway Patrol spokesman Patrick Roth said the girl, whose name is not being released, is from Southern California and was with family on vacation when she handed her sister a diary that contained a suicide note. Details weren't available on the circumstances immediately before, but then she jumped.

Roth said the girl did not break any bones, but she did suffer a punctured lung, bruised back and internal bleeding. She is expected to survive -- one of a very small percentage of people to survive the 220-foot drop.

Last year, 32 people committed suicide by jumping off the bridge, according to the Associated Press. Jumpers who are not killed on impact often drown after suffering severe internal injuries and broken bones. Only about 2 percent survive, statistics show.

We have heard it takes a perfectly controlled feet first dive, but at just steep enough of an angle that you don’t go too deep and drown.

Our bottom line: Don’t.

LET’S ALL JUST REFLECT A MOMENT SHALL WE?

2011-04-15T13:13:00.000-07:00

SPECTOR ORAL ARGUMENTS TODAY: JUSTICE ALDRICH APPEARS HOSTILE TO SPECTOR APPEAL, KLINE SYMPATHETIC, KITCHING AN ENIGMA

2011-04-12T13:25:00.000-07:00

Justice Aldrich of the three judge panel that will decide Spector appeal ***BREAKING NEWS***** Los Angeles, CA We asked a person attending the oral arguments in the Spector appeal this morning to email us with their impressions for the one hour hearing. Here are the highlights from our field report: Justice Aldrich took the lead in questioning by the three justice panel and appeared hostile to Spector’s grounds for appeal. According to our informant: “Justice Aldrich really pounded the appellate. He told Dennis Riordan that the cases cited in the appeal briefs didn't relate to this one.” Apparently, the major points focused on by the court were the Jaime Lintermoot and Judge Fidler testimony regarding the blood spatter, the Ewoldt case regarding the standards for admissibility of the testimony of the five women regarding prior gun brandishing incidents. Dennis Riordan was described a “passionate Presiding Justice Klein (who was appointed to the court of appeal by Jerry Brown in 1978) seemed the most sympathetic to Spector’s arguments that the testimony of the five women was prejudicial. According to our source at the hearing, Justice Kitching said very little. Our source also said:
“The AG brought up the Doctrine of Chances to which Dennis stated on rebuttal it was not admissible. He continued to point out that there was no evidence of forcing the gun, no gun in mouth, and no evidence of anger at Lana Clarkson this was in regard to Doctrine of Chances. The AG was arguing that it was only a matter of time that something like this would happen because according to these women this is what he did.”
The bottom line, according to our source:
Aldrich did ask the AG how the “doctrine of chances theory” differed from plain old character-propensity evidence, but “I would have to say based on what I observed today that Justice Aldrich is squarely on the side of the prosecution. Justice Klein though getting a little impatient with Dennis during the Lintermoot discussion, I guess she felt he was repetitive, did grill the AG on the 5 women and how highly prejudicial they were in the case and also the Doctrine of Chances. Justice Kitching said very little.

EVEN JOE FRANCIS LAWYER SURPRISED AT DEFENSE VERDICT

2011-04-07T21:05:00.001-07:00

Multi-millionare Girls Gone Wild producer Joe Francis

Joe Francis, the moronic yet financially successful producer of the “Girl’s Gone Wild” video series pulled one out of a tailspin in a Florida courtroom today when a civil jury exonerated the millionaire, who left town on his own private jet. Francis represented himself during the trial until he accused two of the 18 year old plaintiffs (who were underage when Francis filmed them acting, well, wild) of being “prostitutes”, whereupon the judge fined Francis $2,500 and terminated his right to represent himself--ironically saving Francis from himself. Enter Francis’s attorneys, who somehow managed to pull off a defense verdict—which even surprised THEM. The money quote:

"I was very surprised because it's not often that you find a jury that actually follows the law”, Francis’s counselor remarked.

APPELLATE COURT DECLARES CONVICTED ‘RAPIST’ COP’S INNOCENCE

2011-03-31T11:12:00.000-07:00

We previously reported here that Chicago police Sargent John Herman was starting trial on accusations that he raped a woman in her home in 2004. But that was just the beginning of the story. Herman was convicted of the rape, but this week an Illinois appellate court reversed the conviction—NOT for a retrial—but to set an innocent man free, because he is NOT GUILTY. This case should be a lesson to all of us about forming conclusions about a defendant until the appellate process is finished.

PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED IN LANDMARK VEHICLE SUPPRESSION CASE

2011-03-22T09:44:00.000-07:00

SDM module, similar to the one seized by police in the Xinos case

A little known decision from the 6th Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, People v. Xinos (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 637, has established a 4th Amendment privacy right in automobile data recorders, known in the industry as an SDM or an EDR—which are a sort a of black box located within most vehicles manufactured within the last 10 to 15 years (depending on manufacturer).

Many people do not realize as they are tooling blissfully down the road that should their vehicle’s airbag sense a possible need to “wake up” and standby ready to deploy (known as a near deployment event) or should the airbag actually deploy, that a small electronic box is quietly recording data such as engine speed, breaking action, vehicle speed (and other information), and that the information will typically be stored in the vehicle for the critical five seconds prior to the deploying event—typically a collision.

This data can be instrumental in prosecuting the driver of a collision involved vehicle where personal injury or death results, especially if the driver turns out to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the accident.

That is exactly what Santa Clara County prosecutors were thinking when they instructed police investigators to remove the SDM from George Xinos’ SUV, impounded by the cops months earlier when Xinos drove away after killing a pedestrian crossing at night, against the light at a busy unlit intersection, and was hours later found to have a blood alcohol level of .18.

The accident investigation report concluded that Xinos was driving at a safe speed at the time of the accident, and that the primary cause of the collision that killed 15 year old Marcus Keppert was that Keppert was crossing Almaden Expressway at Camden Avenue at 12:30 at night against the light and wearing dark clothing. This enabled Xinos’ attorney to negotiate a favorable plea bargain keeping his client out of prison (under the plea deal, Xinos agreed to serve one year in the county jail).

But all of that went out the window on the eve of Xinos’ sentencing under the plea deal when prosecutors instructed investigators to seize the black box, and the data revealed that Xinos was traveling much faster than believed—over 70 MPH just prior to the fatal car-on-pedestrian collision.

Prosecutors withdrew the plea deal, the court denied a motion to suppress the warrantless seizure of the data recorder, and Xinos was convicted of a panoply of charges including manslaughter and sentenced to over seven years in State Prison. (Xinos is currently serving his time in notorious San Quentin State Prison.)

Enter appellate specialist Dennis Riordan of San Francisco’s Riordan and Horgan who convinced the Sixth District Court of Appeal—without any on-point California precedent—to make some new law in his client’s favor.

The court reversed Xinos’s conviction on all counts impacted by the SDM data, holding in a case of first impression that drivers have a 4th Amendment privacy interest in the data recorders located in their vehicles, even if the vehicle was involved in a suspected driving under the influence crime like manslaughter, causing injury while under the influence, or leaving the scene of an accident.

This does not mean that police need a search warrant, but they do need probable cause to believe that the black box will yield evidence of criminality, and this must consist of specific, objective, and articulable facts creating a reasonable and strong suspicion in the mind of the investigator that the box contains helpful evidence.

Whether this landmark decision stands up to review by the California Supreme Court remains to be seen. On March 21, 2011 the California Attorney General’s Office, which handles all criminal appeals arising out of convictions in California state court, filed a petition for review with the California Supremes.

A decision by the California Supreme Court on whether to take the matter up for an opinion on the merits is expected in 60 days. If not, the 6th District decision will stand; if the Supremes decide to review the case the opinion of the lower court will be vacated pending an opinion by the California Supreme Court. Stay tuned, drivers!

Read the appellate opinion here.

Read our prior coverage of Dennis Riordan’s work as Phil Spector’s appellate counsel here.

SF BAY AREA TEEN LEAPS FROM GG BRIDGE AS PRANK, LIVES

2011-03-11T07:56:00.001-08:00

Every generation of high school students, it seems, has one knuckleheaded classmate whose judgment is so seriously impaired that their antics are destined for urban legend, and this generation is apparently no exception.

A Windsor (Sonoma County) high school took a number of students on a fieldtrip to the Golden Gate Bridge when a 17 year old junior leapt from the bridge in front of his horrified classmates after bragging about his bridge jumping prowess, then lived to tell the tale after a 55 year old surfer pulled the teen out of the water with a stern lecture, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

A Windsor Unified School District press release said the teen suffered no severe injuries beyond bruising and tenderness. Hospital officials said they cannot release specific information

Seven people have died in GG Bridge leaps this year, Golden Gate Bridge District officials estimated for the Chronicle. Last year, the count was 32.

"He did it to try to look cool," said one classmate, who did not want to be identified. "He said he'd jumped off bridges before." Another student who said he was on the scene tweeted that students tried to stop the boy before he leaped.

Read more: Windsor teen survives Golden Gate Bridge jump (SF Chronicle)

LA TIMES INVESTIGATION REVEALS GIBSON EX $20M DEMAND FOR TAPES

2011-02-17T09:04:00.001-08:00

According to a Los Angeles Times investigation published today, Mel Gibson’s entertainment lawyer was summoned to a Century City office 11 months ago where Gibson’s Ukrainian girlfriend’s attorneys played audio tapes of the star ranting and spewing epithets. And then came the punch line: The Ex wanted 20 million dollars to destroy the tapes.

According to the LAT, the Ex’s lawyer played snippets of the tapes for Gibson's entertainment lawyer, Thomas Hansen. "$10M for her, including child support. $10M for Lucia. ... Give guarantee of mouth shut," Hansen wrote in his notes.

In a May 2 e-mail, the Ukrainian offered explanations for the recordings that completely contradict the spin her lawyers have published recently—that she was trying to gather evidence of domestic violence—stating that she wanted Gibson to "hear for yourself what you sound like once you are enraged" and then saying the tapes were her insurance should Gibson's be inclined to “not take care of me financially…..".

At a subsequent mediation, according to the LAT:

“They reached an agreement that spanned 20 years and amounted to nearly $11 million for Lucia and more than $5 million for Grigorieva, who would also get a Steinway piano from Gibson's Malibu home. Custody was to be split. The deal required that "all evidence" — a reference to the photos and recordings — "be destroyed in a manner agreed upon both parties."”

It sure sounds like extortion to us! But no wonder the ex got buyer's remorse: The baby was getting more money than she! Greedy, greedy, greedy!

Meanwhile, the AP is reporting that the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Office is has announced that they have now turned over all evidence in the extortion investigation to Southern California prosecutors.

Stay tuned, because you just know that this story is only going to get better over time, as more details about the grifter’s past and the manner in which she tried to shake Gibson down come out.

Read More: A look at secret negotiations in Mel Gibson case as detectives wrap investigation (Los Angeles Times)

GIBSON EX EXTORTION INVESTIGATION COMPLETED, SHERIFF SAYS

2011-02-04T17:19:00.001-08:00

Sheriff's detectives have finished their investigation into whether actor Mel Gibson was the victim of extortion and plan to present it to prosecutors next week, the Los Angeles Times reported today.

"The investigation is substantially done," sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said. "We anticipate the district attorney will have it next week unless something happens that we don't anticipate."

Officials have spent months investigating claims that someone tried to extort money from Gibson, who is in a bitter custody dispute with ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva.

Sheriff's investigators have spent months looking into whether Gibson struck Grigorieva and have said that case is closely tied to the extortion case.

SF MAYOR NEWSOM APPOINTS POLICE CHIEF AS DA TO FILL KAMALA HARRIS VACANCY

2011-01-10T19:09:00.001-08:00

As anyone from the San Francisco Bay Area is aware, the City-by-the-Bay has up until now had a district attorney that was stunningly ineffective as a prosecutor—enjoying the worst trial conviction rate of any prosecutor in California—that is when she did not simply dismiss serious felony charges outright or deal them down to a month or two in jail. And as a staunch opponent of the death penalty, Kamala Harris refused to seek the death penalty in San Francisco—even for cop killers.

Therefore, when Kamala Harris ran in November for California Attorney General she did not get our vote, and when she won the office by a narrow margin, we cringed.

Of course, as a longtime resident of the City and County of San Francisco—where trespassing homeless people just laugh at property owners who threaten to call the police, and serious repeat offenders suffer the briefest of brief detentions—we also realize that California’s loss is San Francisco’s gain. We are well rid of the worst prosecutor in recent memory.

All of which sets the stage for this week's bombshell headline: Outgoing Mayor Gavin Newsom (who was elected in November as Lieutenant Governor) as just announced his replacement to fill the vacancy in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office created by Harris’ recent departure.

Who did he appoint?

The (former) incumbent San Francisco Chief of Police George Gascón (who happens to be a licensed attorney) is now San Francisco’s newest district attorney.

In view of the dismal state of San Francisco law enforcement, and the negative effect that has had on quality of life and safety issues for all San Franciscans, we applaud this “outside the box” appointment by outgoing Mayor Newsom.

As far as we know, no sitting police chief has ever become a district attorney anywhere in the country.

But San Franciscans are in dire need of a top prosecutor who will enforce the law, and San Francisco’s finest need to know that if they make an arrest, they are not wasting their time.

It would appear that George Gascón fills the bill.

Read more.

PHIL SPECTOR MAKES FINAL PLEA FOR NEW TRIAL ON MURDER CHARGE

2010-12-14T13:09:00.001-08:00

Philip Spector confers with his appellate lawyer Dennis P. Riordan

***BREAKING***

Legendary music producer Phil Spector’s appeal from a Los Angeles murder conviction rendered in what many—including this blog—believe was a prejudicial trial atmosphere flowing from a parade of irrelevant prior paramours (who sold their sensational stories to the tabloids before testifying) and related prosecutorial misconduct—is still winding itself through the California Court of Appeal.

But Spector advanced another step closer to freedom yesterday with his filing of the final reply brief in the music great’s appeal.

We will have more on this later—we just obtained Phil Spector’s final plea minutes ago—but offer the brief up for you edification and comment.

--Blogonaut

UPDATE: 12-14-2010 at 1:52: pm:

We have now read through Spector's final reply and we are reminded of the Joe Lewis vs. Max Schmeling fight #2--it's one sided, and it's a complete route.

As initially reported here, and as the AG later conceded in a hastily filed "errata" filed days after our initial post concerning the AG brief pointing out some "rookie mistakes", the AG apparently delegated this appeal to an inexperienced lawyer, whose faulty analysis infected the People's brief from start to finish.

The People's Evidence Code analysis of the admission of Judge Fidler's testimony from trial #1 in trial #2 was particularly flawed, and we predict that it will result in a reversal of this wrongful conviction.

But that is not all. The People, through their fact-intensive "harmless error" analysis of the evidence (essentially, the argument that all the evidence favors a conviction, so Spector would have been convicted with or without the error complained of) apply the wrong standard of review.

While in many an appeal context the courts are required to accept the prosecution's interpretation of the trial facts (giving "deference" the the implied findings by the jury)--in analyzing whether or not alleged error by the trial court is "prejudicial", the deferential standard does not apply.

Rather, an appellate court is required in cases such as this to consider all of the evidence (including that favoring an acquittal) in assessing whether or not justice miscarried. This the AG failed to do.

Another costly, blunder!

Not only a brief that pays due deference to the written expression at its finest, this is a brief that not only sings--it takes full advantage of an AG brief riddled with legal and tactical errors.

This case is going to be reversed, we feel it.

Dennis Riordan and Charles Sevilla once again demonstrate that they are among the best of the best when it comes to appellate advocacy!

Holly crap--the brief is that good, the mistakes of the attorney general that breathtaking.

Wow! (Game, set, match Spector.)

Read Spector's Final Reply Brief filed yesterday in the Court of Appeal

GIBSON-EX EMAIL ADMITS MILLIONS FOR “SILENCE” SCHEME

2010-11-20T09:47:00.001-08:00

Mel Gibson's Russian ex-mistress shows what a serious musical talent she is by posing for cover art in her underwear

A smoking gun has surfaced in the extortion investigation of Gibson’s former Russian mistress in the form of an email she sent her former attorney Eric George after George negotiated a $15 million payday for the Russian in exchange for the infamous (and we now know, doctored) audio tapes never seeing the light of day.

George also negotiated an agreed custody order eventually giving the actor shared custody of his child.

In a June email leaked to TMZ, the Russian explains her strategy to demand an even greater cash payout from Gibson and to “renegotiate” the custody agreement by upping the ante with domestic violence allegations.

The Russian said:

"If the opposition is buying my silence, please, we have to renegotiate the custody portion and to secure the monetory (sic)."

Oksana also reiterated that Gibson “doesn't want this publicity", and concluded the email by stating “I’m not bluffing.”

This email is significant on a number of levels.

It shows she perjured herself when she testified that she did not understand that she had entered into a joint custody agreement at the June mediation. It shows that the mediated agreement was not simply a “proposal” (as she also testified) but an inked deal. And it shows not only her avarice but admits that she knew she was seeking millions from Gibson so she would not reveal career damaging secrets to the media—which is the essence of extortion.

According to TMZ, Law enforcement sources say this email is part of the L.A. County Sheriff's Department's extortion investigation, to determine if Oksana used the tapes to score the $15 million package. The theory: After signing the agreement, Oksana got greedy and decided she could get more by adding a fresh domestic violence claim.

Read more.

GIBSON EX REJECTED BY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GROUP—SAYS RUSSIAN’S STORY FALSE

2010-11-16T18:39:00.001-08:00

Mel Gibson's ex-Russian mistress seeks to sell her music "career"

UPDATE 11/18/2010: The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence is the second domestic violence support group this week to issue an official statement that Oksana is not connected with them in any way. (Read it here.)

Peace Over Violence, a prominent California anti-domestic violence group was quick to disavow any affiliation or support for Mel Gibson’s Russian accuser after the Russian tried to link her attempts to extort money from the action star (who fathered her child while Gibson was still married to his wife of over 30 years Robyn Gibson), after the Russian—some believe—snared Gibson in a pregnancy scam and then threatened to go public with altered audio tapes of the actor ranting and raving after the Russian provoked Gibson while secretly taping him if Gibson did not agree to pay her millions of dollars.

Daniel Horowitz, one of the Russian’s attorneys, told TMZ that the alleged con-artist would be working with Peace Over Violence, a well known domestic violence support group, in an effort to help women who were victims of domestic violence.

What was suspect about this statement early on, is that thus far, domestic violence and battered women’s supports groups have reportedly shunned the alleged Russian grifter con-artist.

Said the group:

“Peace Over Violence is not now, and has never been associated in any way with Oksana Grigoreiva. TMZ received false information from Oksana's legal team and printed it without verification.”

Another one of the Russian’s lies exposed!

Read more.

HUGE DATA CASH ON GIBSON EX’S COMPUTER SLOWING INVESTIGATION

2010-11-08T17:00:00.001-08:00

According to TMZ, sources at the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Office—the agency charged with investigating the Russian grifter who bore Mel Gibson’s child (then secretly taped him in an alleged extortion scheme)—have told TMZ that the investigation has been slowed down due to the vast wealth of material on the ex’s computer seized by authorities as a part of their ongoing investigation into the (alleged) extortion plot.

Apparently, the Russian—who was also “accidently” impregnated by British Bond actor Timothy Dalton (whom she also accused of domestic violence)—has more to worry about that funding laser skin treatments.

Read more.

CALIFORNIA AG CANDIDATE COOLEY VOWS TO COUNT EVERY BALLOT

2010-11-03T18:20:00.001-07:00

UPDATE: 11/16/2010 It looks to us like Cooley is sunk, although the fat lady has yet to sing. (Let's just say she is warming up.)

However, in view Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters Dean Logan's checkered recent past (quietly resigning as Registrar in Kings County, Washington to take the job in LA--after a voting scandal that included some precincts where there were more ballots that voters, many presents with missing ballots, provisional ballots not checked at all, voters invited in to "re-register" to validate invalid voter registrations, 130 ex-felons being allowed to vote, and may other irregularities in a very close state-wide election where the "winner" "won" by 300 votes--Steve Cooley's complaints in LA seem like déjà vu all over again.

Link: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/273692_logan13.html

_____

We just received this press release from the Steve Cooley for California Attorney General Campaign, which is self-explanatory:

A Statement from: Kevin Spillane - Senior Consultant, Steve Cooley for Attorney General Campaign:

“With the counties completing their semi-official returns, Steve Cooley trails Kamala Harris by 14,838 votes – two-tenths of a percentage point. There are over 1 million provisional and absentee ballots yet to be counted.”

“The race for Attorney General will not be decided for at least another couple of weeks, and potentially could go until the official Certification of Vote deadline on December 3."

“We will continue to monitor the situation. The only thing we are certain of is that the final outcome will be close. We are grateful for all the good wishes of our supporters and will keep you updated.”

Our only comment: As we said during the aftermath of the controversy surrounding the Bush vs. Gore election in 2000: Let the votes be counted!

Until then, Kamala, it may be a tad premature to measure the drapes in the Attorney General’s Office. Ha!

--Blogonaut

Related:

Attorney general race hangs in the balance as 2 million votes remain uncounted (LA Times 11/4/2010)

Kamala Harris Declares Victory In CA Attorney General Race‎ - The San Francisco Appeal

California attorney general's race still too close to call - The San Jose Mercury News

BLOGONAUT’S PICKS-PREDICTIONS FOR CA STATE-WIDE RACES

2010-11-02T12:01:00.001-07:00

First and foremost, we doff our hat to the young talent that is the San Francisco Giants—for many reasons, but first and foremost making the Bay Area (and Californian’s) believe in themselves again.

Now, to our CA political picks-predictions:

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR:

There is a reason that incumbent Republican governor and kick-butt movie action star Arnold Schwarzenegger (isn’t that German name redundant?) refused to endorse Republican Meg Whitman for the top California post and her name is Maria Shriver. Just kidding; Meg Whitman—who did not even bother to vote for the better part of three decades preceding her run for California’s highest office—thought she could buy the Governor’s chair like the mega-gift annually featured in the Neiman Marcus Christmas Book, or (for example) like buying her troubled son out-of-an-expulsion at Princeton (after his “date” woke up with Whitman’s son on top of her, with a black eye and other bruises, but no recollection of the sex the boy admitted to). No worries, no expulsion either—just the fond memory of Whitman’s thirty million dollar donation to the university.

Our pick-prediction: Jerry Brown by at least 10 points. Done, by 12 points.

CALIFORNIA LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR:

Didn’t know there was any such elected office? Don’t feel bad, neither did our pick for the winner—incumbent San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom—before his people suggested that office as his next move on the way to—bigger and better things. We have always admired Gavin’s pragmatism—until the last several years—during which it appeared that Gavin was morphing into a kind of characterless, ultimately political, bland Grey Davis; always sooo politically correct but with no real core. Shape up, kid—this is your last chance the become a real human being--and to go all the way in Democratic politics. You need to spend more time with Jerry Brown--and learn to tell it like it is for a change. Done. Close, but he sqeaked through.

CALIFORNIA’S ATTORNEY GENERAL:

Where do we begin to discuss the disaster of an Attorney General that Kamala Harris would make? Should we mention how she dismissed all charges against the man arrested on our 6th floor balcony, high on meth and in possession of a knife, duct-tape and rope at 3:30 am in front of an entire shift of San Francisco’s finest and SF firefighters, separated from our apartment's sleeping occupants by a flimsy glass door, while the guy was on two PRIOR probations for burglary? Naw, we will just quote a columnist from Harris’ own hometown newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle:

“I don't understand why San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris wants to be California's next attorney general. Then again, it's hard to understand why she even ran for DA -- other than because she has a yen for elective office.

"She hasn't been an aggressive prosecutor. She hasn't been a competent administrator. She seems more interested in advancing liberal causes than putting bad guys behind bars.” (Debra Saunders, “Race Pits Dream Prosecutor Against S.F.'s Nightmare DA”, 9/26/2010.)

Duh, our pick for California’s top prosecutor is—a career prosecutor, moderate Republican Steve Cooley. Still very close the morning after the election, but Harris leads by a teeny margin.

CALIFORNIA’S UNITED STATES SENATOR:

We don’t really care for Barbra Boxer. Maybe it is just a personality thing and/or that she is a shade too liberal for us. (In all honesty, it's probably both.)

But we have been following Carly Fiorina’s checkered career (and unethical tactics) ever since her proxy battle as Hewlett-Packard CEO with founding board member Walter Hewlett.

We thought Walter was right then (Carly won the proxy fight, Walter Hewlett resigned) and right now (which is why HP ultimately fired Fiorina)—so much for her corporate resume. Oh, and did we mention that while diluting HP’s superior brand by merging with a commodity PC company, destroying the morale and creativity of the R&D department, and running HP into the ground financially she simultaneously PAID HERSELF $100 million in compensation AND laid off THIRTY THOUSAND HP EMPLOYEES—in many cases shipping their jobs to China?

No contest: Barbra Boxer will and should be retained as California’s representative in the United States Senate. Done, by an amazing 12 points!!!! Can we judge character in this state or what?

Thanks for listening, and may the best man-woman win!!!!! (Except for Steve Cooley, they all did.)

Blogonaut

MEG WHITMAN TO GRETA: MY MAID SHOULD BE DEPORTED!

2010-10-29T06:05:00.001-07:00

Do we have a new Queen of Mean?

It would appear that California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has more in common with former President Richard Nixon than a propensity to lie to the public: A vindictive streak. Specifically, she told Fox New’s Greta Van Susteren during a live appearance Wednesday night that her Mexican housekeeper of nine years, Nicky Diaz Santillan, should be deported!

Whitman and her Stanford neurosurgeon husband knew that the maid’s Social Security information did not check out, but kept her on the payroll for nine years anyway.

But when Whitman decided to throw her hat in the ring for Governor, she did two things: She registered to vote for the first time in 28 years, and she fired her maid, reportedly telling the maid “I don’t know you and you don’t know me, understand”?

Whitman told Greta—along with a National audience of millions:

"It breaks my heart, but she should be deported…
[t]he law's the law…”.

It breaks her HEART?

Yea, we bet.

It was not enough that Whitman threw her maid of nine years out with the trash telling her “I don’t know you and you don’t know me”—just because the woman stood in the way of Meg’s political ambitions. Now that Nicky Diaz Santillan has spoken out and defended herself—and cost Whitman votes in the Hispanic community—Meg want’s her revenge.

That is not just mean—it’s Richard Nixon mean.

Hat tip: Kelley Green

READ MORE: Meg Whitman: My ex-maid should be deported (Washington Post)

ALL OVER FOR MEG WHITMAN NEW POLL NUMBERS SHOW

2010-10-27T03:38:00.001-07:00

SECOND UPDATE: Brown leads Whitman by 10 points, latest poll says; updated 10/28/2010 at 3:14 am (SF Chronicle)

[UPDATE: 10/27/2010@8:30 AM CA TIME: Just six hours after this post, new poll results have come in and Brown has surged to a commanding 9.5 percent lead in the RCP average of all recent polls.]

Thanks to a staggering $150,000,000.000 (one hundred fifty million dollars and no cents) that Meg Whitman personally spent to make the California Governor’s race the most expensive non-Presidential campaign in the history of the United States, it’s all over for Meg Whitman the latest poll numbers show.

With just one week to go before the election, the Real Clear Politics average of all polls tracking the race now gives Whitman’s Democratic challenger Jerry Brown a whopping 9 point lead among likely voters. A pretty anemic showing for Whitman under the circumstance$.

It seems that the more money Whitman pours into the race, the more she reminds the electorate of just who she is: A dilettante who was not even registered to vote for the 28 years preceding her decision to sign papers tossing her hat in the ring for California’s highest political office who often does not tell the truth, does not have a clue about the issues and is seeking to buy the office out of vanity.

If Whitman had not been so divorced from politics for the last three decades, she might have avoided costly gaffs like her campaign video wistfully recalling that “30 years ago this state was a place of limitless possibilities…this is why I moved to California so many years ago”—by realizing that the time in California that she was idealizing was the very point when Jerry Brown was California’s Governor!

Ultimately though, it is our opinion that the voters (or the 50% of them voting for Brown to her 41% to be exact) saw right through this phony despite all of her money and slick TV ads that she tried to ram down our throats in her quest to buy the Governor’s Office like it was the big gift featured in the Neiman Marcus Christmas Catalog this year.

Yes, in our view the fat lady from Silicon Valley has sung—off key.

It is indeed emblematic of Whitman’s campaign that California’s Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has refused to endorse Republican Meg Whitman’s candidacy for the very office he holds as recently as yesterday—and that even her hometown newspaper (along with every other major daily newspaper in the state) endorsed her rival.

DID MEG WHITMAN’S $30M DONATION AFFECT RAPE ACCUSATION AGAINST SON?

2010-10-26T08:24:00.001-07:00

What Happens in Princeton, Stays in Princeton or The Hangover II

From the NY Daily News

California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is being accused of using her influence with Princeton University to squash its investigation into allegations that the Billionaire’s son raped a coed while a student there four years ago.

Whitman’s son, Griffith Harsh was initially investigated by a Princeton disciplinary board after the woman claimed she woke up with a black eye, a bruised face - and Whitman's son on top of her.

"He was like, 'You need the morning-after pill,'" the woman's friend told Gawker.com, which broke the story. "And she was like, 'Why, what happened?' She didn't remember having sex, she didn't remember consenting, she didn't remember any of it."

Whitman’s son claimed that the drunken sex was consensual and that his classmate received the black eye and bruised face when she “fell”—presumably out of bed.

The Princeton committee decided there wasn't enough evidence to expel Harsh, who took a year-long leave of absence and wound up graduating last year.

Whitman has reportedly donated $30 million to Princeton University.

Read more.

BROWN LEADS CA GOVERNOR’S RACE DESPITE WHITMAN’S $140M PERSONAL EXPENDITURE

2010-10-17T11:33:00.000-07:00

For most of us, it is pretty staggering to contemplate Meg Whitman spending one hundred and forty million dollars of her own money in her quest to occupy California’s executive office—but she has.

Even more staggering, after doing so—and just two weeks before the election—Whitman’s election opponent Jerry Brown is at the height of his popularity with 50% supporting him for that office, to just 44% intending to vote for Meg Whitman, according to the latest Rasmussen poll conducted after the latest (and final) televised debate in the race to be California's next governor.

The Real Clear Politics average of all of the available polling data is consistent with this trend, with no poll showing Whitman above the 44% mark.

Frankly, since we have all been saturated with Whitman’s anti-Brown television ads for weeks, and since “Whore-Gate” failed to turn voters against Brown, it is hard to imagine Whitman winning this election.

Which serves to illustrate that the voter’s Insincerity Meter (the same inner voice that cost Mitt Romney the last Republican presidential nomination) is alive and well.

AG FILES 160 PAGE RESPONSE BRIEF IN SPECTOR APPEAL

2010-10-14T02:30:00.000-07:00

Spector appellate counsel Dennis Riordan with his client

An "anonymous" reader was kind enough to obtain and post on Scribed.com a copy of the Attorney General’s Respondent’s Brief ("RB") in the Spector murder verdict appeal and then anonymously post the link in the comments following our most recent prior Spector Appeal Watch post.

The brief is quite lengthy (160 pages) and we are extremely busy with civil litigation work at the moment, but as soon as we have the opportunity to read and analyze it, we will be posting our thoughts and impressions.

In the meantime, we are posting it now so interested persons may begin reading.

Feel free to post your thoughts (of whatever persuasion) about the brief in the comments. As always, all points of view are welcome here.

Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 230(c)(1) neither Blogonaut nor its editor are responsible for any content authored by third parties, nor do we moderate or control the comments.

--Blogonaut

UPDATE—OUR VIEWS ON THE PROSECUTION’S RESPONSE TO SPECTOR’S FIRST GROUND FOR APPEAL

We have now read the AG response to Spector’s first argument on appeal—that the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence over Doron Weinberg’s objection a Court TV video tape of the trial court demonstrating with his own wrist where (allegedly) criminalist Jaime Lintemoot testified she saw blood splatter on the back of Clarkson’s writs—testimony that later formed the lynchpin for the pathologist’s change in testimony from trial number 1 (the physical evidence did not exclude suicide) to trial number 2 (suicide excluded).

Frankly we are underwhelmed by the Attorney General’s argument on this ground for appeal, namely waiver (because Doron Weinberg did not object on the correct ground when the Court TV videotape was first used in front of the jury), that the trial court’s statements and gestures on the video tape were not “hearsay”, that the trial court had the right to clarify the evidence and his gestures and statements were not “testimonial”, and that any error was harmless.

We note that when the Court TV video tape was first used by prosecutors (when they examined certain experts) the People MISREPRESENTED to the trial court and to Mr. Weinberg what segment of the prior trial the video tape depicted. Specifically, prosecutors falsely claimed then, and through the evidence phase of trial #2, that the video tape consisted of Jaime Lintemoot’s testimony to the jury in trial #1. In reality, however, the Court TV footage depicted Lintemoot’s testimony during an evidentiary hearing which was not a part of the trial testimony in trial #1, and which the jury in the first case never saw.

The People (in our view) cannot now complain of the lack of a contemporaneous objection on the ultimate grounds urged when they were misrepresenting to the trial court the nature of the videotape when it was first shown as trial testimony elicited in Spector's presence (and with a reason to cross-examine on the blood spatter point)--when in fact the videotape was of an evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury in trial #1 from which Spector's presence was excused and during which the blood spatter allegedly observed on the witnesses' hands was a tangential point at most. Indeed, the misrepresentation PRECLUDED a contemporaneous objection on confrontation grounds when the Court TV videotape was first injected into the trial proceedings by the People!

In addition, Doron Weinberg did object to the admission of the videotape into evidence on the same grounds urged on appeal BEFORE the tape was admitted into evidence, thereby preserving the objection. Had this objection not been overruled, prosecutors could not have shown the video to jurors at all during summation-let alone over and over again.

Second, the AG’s hearsay analysis is flawed, because the video did not depict Lintemoot’s trial testimony at any point, but rather her testimony at a hearing outside the presence of the jury in trial #1 being held on an unrelated issue. (Spector COULD NOT HAVE waived his presence for testimony given to the jury—especially since he never understood that the testimony from that hearing he never attended would ever be shown to a jury in his case.) Nor could the trial court’s gestures be construed as part of Lintemoot’s “adoptive admission” because a nonparty witness cannot make “admissions”.

(See Evidence Code Section 1221: “Evidence of a statement offered against a party is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is one of which the party, with knowledge of the content thereof, has by words or other conduct manifested his adoption or his belief in its truth.” Not "witness"; "party".)

Clearly this rookie mistake is going to cost the AG credibility points with the court of appeal; this was in no sense an "adoptive admission"--and no reasonable appellate attorney would argue that it was.

Third, Judge Fidler’s words and gestures were not simply in the nature of additional questions posed to Lintemoot at the hearing. Rather, in other parts of the videotape the court is clearly describing where Lintemoot was pointing BECAUSE THE COURT WAS THE ONLY ONE IN THE COURTROOM WHO HAD A CLEAR VIEW OF WHAT THE WITNESS WAS POINTING TO. Indeed, the trial court stated on the record that this was so, and the AG concedes the point based on its examination of the videotape. Clearly, the judge’s words and gestures were testimonial in nature, and described something that occurred at a prior hearing out of the presence of the jury in a prior trial that no one else in the courtroom had a clear view of.

But even if Judge Fidler's words and gestures simply supplied meaning to the witness' testimony (a theory inconsistent with the trial court's rationale for admitting the videotape into evidence), the AG also fails to grasp that Lintemoot's testimony at the prior evidentiary hearing was also hearsay in its entirety ("a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated").

Fourth, the error was not harmless for any of the reasons urged by the AG.

The AG speculates that the jury would have come to the same conclusion as did Judge Fidler on the video tape even though the back of Lintemoot’s hand is not visible on the videotape—which in any event assumes that there can be instances wherein a trial judges testifies to his own jury on a critical point and not result in a reversal---a dubious proposition for which they cite no authority.

And finally, the AG ignores the pivotal nature of the point discussed by Fidler on the video: The sole justification for the pathologist’s change of testimony from suicide cannot be ruled out (trial number 1) to suicide is excluded (trial number 2).

Not only did the point go to the heart of Spector’s sole defense, it was the ONLY difference between trial #1 (hung jury) and trial #2 (which resulted in a conviction). Moreover, even with this improper testimony by judge Fidler being admitted, the jury in trial #2 deliberated for nine days before it voted to convict--surly a sign of a case wherein the evidence was not so overwhelming that an error of such undeniable prejudice going to the heart of the case would be considered "harmless".

We also note that under the California statute (Evidence Code Section 703) it is an automatic mistrial for the trial judge to testify in his own trial over the objection of a party ("the judge shall declare a mistrial and order the action assigned for trial before another judge") and that all parties are entitled to advance warning and an opportunity to object out of the presence of the jury BEFORE the judge's testimony makes it into evidence. Not only was the defense blinded sided by the initial use of this video by the people to examine its experts, as noted above the prosecution continued to misrepresent to the court and to defense counsel that the video consisted of the witness' prior trial testimony to the jury in trial #1--thus precluding a contemporaneous objection by defense counsel on "confrontation" grounds (because unlike the hearing actually depicted on the video, Spector WAS present during the prior trial testimony, and believing that this was the video being shown, it would not have occurred to a reasonable defense attorney to make an objection on confrontation grounds at that point).

Under these circumstances (which include the lack of any advance warning under Section 703 that the prosecution intended to inject videotaped testimony by the trial court into the very trial over which he was presiding, compounded by the prosecutor's misrepresentation of the videotaped testimony as consisting of prior TRIAL TESTIMONY) it appears to us that the People's waiver argument is particularly disingenuous.

We realize that these issues seem technical to a layperson, but on a point highly relevant to an important trial issue (indeed, the only issue in dispute), any jury would tend to adopt the interpretation of the evidence advanced by the authority figure in the trial—which is why the prosecution showed the videotape and stills from it over and over again during closing argument.

Advantage: Spector.

BLOGONAUT SPEAKS OUT ON MEG WHITMAN WHORE REMARK

2010-10-13T09:02:00.001-07:00

Opinion, by Blogonaut

The media has pounced on the private, accidentally recorded remarks of a female Jerry Brown campaign aide—that Republican opponent Meg Whitman is a “whore” for selling out her stated principles in return for a union endorsement.

Here is how we see it:

This was a private remark uttered in a political campaign strategy session by a woman that in context would have applied equally to a male political opponent who had prostituted his stated principles in return for a union endorsement and also happens to be true.

The staffer was not implying that Whitman sells sexual services for money and let’s face it, if that is what Meg Whitman did for a living she would starve to death.

This is the height of hypocrisy, because if you think the Whitman campaign has not said worse about Jerry Brown during private moments not meant for public broadcast then you need a glass of milk and cookies.

Besides, does anyone really believe that after not even voting for 28 years until she decided to run for Governor that Whitman spending $140 million of her own money to buy the office is a reflection of anything but hubris and vanity as opposed to a desire for public service? Because that is the overarching point here.

We have already cast our vote for Jerry Brown (by absentee ballot)—but we have also voted for Steve Cooley in the California Attorney General race and we voted for the Peace and Freedom candidate on the ballot against Nancy Pelosi (so disgusted are we with her partisan politics).

And we also not only voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary election, we supported her with the maximum campaign contribution allowed by law—then voted for John McCain in the general election.

So before you dismiss our opinions as those of a sexist Democratic Party sycophant, think again.

PRESIDENT GIVES KAMALA HARRIS HIS LUKE-WARM, BELATED ENDORSEMENT

2010-10-12T09:06:00.001-07:00

The President has endorsed Harris in the California Attorney General race, but the text of the "endorsement" (which, BTW comes only three weeks before the election) sounds like more of a pity endorsement based on Harris' desperation than a glowing statement of her qualifications to be California's next top prosecutor:

"Now she's running to be California's attorney general, and I am proud to stand by her," Obama's written statement said. "She is someone who understands the needs of all Americans, and I need allies like that fighting for change across the country."

Obama said Harris "needs our help if she's going to win this race."

Don't you “stand by” someone who is in trouble?

We agree with one thing, she "needs help"--because she is completely unqualified to be attorney general.

We mean if Harris was so qualified, why didn't Obama find a place for her in his administration?

After all, she was one of the first politicians to endorse him nationally when he announced his presidential bid, and she co-chaired his California fundraising effort.

Yet he offered this attractive woman NO JOB in his administration.

Our take: She must be pretty unqualified and/or way too liberal for even the commander-in-chief. Otherwise, why no job offer?

Read more: Obama endorses Harris for California Attorney General (Fresno Bee)

AG CANDIDATE COOLEY TROUNCES KAMALA HARRIS IN UC DAVIS DEBATE

2010-10-06T18:57:00.001-07:00

We watched yesterday’s televised debate between Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and San Francisco DA Kamala Harris, and Harris was (in our opinion) mauled.

In addition to coming off as evasive, Harris seemed nervous and uncomfortable—shifting from side to side—and Cooley calm, experienced and focused.

In fact, after watching the debate, we could not agree more with the San Francisco Chronicle’s Debra Saunders when she wrote for Real Clear Politics:

“I don't understand why San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris wants to be California's next attorney general. Then again, it's hard to understand why she even ran for DA -- other than because she has a yen for elective office.

"She hasn't been an aggressive prosecutor. She hasn't been a competent administrator. She seems more interested in advancing liberal causes than putting bad guys behind bars.”

(See, Debra Saunders, Race Pits Dream Prosecutor Against S.F.'s Nightmare DA, Real Clear Politics, 9/26/2010.)

Don’t take our (or Debra’s) word for it—watch the debate yourself and sound off in the comments.

No wonder Cooley is leading the darling of the DNC in both money raised and money in the bank--the smart money always goes to the perceived winner this late in the race.

EXTORTION INVESTIGATION WIDENS AS GIBSON EX ANNOUNCES OPRAH INTERVIEW

2010-09-30T00:00:00.000-07:00

10-6-2010 UPDATE: Make that Gibson Ex CANCELS Oprah interview, on advice of counsel. (Hat tip: Kelley Green.)

Los Angeles County sheriff's investigators are widening their investigation into whether Mel Gibson was the target of an extortion plot, the Los Angeles Times is reporting.

"Sheriff's officials have spent weeks probing suggestions that someone close to Mel Gibson's ex-girlfriend and mother of his child, Oksana Grigorieva, was attempting to extort money from Gibson. No suspect has been formally named, but detectives have interviewed people involved in the couple's messy separation.

"Now detectives plan to interview two lawyers who represented Grigorieva. Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said that one of the attorneys is Eric George, who formerly represented Grigorieva in her child custody case with Gibson. George did not immediately return a message on his voice mail seeking comment. The other attorney was not named."

Read the Los Angeles Times story here.

Meanwhile, entertainment website UsMagazine.com reports that Grigorieva will open up about the troubled relationship in an upcoming TV interview on The Oprah Winfrey Show.

She certainly is milking her 15 minutes of fame, but it is hard to see a monetary settlement from Gibson at this point—or a shot in the arm to her singing “career” which was pretty much DOA despite Gibson sinking big bucks to produce her CD that sold all of about 300 copies.

JUDGE’S TIT IN THE RINGER FOLLOWING COURTROOM TV AUDITION

2010-09-27T12:49:00.000-07:00

"We don't offer Vaseline for that."

California’s judicial-watchdog-agency has formally charged a rookie San Diego judge with multiple counts of misconduct after she snagged an audition with the producers of a Peoples Court style realty show—and then clowned for the cameras set up in her courtroom for the audition.

According to the complaint, the California Commission on Judicial Performance—who has the power to remove a judge from the bench—alleges that Judge DeAnn Salcido had her courtroom proceedings filmed as an audition for a television show and on camera and off clowned for the show’s producers in her own courtroom, without telling defendants and their counsel what was going on.

The two bizarre days in Judge Salcido’s courtroom were preceded by her email to an entertainment lawyer admitting that she had been "setting my more interesting defendants and those with substance abuse issues" for a certain day she said would be a good day for the show’s producers to drop by and see her honor in action.

What the show’s producers saw and heard was, among other things, the following statement by Judge Salcido to a defendant:

“What that means is don't come before the court on another case ...'cause you will definitely be screwed and we don't offer Vaseline for that."

Talking a page from Jerry Springer’s playbook, Judge Salcido repeatedly encouraged audience participation in her courtroom – by having them chant slogans such as "woo woo woo", for example when she accused a defendant of being high on marijuana.

Her honor also got laughs from the courtroom gallery by throwing out one liners, such as the Jamie Foxx classic "Blame it on the a-a-a-a-alcohol."

Not even Judge Salcido's colleagues on the bench escaped her sarcasm, at one point targeting fellow judge Peter Gallagher:

“Ah, Judge Gallagher, aka assistant public defender ... Is that ridiculous that Judge Gallagher did that. I mean it's a sex offender case. Yeah, whatever, you know. A DV statute says it's mandatory but, you know,
we're the judge, we can do what we want. Quote. Justice be damned."

Pulling no punches in her naked attempt to leverage her election to the bench into a high paying television career, her honor even had a defendant cuffed and taken to jail, on-the-spot for allegedly being in contempt of court.

Other courtroom outtakes referenced by the CJP its complaint included:

“When a defendant appeared in court wearing an Oakland Raiders jersey, you remarked, "You did not come in here with that shirt," and asked, "Which door do you want to go out with, that's the Charger door [the public exit], that's the Raider door [the door for defendants going into custody]?" You then said, "Chargers door? Raiders door? Chargers door? Raiders door?", and repeatedly asked the defendant which door he wanted to go through when he left. You remarked, "365 days of the year I'm a Chargers fan. Hello, we don't take a break." You asked a woman present in the courtroom who was connected with the case, "Would you say he's smart, coming here in a Raiders shirt? No? What does that say about you, Dena, and the kind of men you pick?"

“You commented that defendant Tyrone McCoy was smiling, and then remarked to him that "they might like your smile in jail," to which the audience responded with a loud "oooo" and then laughter.”

“Daniel Lopez appeared before you in custody and admitted a probation violation. You gave him the option of an immediate 60-day jail sentence or reenrolling in a program, but facing a longer jail sentence if he failed to
complete that program. After the defendant said that he wanted to reenroll in the program and his counsel requested a moment to confer with his client, you remarked to the courtroom audience, "You guys know he doesn't want to do that don't you? Yeah. Does he need to call the lifeline? Try to tell him. Let's make a deal. I think he needs to call the lifeline. Yeah. Want to poll the audience? What should he do? Take the deal, take the deal, take the deal. The audience says, of course, the audience isn't going into custody. Really easy for you to tell him to take the deal because you're going to go home tonight and sleep on your pillows." You and the courtroom audience repeatedly laughed at your comments.”

To Judge Gallagher we say: Your 15 minutes of fame are up; please go away now.

NYC JUDGE’S “CLOWN” INSULT WINS CARJACKER A NEW TRIAL

2010-09-22T08:39:00.001-07:00

"Would you behave like a professional, please, and not a clown?"

The panel of appellate judges did not dispute the evidence against the defendant, who attempted to steal a driver's car at gunpoint. Nevertheless, the appellate court reversed a NYC carjacking conviction due to the demeaning manner in which the trial judge overruled defense counsel’s objections—including at one point referring to the public defender as a “clown”.

Judge Robert Neary, a former prosecutor, declined comment: "I can't comment on an [those clowns in the appellate court]. It wouldn't be appropriate."

May we have some clown music please?

LAWYERS FLEE MEL GIBSON EX AS EVIDENCE OF FABRICATION MOUNTS

2010-09-14T11:44:00.001-07:00

OK—let’s get this out of the way: On day-one of the media feeding frenzy surrounding the Russian Gypsy grifter who hustled Mel Gibson on a pregnancy scam after pulling the same game on British actor Timothy Dalton (and screwing then discarding a succession of men to get within "reproductive range" of the James Bond actor, like the common hustler she is) who then released alleged (we now know ALTERED) audio tapes featuring “Mad Mel"—who told you she was lower than gutter scum and had manufactured the entire sad saga even before she met Mel Gibson and blatantly scammed him?

HELLO, WE TOLD YOU SO.

We mean, really, Russian, no indoor plumbing, ambitious to marry Dalton, told friends (in the Ukraine where she originated from) that she would marry Dalton, screwed her way through a succession of older and younger men to meet and have her shot at bagging Dalton--and the "media" was still willing to give this gyftos the time-of-day?

As a signpost for the Mel Gibson scam, the Russian grifter immediately gets pregnant by Dalton, presses Dalton to marry, Dalton says “no problem, just sign this prenup”, and the Grifter, realizing she has been out-foxed, decamps to happier hunting grounds in LA.

Coincidence of coincidences! Of the scores of men this Russian adventurer has bedded to get out of the Ukraine, and to get to the UK to meet (and bed) Dalton, and then when she gets to Hollywood and beds Gibson—the ONLY TWO MEN IN THE UNIVERSE that this slut-gifter-con-artist gets pregnant by are the only two rich and famous men she has bedded?

OK, here is the punch line: The first set of lawyers this Gypsy-grifter hired quit, and now the second set of lawyers hired by this completely discredited scam artist have quit, including Eric George (see our prior posts, scroll down.)

And that is not all.

Rumor has it that the Los Angeles police have determined that the Russian grifter FAKED the photos of her alleged facial injuries (as we also predicted here) and are interviewing the her ex-lawyers to gather evidence in the mounting EXTORTION case against the slut. (HELLO!, a blow to the face hard enough to break off teeth is going to create visible soft-tissue damage and no black-eye was visible in the faked-tooth photos--later embellished to include the faked black-eye!)

It is also being reported in the tabloid press that the Ukrainian grifter who fled a dirt floor hovel with no indoor plumbing to the UK to hustle Tim Dalton in a pregnancy scam CANNOT PAY her huge Rodeo Drive bills she ran up in apparent anticipation of the riches she would reap in her latest scam.

From where we sit:

1. Shame on you all for judging Mel Gibson on fabricated tapes; AND

2. The Gipsy-grifter is finally about to receive JUSTICE (if not JAIL)!

Read more: Here and here

Meanwhile, the Russian-pregnancy-scam-artist is is reportedly meeting with divorce firm Troup& Troup, who boasts "Over 400 years experience in Family Law"--Ha!--pretty amazing, since a) the United States is not 400 years old--let alone California; b) what we now call "Family Law" in this state is no older that 30 years!!!! (Or does the firm mean that COLLECTIVELY its attorneys are 400 years old? Ha!!!! As if 400 hundred lawyers with one year worth of experience is equal to one very talented and experienced lawyer? Ha, Ha, Ha! Clown law firm meets clown client!!!!!!)

It looks like a DESCENDING hierarchical spiral of successive lawyers looking to cash-in, and the Russian is nearing the bottom of the barrel!!!!! (AS IN ROCK BOTTOM!!!!!)

Related: Oksana Grigorieva Switches Lawyers (TMZ)

Also Related: Mel Gibson's ex "drops" legal team

Uh, pardon our cynicism--but we think Mel Gibson's Ex was "dropped" by her (former) excellent team of criminal attorneys and NOT the other way around. Maybe the "dropping" happened because she could not pay the bills, and maybe her legal team just got tired of her serial lies. But this Russian grifter is not going to imply to the tabloid press that these top tier attorneys who used to represent her were at fault for the "droppage"--not on our watch.

Nice (but ridiculous and ineffectual) try to spin this story without the publicist who dropped you as well, moron, but no "cigar".

UPDATE: KIDDIE PORN PEDETRICIAN JUMPS BAIL

2010-09-14T06:58:00.000-07:00

We covered the relatively obscure story of the kiddie porn pediatrician reported in the Arizona Republic here, because we figured that this story had "legs".

We were--literally--correct.

All major news outlets are now reporting that Dr. kiddie porn cut off his ankle monitoring bracelet and legged it out of town, and is now a fugitive. Dr. Emilio Luna is now being hunted by the FBI and the United States Marshals Service.

Related: Pediatrician facing porn charges flees, leaves behind car and electronic device

Stay tuned folks!

We predict that he will not get far with his face plastered all over CNN 24/7.

PEDIATRICIAN RELEASED ON BAIL FOLLOWING CHILD PORN ARREST

2010-09-10T07:49:00.001-07:00

We have covered a lot of lawyers and judges in trouble for committing some pretty despicable acts, as well has some pretty hilarious antics, but this physician’s on-line behavior is a crime—as in federal crime: Child pornography.

The fact that the physician in question is a pediatrician puts the creep factor of the story through the roof.

"A federal judge on Friday issued the release of a Sun City pediatrician accused of sharing thousands of pornographic images of children. Dr. Emilio Luna, 40, is charged with distributing child pornography in interstate commerce", the Arizona Republic reports.

Federal agents arrested Dr. Luna after a three month investigation into the physician’s alleged file sharing activities on-line under an anonymous user name associated with an IP address traced to his parents’ home—where he lives. (Why are we not surprised that he still lives with mom and dad after practicing medicine for 10 years?)

During a search of Luna's bedroom, investigators seized hundreds of DVD’s believed to contain kiddie porn images, multiple passports and $15,000 in cash—along with two laptops, a desktop computer, and four external hard drives.

Apparently, the Doctor was so overflowing with kiddie porn images, that two laptops, a PC, and four external hard drives were not enough to hold them—he also needed 300 DVDs! Yikes!

And this man has been treating children for ten years?

We have a feeling that the Doctor’s arrest is just the tip of the iceberg, and the good Doctor did not go into pediatrics to heal children.

Read more here.

BOGUS LAWSUIT OF THE YEAR: BODYGUARD SUES FOR SEEING BRITNEY SPEARS NAKED

2010-09-09T09:10:00.000-07:00

This item does not, in our view, require much comment.

Granted, Britney has at time been a tad overweight—but how much money could it worth to be subjected to the “ordeal” of having the Brit wear a “see-through” dress in your presence or to see her naked as a jaybird?

If the lawyer for Britney’s former bodyguard Fernando Flores gets his way, a lot of money.

Read the lawsuit, filed yesterday in Los Angeles Superior Court, here.

WHO IS READING BLOGONAUT?

2010-08-20T12:14:00.001-07:00

If you have ever started a blog from scratch, you know how difficult it is to build up a significant readership. You also know how frustrating it is to note site visits in the double digits.

In that spirit, and for no other reason (because this blog is educational and not-for-profit) every few days we check our visitor statistics, and marvel at the geographic diversity of our readership.

For those of you new to web-surfing, every time you visit a web page, you reveal information about yourself, including the “IP address” of your computer or network on the world-wide-web, your city, state or region, and country, and even your web browser and the resolution of your computer monitor.

The first thing you will notice about this site (apart from the fact that we have posted over 3,500 amusing and sometimes fascinating posts) is that we post infrequently.

This is a function of our limited time—since we practice law and juggle many additional responsibilities—as well as the realization gained over time that if the subject matter does not at once engage, it ain’t worth posting.

But we digress.

Here are the cities and countries of origin of our readers during the last 20 site visits:

Los Angeles, California, United States

Baltimore, Maryland, United States

Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States

High Point, North Carolina, United States

Esbjerg, Ribe, Denmark

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

San Francisco, California, United States

North Bergen, New Jersey, United States

Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Los Angeles, California, United States

Drummondville, Quebec, Canada

Walnut Creek, California, United States

Laurel, Maryland, United States

Berkeley, California, United States

Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

Faridabad, Haryana, India

Staten Island, New York, United States

San Francisco, California, United States

Manchester, United Kingdom

Lawrenceville, Georgia, United States

But don’t be misled—we receive weekly visits from almost every country in the world with internet access.

STEVE COOLEY LEADS SF DA HARRIS IN AG RACE, NEW POLL SAYS

2010-08-04T10:22:00.001-07:00

Embattled San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, whose quest for the job of California’s top prosecutor has been plagued by her opposition to the death penalty for cop killers and a subpar trial conviction rate now has something else standing in her path to the Attorney General’s Office: A new poll, giving her Republican opponent Steve Cooley a clear lead in the race.

A separate, earlier poll gave Cooley, the Republican Los Angeles County District Attorney, a small marginal lead over Harris, the Democratic District Attorney for San Francisco County.

The Field Poll had Cooley ahead of Harris by three percent, with Cooley at 37 percent and Harris at 34 percent.

But second poll conducted by Hill Research Associates July 10-12 gives Cooley a seven percent lead. The results showed Cooley with 41 percent and Harris with 34 percent, and also projected Cooley as the leader in all media markets except San Francisco.

The death penalty remains a key point of contrast between the candidates, with Cooley for and Harris opposed. Over 70 percent of Calif. voters continue to support the death penalty, which Harris has said she is personally against, and which she has consistantly refused to seek when it was up to her as San Francisco District Attorney--even for cop killers.

In 2009, Harris came under fire when her office decided not to seek the death penalty for triple-murderer and illegal alien Edwin Ramos, who shot three men, a father and his two sons, to death. Harris was also criticized in 2004 for refusing to seek the death penalty in the killing of a 29-year-old San Francisco police officer by a gang member.

The feeling in the law enforcement community is that cop killers are among the most dangerous of offenders, and taking the death penalty off of the table for cop killers endangers officer’s lives.

Harris has also come under fire for having the worst trial conviction rate in the state, with an accused murder in San Francisco having a 50% chance of acquittal if he decides to make Harris’ office prove the case at trial.

However, Harris has strong support from the DNC, listing $636,603 cash on hand with Cooley reporting just $222,729 as of May 22, 2010. So don't count the anti-death penalty conviction rate challanged SF DA out of the race just yet.

MEL GIBSON’S EX BACKED OUT OF $15 M SETTLEMENT REACHED AT PRIVATE MEDIATION

2010-07-23T07:42:00.000-07:00

TMZ is reporting a big number that his been mentioned in several prior news reports: Fifteen Million Dollars.

That is the financial package that the ex’s politically connected former attorney, civil trial lawyer Eric M. George, won for his client at a private mediation earlier this year.

The ex—and Gibson—signed a written, confidential settlement agreement at that time, but for reasons assumed to boil down to greed, the ex reneged on the agreement, hired her present family law attorney, and leaked the audio tapes to Radar online through a third party now believed to be her sister.

Gibson’s lawyers scoff at the idea that the ex backed out of the settlement because it called for unsupervised visitation between Gibson and his child—because since the date of the alleged “assault” until she leaked the tapes he had been encouraging Gibson to spend as much time with the child as possible--and he did.

In addition, her family law attorney said in court this week that the settlement agreement was “irrelevant” because she was represented by George, and not a family law attorney, when she agreed (in writing) to the $15 million settlement package that included visitation rights for Gibson.

It is hard to imagine the ex’s current attorney thinking that she could even come close to a settlement of that magnitude now, since all that she will be entitled to in family court is monthly child support—provided that she is awarded custody of the child.

Clearly, the tapes (or more precisely the promise to keep them confidential)—which were previewed at the mediation—played a major role in Gibson’s agreement to pay the Russian scam artist fifteen million dollars, but now that the tapes have been played on every cable TV station in the world 24/7 for two weeks, her leverage has evaporated.

In other words, the Russian’s threat to sue Gibson for assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress if the case did not settle in mediation was a way of negotiating a financial settlement in exchange for the tapes never seeing the light of day without calling it extortion. But now that the tapes are out there, what more can she do to Gibson?

The Russian had her moment of maximum leverage when, through attorney #1, she negotiated a $15M windfall, and through greed she flushed it down the toilet.

We hope her sister got a lot of money from Radar online for those tampered with tapes. Because that is all the grifter is ever going to see over and above monthly child support.

SOURCE: GIBSON’S EX’S SISTER GAVE RANT TAPES TO RADAR ONLINE

2010-07-22T20:26:00.000-07:00

It was a big day in court for Mel Gibson.

Even though neither he nor his legally challenged Russian ex girlfriend were present, their attorneys were in a two hour closed court session with the judge today.

Word has leaked to the Hollywood Reporter following the hearing, though, that a new suspect has emerged in the mystery of who handed over the faked Gibson audio tapes to Radar online: The ex girlfriends sister:

“Several sources confirm that Oksana Grigorieva's younger sister, Natalie, is suspected of having leaked the audio tapes to the online website and is currently being looked at by authorities.

"I suspect that if the authorities look at the sister, they'll find a wire transfer or a check to her from the website," alleges a source close to the case. "She and Oksana are very close."

“Another source close to the case also claims that Oksana's sister was involved in first shopping the audio tapes to various media outlets before finally making the sale to Radar.

"All the tabloids said no to the deal because they were asked to purchase the audio tapes before hearing them," says another source close to the case.

“If Oksana's sister is found to have brokered the deal at the behest of her sister, it's possible that the judge could find the Russian singer in contempt of court. Grigorieva could also be facing possible extortion charges as well based on a text and emails that she sent Gibson.

“In the text message, reported exclusively by THR on Wednesday, Grigorieva wrote Gibson that the reason she recorded him was because "you broke your agreement with me."

“Grigorieva on Thursday claimed that the only reason she balked at signing the long form settlement agreement when it was placed in front of her was because it gave Gibson unsupervised visits with their child.

"The statement is completely false. This never happened," counters a source close to the case, adding, "This is the third explanation that she's offered for why she backed out of the agreement."
We always assumed that—regardless of whether it was her attorney or someone else that shopped the tapes to Radar online—it was done at the behest of Gibson’s ex.

We are relieved to lean that it was not the ex’s attorney after all. Although well regarded in his profession (Southern California divorce lawyers), the man is somewhere north of 80 years old.

While the ex may have believed that releasing the tapes to the media, in addition to generating some short term cash, might tactically benefit her by putting pressure on Mel Gibson to pay her millions to shut her up, it had just the opposite effect.

By going nuclear on Gibson she has at once emptied her arsenal of ammunition and taken away all incentive for Gibson to pay her anything at all except court order child support (assuming that when the smoke clears she will even have custody of their child and not be behind bars for the illegal taping and attempted extortion of the action star).

Now what damage the ex was capable of doing has been done, and Mel Gibson will only benefit by definitively proving in court that the Russian faked her voice on the heavily edited audio tapes, and that as mercurial and abusive as Gibson comes across on the tapes a. he was goaded into losing his cool and b. Gibson never laid a hand on her.

Stay tuned folks. Because while some of the talking heads on cable television may still be buying the Russian grafter’s shtick, there are far too many holes and fabrications in her so called “evidence”, and this is not going to be quite the ending that ex had in mind. We are quite sure of that.

GIBSON EX NOW TARGET OF EXTORTION INVESTIGATION, LA COUNTY SHERIFF SAYS

2010-07-21T11:14:00.001-07:00

The Ukrainian woman who by “coincidence” only gets pregnant by rich celebrities, notwithstanding her sperm rich past

Although this story comes from TMZ.com, since the source is a named spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department speaking for attribution it is probably very reliable.

[UPDATE: The AP has now picked up this story since we posted.]

The bottom line is that Los Angeles law enforcement is now actively investigating Mel Gibson’s charges, made through his attorney Blair Berk (a partner with famed criminal lawyer Barry Tarlow in Tarlow & Berk) in a presentation yesterday, that his ex girlfriend committed the crime of extortion by threatening to go public with the now infamous rant tapes unless the actor paid her millions.

According to Mel’s camp, a deal was even agreed to in principle and written up whereby the ex was to receive $15,000,000—but she got greedy and refused to sign on the dotted line.

Says Sheriff Department spokesperson Steve Whitmore to TMZ: “Extortion allegations have been brought to our attention and we are certainly going to be looking at that."

Those of you that think that a criminal or civil (brought by Mel for every "hryvnia" the scam artist has stuffed into the mattress) extortion charge (known colloquially as “blackmail”) is far fetched should read our prior coverage of the attorney and client who tried to shakedown Michael Flatley with a rape allegation. A subsequent civil suit for extortion resulted in an $11 million dollar judgment in the Lord of the Dance star’s favor.

Extortion is committed whenever a person asks for money or other financial benefits under an express or implied threat of going public with reputation damaging information—even if the information is true.

And then there is the thee years in a woman’s prison (sorry Comrade, no Crystal there) the fecund scamstress is facing for secretly recording Gibson in violation of Penal Code Section 632. As in 3 years in the joint for EACH illegal recording.

Bye, bye baby, bye bye.

UPDATE: The MSM now has this story: Sheriff investigating Gibson's ex for extortion (AP)

GIBSON’S EX’S VOICE ADDED TO RANT TAPES LATER, EXPERTS SAY

2010-07-20T11:35:00.001-07:00

In view of her long history of running the pregnancy con on wealthy celebrities, we have been warning our readers to view any evidence proffered by Gibson’s ex (we refuse to print her name) with a great skepticism.

In addition to the fact that the photos that the Russian scam artist took the day Gibson allegedly hit her in the mouth hard enough to break two teeth show no facial or lip cuts, bruising, or swelling, it now appears conclusive that the audio tapes that the ex leaked to Radar on-line were phonied up, using tapes that the Russian con artist secretly made of Gibson from the beginning (before he even left his wife) that were remixed and dubbed using a voice track for the ex that was recently recorded using a professional microphone. Therefore, for example, what appear to be admissions on the tapes by Gibson following accusations by the ex, may be taken completely out of context and may not be admissions at all.

Nor is whatever provoked the outbursts from Gibson on the tapes accurately portrayed. The entire context appears to have been faked.

There is no denying by the audio experts that it is Mel Gibson's voice on the tapes. They say that the tapes have been spliced and put together using a professional microphone and recording techniques.

In addition, in one tape released by the ex to Radar on-line, Gibson appears to be referring to something that sounds as if he was still living with his wife, which would bring that phone call back to the beginning of their relationship.

She apparently faked teeth damage by Gibson, and faked the audio tapes—all in connection with her demand for millions from Gibson to make it all go away.

That that is after scamming the star in to falling for her and getting her pregnant. (just like she did with James Bond star Timothy Dalton in London).

Nice lady.

MEL GIBSON EX FABRICATED ASSAULT IN $10M EXTORTION ATTEMPT, HER OWN DENTIST SAYS, OTHER EXPERTS CONFIRM

2010-07-19T12:04:00.001-07:00

Don’t worry baby, I’m on the pill….

No surprises here—given her scam-artist past, but it now appears that Mel Gibson’s ex was NOT punched in the mouth (either "twice" or at all) as is alleged by the Russian “singer” (whose CD, produced by Gibson, sold 200 copies); the alleged Gibson "one-two" punch that damaged the veneers on two front teeth never happened. And even the Ukrainian grafter’s own dentist says so.

Here is the story from the Huffington Post—who was one of Gibson’s early detractors—a true sign that the worm has turned:

"Sources connected to [the ex’s] dentist say he believes the photo is doctored.
"The sources quote Dr. Ross Shelden as saying, "The nose is not hers. The lips are not right. It's not a true and accurate picture. It has definitely been altered."

"PREVIOUSLY: Radar has released a photo of Mel Gibson's ex, [name redacted], after she says he punched her twice in the mouth, knocking out her teeth and giving her a concussion.

"[She] lost a veneer and the right front tooth was severely chipped," a source familiar with the investigation told Radar.

“[Her] teeth were not damaged. Her dentist submitted a sworn declaration that one veneer was knocked out and the other was damaged. Experts who have analyzed the photos believe the injury is inconsistent with being punched in the mouth since there is no soft tissue damage--and it may have been self-inflicted.

“There is "no evidence of external or internal damage," a law enforcement source [said] "Sources also [said that the ex] tried to extort Mel out of more than $10 million in return for keeping the tapes of his explosive, racist rant private, and there are emails to prove it.”

We hate to say “I told you so” but we will anyway. BTW, before you judge Mel, please keep in mind that not only did he leave his wife for this--scam artist --he paid his first wife hundreds of millions of dollars in the divorce.

ARE THE MEL GIBSON TAPES ADMISSIBLE IN COURT?

2010-07-16T08:52:00.001-07:00

The lovely couple

Legal Analysis

By Blogonaut

One cannot turn on the television without being bombarded with outtakes from audio recordings of Mel Gibson’s ex calmly pushing his buttons as she secretly records his diatribes. What can we say, the bitch is evil, and he is nuts.

But are the tapes admissible in court?

At least one other blog has tried to definitively answer that question and failed miserably. But since we have our own “legal expert” (moi), before you finish reading this post you will know the answer.

The stakes are high for what’s-her-name, the Russian that Gibson now calls the “Goldigger”, because if there is no applicable statutory exception, each time Gibson’s money loving ex-GF recorded the actor that Hollywood loves to hate, she committed a violation of California Penal Code Section 632—which is punishable by a jail term of 12 months OR 16 months, two years, or three years in state prison (that’s for each recording).

So let’s get to the exceptions.

Yes, there are several very specific and very limited exceptions to the criminal statute, that are limited by the conjunctive requirements of intent, subject matter, and scope:

The recording must be made for the purpose of gathering evidence that the person reasonably believes relates to the commission of the crimes of:

1. Extortion;

2. Kidnapping;

3. Bribery;

4. Any crime involving violence against the person;

5. Harassing telephone calls.

There are two categories that are arguably applicable.

The first is #4—any crime involving violence against the person.

But remember, the Implanted One must not only actually believe that the scope of the recorded conversation is limited to evidence that Mel Gibson hit her, that belief must be reasonable. So next time that you visit Radar.com to give a listen to Ms. Boobs calmly baiting Mad Mel into a rage ask yourself—is this conversation reasonably related to incidents wherein the most hated man in Hollywood hit the Russian temptress? Or is she just pushing Mel’s buttons in aid of getting him to yell, scream, and use abusive language so she can damage the actor-producer in the tabloid media?

We think it is quite obviously the later.

But wait; there is another potentially applicable exception: #5—gathering evidence of harassing phone calls.

If the Implanted One can establish a prior pattern of Mad Mel calling her residence at all hours of the night and day making harassing phone calls, then all recordings that she made over the phone after that harassment commenced are fair game.

Additionally, one must ask, was the required purpose of the recordings--to gather evidence of on of the specified crimes--the purpose for which the recordings were made? Remember, in addition to the other requirements, the purpose of the recordings must be to gather evidence of one of the enumerated crimes--and no other.

Of course, the best evidence of Miss Boob’s intent is: What subsequent use did she make of the tapes?

Did she immediately turn the tapes over to law enforcement to aid in a prosecution for domestic battery and/or harassing phone calls?

Or did she instead give the recordings to a tabloid publication in aid of damaging what is left of Mad Mel’s reputation?

We all know the answer to that question, don’t we. The answer is clear even if you hate Mel Gibson.

The Implanted One did not give the tapes to police at all, she sent the tapes to Radar on-line to embarrass the actor and to cause as much damage to him in the public eye as possible.

Therefore, in our opinion, no exception applies, our Russian Beauty does not pass go, and she is guilty of multiple violations of Penal Code Section 632.

In addition, by the express terms of Penal Code Section 632, the tapes are not admissible in any prosecution against the actor for domestic violence (not that the tapes would be necessary to prove that all his ex wants for Christmas is two front teeth—and why).

The only question is will the Los Angeles District Attorney have the guts, in an election year when he is running for California Attorney General, to charge a domestic violence victim with illegally taping her abuser? Because the Implanted One would bear the burden of proving in any Section 632 prosecution that her intent was evidence gathering as specified, and that she cannot do--no way.

In our opinion both parties could use some time in jail. And then we can all go back to watching the BP underwater webcam.

WHEN CLOWNS GO BAD: CLOWN ARRESTED FOR STEP-DAUGHTER’S RAPE

2010-07-15T10:58:00.001-07:00

How could the life of a young woman afflicted with both schizophrenia and epilepsy possibly get any worse?

If you guessed being raped by a clown you would be correct.

Is there no limit to the depravity of these clowns?

Juárez clown arrested on suspicion of raping stepdaughter (El Paso Times)

TATTERED COUTURE IMPROBABLE INSPIRATION FOR HAUNTING LEONARD COHEN BALLAD

2010-07-15T09:56:00.000-07:00

We found this spellbinding performance on a Spanish language website. Not being familiar with the Montréal Poet-Songwriter-Performer’s work post cir. 1976, and sharing the artist’s connection with Hydra, Greece (having courted the love of our life there), we clicked play and learned what all the fuss was about.

Bravo, Burberry, for providing the improbable inspiración for this work of arte.

Bravo harmónica guy (amazing).

Bravo whispering poet.

You cannot sing exactly, but you can write, and you can perform. And you can haunt the soul.

LOS ANGELES PROSECUTORS MISLEAD LA COURT IN POLANSKI CASE, LETTER FROM SWISS GOVERNMENT SHOWS

2010-07-15T03:37:00.001-07:00

More misconduct in Polanski case caused Swiss to deny extradition

July 15, 2010
By Blogonaut

SEE BOMBSHELL UPDATE (DOJ THROWS LA PROSECUTORS UNDER THE BUS)--SCROLL DOWN.

According to an Associated Press story today, the Swiss Justice Ministry has released a letter asserting in effect that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza (who refused to release the sealed transcripts that would have shown whether or not Polanski had already served his agreed sentence) was mislead by Los Angeles prosecutors when they told the court on in papers on May 6, 2010 and later at a May 10, 2010 hearing that the Swiss never requested the transcripts.

Judge Espinoza cited the lack of any request by the Swiss for the information as a reason for refusing to make the sealed testimony of a former Los Angeles prosecutor familiar with what went on in with the case 1978 available for the extradition proceeding.

In reality, the Swiss had already made that formal written request to the United States Department of Justice on May 5, 2010, and the Swiss were told on May 13, 2010 that the rquest would not be honored.

Los Angeles prosecutors now claim that Justice Department officials never informed them of the request—so the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing when they (unknowingly, they say) mislead the court.

Regardless of whether the Justice Department concealed that critical information from Los Angeles prosecutors or whether prosecutors simply lied to the court to keep their 33 year old dirty laundry under seal, let's not be too quick to condemn the Swiss—who said all along that they would not extradite Polanski to the United States unless it could be shown that the director had not already served the sentence that he agreed to in the plea bargain with the court and prosecutors.

Read More: In letter, Swiss cite key reason for refusal to extradite Polanski (Linda Deutsch-AP)

UPDATE (7/15/2010):

It now appears that the Los Angeles prosecutors deliberately mislead Judge Peter Espinoza—who was told in prosecution filings on May 6, 2010 and at a May 10, 2010 hearing that the Swiss had not requested the release of the sealed transcripts, and who based his denial of Polanski’s request that those transcripts be made available to the Swiss in connection with the pending extradition matter.

An AP story filed two hours ago, the Justice Department said today that the Los Angeles district attorney's Office approved the denial of a Swiss request for information in the Roman Polanski case.

The Justice Department said that it kept the district attorney's office fully informed of all requests from Swiss authorities regarding the effort to have Polanski extradited to the United States.

The department said the DA's office provided input and "approved all responses from the U.S. government to Swiss authorities on this matter," including one rejecting a request to turn over sealed testimony that proved pivotal in Switzerland's decision to free Polanski.

"The Department of Justice and the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office worked in close coordination on this important extradition request," Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said in an e-email.

It would very much appear at this point that the Justice Department is throwing Los Angeles prosecutors under the bus by providing evidence that prosecutors deliberately mislead the court to keep its 33 year old dirty laundry under seal.

Wow!

We would not want to be the prosecutor who represented to the court that the Swiss never asked for the transcripts—when in fact they had.

Read more: Justice Dept: LA DA kept informed in Polanski case (AP)

POLANSKI A FREE MAN—MORE REACTION

2010-07-13T11:52:00.001-07:00

A not unhappy Roman Polanski is freed by Swiss court

Opinion
By Richard Cohen
(For the Washington Post)

The Swiss got it right. Their refusal to extradite film director Roman Polanski to the United States on a 33-year-old sex charge is the proper dénouement for this mess of a case. There is no doubt that Polanski did what he did, which is have sex with a 13-year-old after plying her with booze. There is no doubt also that after all these years there is something stale about the case, not to mention a “victim,” Samantha Geimer, who has long ago forgiven her assailant and dearly wishes the whole thing would go away. So do I.

There are only bad reasons to proceed with the prosecution. The first is to rebut the argument that some sort of legal or moral exception ought to be made for Polanski on account of his talent. Having just seen his film “The Pianist” for the second time, I salute his genius as, if I knew something about poetry, I might that of Ezra Pound.

Pound was both a traitor and an anti-Semite, but he was anyway awarded the Bollingen Prize by the Library of Congress for his “Pisan Cantos,” written as it happens soon after World War II, while US authorities had him imprisoned in Italy. He was finally incarcerated as an incompetent in St. Elizabeths Hospital, where he continued to write, while all sorts of other incompetents -- famous intellectuals -- continued to debate his worthiness. Into this controversy stepped the clear-headed art critic Clement Greenberg:

“I am sick of the… silliness which condones almost any moral or intellectual failing on the artist’s part as long as he is or seems a successful artist. It is still justifiable to demand that he be a successful human being before anything else, even at the cost of his art.” It seems pretty clear that, at least back in 1977, Polanski was not a successful human being.

It does not matter to me either that Polanski is a Holocaust survivor; not, even, that his wife Sharon Tate -- pregnant at the time -- was murdered in 1969 by Charles Manson and his so-called “Family.” Lots of people survived the Holocaust and other tragedies, and few of them committed crimes.

The only argument in favor of Polanski’s continued freedom is that he is the victim of judicial misconduct. He had good reason to believe that the trial judge in his case was going to break the plea agreement and throw the book at him. He had already pleaded guilty to a reduced charge; he had already spent 42 days in Chino State Prison under psychiatric examination. (Another analogy to the Pound case -- a talented person must be nuts to do something so wrong.) He ran from the prospect of a judge who was going to make his reputation at Polanski’s expense and send him to jail for a very long time. I would have done the same.

It was this alleged -- but virtually proven -- miscarriage of justice that impressed the Swiss authorities and why they rejected the American requests for extradition. That was good. It would have been better, though, if at the same time they denounced the many artists and intellectuals who haughtily dismissed what Polanski had done on the basis of his talent and achievements. They thought of his films; they should have thought of their own daughters.

Read this editorial on the Washington Post site

UPDATE: Polanski only safe in France, Poland, Switzerland (AP)

"Oh darn! If only I would have known I could only travel (free as a bird) between my lux villa in Gstaad, the delights of Paris, the delights of Paris, Carla, the Cannes Film Festival, Tahiti, and all of France, Switzerland, and Poland, I would have preferred to rot in a California prison!"

--Roman Polanski

Samantha Geimer re: Roman Polanski: “Enough Is Enough”

SPECTOR MURDER APPEAL: COURT OF APPEAL EXTENDS DUE DATE FOR PROSECUTION BRIEF

2010-07-12T14:46:00.000-07:00

Phillip Spector appellate counsel Dennis P. Riordan appears to consult a higher authority (Spector seated to Riordan’s right)

The California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles today granted the request of the California Attorney General for more time to oppose music producer Phil Spector’s appeal from his 2009 conviction and life sentence arising out of the producer’s alleged second degree murder of failed actress-turned-cocktail hostess Lana Clarkson.

The attorney General represents the People of the State of California in most felony appeals arising out of the California Superior Court.

The new due date for the AG brief is August 9, 2010.

Further extensions in the briefing schedule are anticipated in light of the length of the trials (in each instance six months) and the substantial, multiple issues raised by Spector in his Opening Brief on Appeal.

Stay tuned here for the latest legal developments and legal analysis.

ROMAN POLANSKI A FREE MAN—SWISS DENY US EXTRADITION

2010-07-12T13:04:00.001-07:00

Roman Polanski waives goodbye to US criminal charges

****Breaking News****

By Blogonaut

Swiss authorities have rejected the pending request to extradite the award winning director Roman Polanski to Los Angeles, California to face sentencing on a 33 year old statutory rape case there involving the alleged sexual intercourse with a minor who has since opposed any further punishment for the director. (See our prior coverage, here--scroll down.)

Swiss authorities had little comment when thy announced that Polanski was released from house arrest and free to return to his native France:

"The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extradition request, although the issue was thoroughly examined. Moreover, also the principles of State action deriving from international public order were taken into account."

Translation: We have had enough of the United States dictating to the Swiss. Earlier this year the Swiss caved under tremendous pressure from the United States Department of State and US Justice Department to violate Swiss law and release the names of 4,000 US suspected tax evaders with numbered accounts in Swiss Bank UBS. In addition, Los Angeles prosecutors refused to unseal and provide to the Swiss certain testimony from former members of the Office of the District Attorney for Los Angeles County calling into question the integrity of the process leading to Polanski's fugitive status.

In our opinion, the Swiss finally said: “enough is enough”.

READ MORE: Roman Polanski's victim wants case to finally end (latimes.com)

MEHSERLE VERDICT: INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER (WHAT WE THINK)

2010-07-08T18:44:00.000-07:00

There is not much to say here, except the following:

1. We predicted this verdict, and think it was a fair one for the reasons stated in our prior post (scroll down to the comments).

2. We do not believe that Mehserle intended to shoot the victim, but we cannot have police officers running around who react to stress by grabbing a gun instead of a taser either—which is criminal negligence.

3. We do not believe that this case was ever about race and there is no evidence to the contrary--including any prior racial animus on Mehserle's part.

That is all.

Disagree? Join in the discussion.

AS MEHSERLE JURY DELIBERATES, SWISS TO ANNOUNCE POLANSKI EXTRADITION DECISION

2010-07-08T08:42:00.001-07:00

This could be a big week for legal news junkies. The Mehserle verdict is not the only legal shoe that is about to drop.

As first reported by swissinfo.ch, a Swiss official has told the news agency that a decision on whether to grant the request of Los Angeles prosecutors (made through the State Department) to extradite Roman Polanski to face sentencing on his 32 year old statutory rape conviction has already been made, and will be announced shortly.

However, even if the Swiss—who are still smarting from political pressure that resulted in one of its major banks (UBS) violating Swiss secrecy laws by divulging the names of 4,000 tax cheats to the IRS—cave yet again to American pressure, don’t expect the director to be boarding the next Swiss Air flight to Los Angeles. Polanski will have the right to appeal the decision.

As reported by the Main Justice blog, The director is represented by Steptoe & Johnson’s Reid Weingarten, a well-known criminal defense lawyer and close friend of Attorney General Eric Holder.

In the meantime, Polanski is confined to his chalet and grounds in uber exclusive Gstaad—a fate not worse than death, unless you are allergic to fine wine, the best food, the company of royalty and the mountain air. (See our prior Polanski coverage, here--SCROLL DOWN.)

MISTRIAL POSSIBLE IN MEHSERLE TRIAL AS MORE JURORS EXCUSED

2010-07-07T07:36:00.001-07:00

Deliberations begin anew as alternate juror pool shrinks

July 7, 210
By Blogonaut

UDATED AT 1:38 PM (Scroll down)

The jury in the Johannes Mehserle murder trial will start deliberations all over today with an alternate juror in place after one juror called in sick (but is expected to return today) and another leaves for vacation.

The vacation was anticipated, but the illness delayed deliberations until today when the sick juror is expected to return to court. As a result, the jury failed to deliberate yesterday as originally planned by the court.

In addition, because the vacationing juror has been replaced with an alternate, by law the judge must instruct the jury this morning to start their deliberations over.

But a new potential problem looms for a verdict in this case should deliberations drag on: There are only two alternate jurors left who can replace jurors who are excused from the jury due to illness or other reasons. Therefore, if three more jurors are excused from the jury, the court would be required to declare a mistrial unless the defense agrees to proceed with 11 jurors instead of the twelve mandated by the California Constitution.

The former BART officer is on trial for shooting Oscar Grant III to death on New Year's Eve 2009 at the Fruitvale BART station. Mehserle doesn't deny shooting Grant, but he says he meant to tase Grant, not shoot him, as Grant lay face down on the ground.

The jury has four possible verdicts:

1. Not guilty;

2. Second-degree murder (intentional killing with malice but without premeditation);

3. Voluntary manslaughter (“imperfect self defense” i.e. an unreasonable but honest belief by Mehserle that his life was in danger);

4. Involuntary manslaughter (the officer killed Grant out of criminal negligence).

It seems to us that the fourth option is the most likely outcome, given Mehserle’s expression of surprise captured on video when he shot Grant as well as his apparent negligence in mistaking his taser for his service weapon, his lack of motive, and the former officer’s emotionality on the witness stand, but anything is possible in a jury trial—including no verdict at all.

If 12 jurors are unable to unanimously agree on a verdict or more than two additional jurors are excused from the jury, a mistrial will be declared, and the entire case would have to be repeated in front of a new jury.

UPDATE: The jury is now composed of four white females, three white males, three Hispanic women, one Asian-American woman and one male who declined to state ethnicity.

READ MORE: Mehserle trial jury to only deliberate for two hours today due to juror's doctor's appointment (SJ Mercury News)

FURTHER UPDATE: Following juror's question about "provocation" deliberations end for the day.

READ MORE: Deliberations end for day in transit shooting case (kcba.com)

HAPPY 4TH OF JULY WEEKEND EVERYONE! BLOGONAUT WILL RETURN NEXT WEEK

2010-07-02T15:22:00.001-07:00

COP VS JUDGE DUSTUP MOVES FROM PARKING LOT TO COURT

2010-07-01T08:25:00.001-07:00

The Shreveport Times

A 2009 courthouse parking lot scuffle between a police officer and a sitting judge—after the judge was stopped for not wearing his seatbelt—has now spilled into the Red River district court with dueling lawsuits.

Coushatta, Louisiana is a small community, but even so on June 29, 2009, there were two local residents who had not yet made each other's acquaintance: Trooper Eric Schonfarber and District Judge Lewis O. Sams—whom Schonfarger pulled over for not wearing his seatbelt.

The judge admitted he was not wearing his seatbelt and asked that the trouper write him the ticket so he could be on his way. But when the officer asked the judge where he worked, he then demanded to see His Honor’s judicial badge—which the judge declined to show the trouper.

At this point the respective narratives of cop and judge wildly diverge.

Trouper Schonfarber claimed that the judge was out of control and had to be restrained. Judge Sams asserted that Schonfarber threatened him with a taser pressed up against his chest. Both agree that the cop-on-judge confrontation became physical.

Things escalated from there, with Schonfarber being charged with assault and facing administrative discipline in his own department. (The state attorney general later dismissed all criminal charges at Judge Sams’s request.)

Now, 12 months later, it is apparent that time does NOT heal all wounds.

In the apparent hope that state trouper and judge would each let the other’s respective one-year statute of limitations to sue expire, they have now sued each other on the last day to do.

The judge has sued for assault, and the trouper for damage to his reputation—alleging that Sams conspired with a former state representative, Taylor Townsend, and at least one "high-ranking state police official at Troop G in Bossier" to cast him in "unfavorable light."

Of course, how hard is it to cast a dumb-ass trouper who would escalate a small-town courthouse parking-lot seatbelt ticket into a physical confrontation with a judge (in Louisiana no less) in an “unfavorable light”?

Stay tuned for round II in the cop vs judge dueling lawsuits.

Read more: Judge, trooper sue each other over 2009 traffic stop, arrest

CALIFORNIA MAN JAILED FOR VOICEMAIL THREAT TO MAYOR DAILY

2010-06-28T12:01:00.001-07:00

Hiz Honor Mayor Richard Daley

The long arm of the Chicago law reached out and grabbed a San Jose, California man for allegedly threatening the life of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.

Christopher Traynor Fox, 39, was arrested last month after he allegedly left an obscenity-laced message at Daley's office.

Prosecutors allege that Fox’s voicemail message contained a threat; He was charged with threatening a public official and is now being held on a $1 million bond. Originally held in San Jose, Fox was transported several days ago to Chicago to face criminal charges there.

Fox has admitted in court that he made a call to the mayor but denies he made a threat.

On Sunday, Fox's attorney said he intended to file a motion to reduce the $1 million bail.

Defense lawyer Tony Eben called the bond "unreasonable," and claimed "nothing was said that was to be taken seriously."

In the meantime, Hiz Honor was not amused by the “just kidding” defense or the profane voice message.

Fox allegedly took exception to Hiz Honor’s stance on gun control—so naturally Fox made his point by threatening to shoot the Mayor. (As if this was calculated to persuade Daily to NOT ban firearms in his city?)

Many states, including California, have laws on the books making it a felony offense to expressly or by implication threaten an elected official, or their staff.

UPDATE:

Fox was reportedly arrested in his home town of San Jose CA just 48 hours after making the voicemail threat to Mayor Daily, but is now in custody in Chicago. He appeared in court today, and we will have further updates when more is known.

UPDATE (7/13/2010): Fox's bond has been lowered from $1 million to $500,000.

PHIL SPECTOR WRONGFUL DEATH CIVIL TRIAL GOES TO MEDIATION

2010-06-22T10:30:00.000-07:00

Legal News Analysis

By Blogonaut

Several readers have emailed us asking for our views on news reports that the parties have agreed to mediate the civil wrongful death action filed by Lana Clarkson’s heirs in 2005.

According to news accounts both sides in the civil suit—which seeks money damages on behalf of Lana Clarkson’s heirs on the theory that the music producer caused her death—have agreed to mediate the dispute.

Mediation is a nonbinding form of informal dispute resolution where the parties agree to appear in front of a neutral party (who is either an attorney or a retired judge) who essentially guides formal discussions among the parties and attempts to help the parties reach a settlement agreement of the dispute. It is a nonbinding process, because the matter will not settle unless a mutual agreement is reached on the terms of a settlement that both sides signoff on.

So what are the advantages to the plaintiffs and to Phil Spector in mediating?

1. The litigation is bound to be expensive.

Although a Los Angeles County jury found the music producer guilty of the malice murder of Lana Clarkson last year, that conviction cannot be used or even mentioned in any civil trial unless and until it is affirmed on appeal, and it is looking more and more like the conviction is substantially likely to be reversed.

In addition, according to news reports, if the civil case has not settled by next October, the court will be setting a trial date—meaning that it is unlikely that the appeal will be resolved before the case gets to trial in any event.

Therefore, the same very expensive expert testimony that was presented during the criminal trial would have to be presented during the civil trial on the issue of suicide vs homicide.

2. The result of any civil trial is uncertain for both sides.

The prior alleged “victim” testimony presented to the jury in the criminal case might not be admissible in the civil trial—and without it who knows what the verdict on liability will be?

In addition, wrongful death damages consist of two components: The lost earning potential of the decedent and monetary compensation for the lost care comfort and companionship of the lost loved one to her heirs. The first component in this case is negligible and the second very hard to value. Typically, wrongful death awards without a substantial lost earnings potential are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and not millions.

But how about punitive damages? While punitive damages are possible, unlike the OJ wrongful death case where you had two victims with their throats cut (in other words an undeniably cold-blooded, intentional and premeditated act) the basis for punitive damages in the civil case here is far from certain.

In addition, since OJ the United States Supreme Court has held that in most cases, a ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages greater than 1:1 will be overturned as unconstitutional. Therefore, with compensatory damages expected in the hundreds of thousands—and not millions—of dollars, there is little likelihood of a ten million or twenty million award of punitive damages in this case. But unlikely does not mean impossible, and there is great uncertainty for Phil Spector in taking the civil case to trial as well.

General damages, such as for lost care, comfort, and companionship, are largely up to the jury to fill in the blank on the jury form with little guidance from the court, and will rarely be overturned on appeal unless clearly excessive.

3. Unless the case settles, it could take years for Donna Clarkson to see any money.

While the case is expected to go to verdict sometime in 2011, even if the jury awards substantial compensatory and punitive damages to Donna Clarkson, that does not mean Phil Spector has to write her a check.

Assuming that Phil Spector has the financial ability to post a bond in the amount of 1.5 times the judgment, the judgment will be stayed during an appeal process that could last anywhere from a minimum of two years (until 2014) or, if the case goes all of the way to the United States Supreme Court on the issue of punitive damages, many years.

Remember, some of the victims of the Exon Valdez oil spill are just getting their last payment and a full 1/3 of the Exon Valdez plaintiffs died before receiving ten cents of their award—because the case was tied up in the appellate courts for years.

Therefore, it makes a lot of sense for both sides of this civil case to not only mediate their differences, but to work hard at a mutually agreeable settlement.

That does not mean a settlement that will make both sides happy; there is no such thing. Any settlement, by definition, requires true compromise on both sides.

So, dear readers, you now know what we think of the reported mediation in the Phil Spector wrongful death case, what do you think?

All comments (with one notable exception) are welcome.

TWO GA JUDGES FEUD, ONE TAKEN TO JAIL BOTH UNDER INVESTIGATION

2010-06-18T08:09:00.001-07:00

Chief Magistrate Donald "Sonny" Caldwell

What happens in Catoosa, Georgia when a judge reports his superior for misconduct? Hint: former Clark County Nevada Judge Elisabeth Halverson found out the hard way when she defied Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle.

If you guessed "he gets locked out of the courthouse," you guessed right. And if you think that this sounds a lot like Thunderdome (two men enter, one man leaves) you would be right as well.

When Judge Peters filed an ethics complaint against his boss, Chief Magistrate Judge Donald "Sonny" Caldwell, he was banished from the courthouse—except he did not go willingly and was arrested for trespassing, according to Chattanooga News Channel 9 on June 16.

One day after Magistrate Judge Anthony Peters was put in handcuffs, Chief Magistrate Donald "Sonny" Caldwell is now off the job as well, News Channel 9 reported.

According to the report:

County attorney Chad Young says the Judicial Qualifications Commission has been contacted and is investigating. NewsChannel 9
confirmed today the GBI is also examining two specific allegations Regarding Peters.

Turmoil and tension have filled the Catoosa Magistrate's Office. 14 year magistrate judge Peters and his boss Chief Magistrate Donald "Sonny" Caldwell have been at odds. Peters sat down one on
one with us. "Yes, I knew it was coming. I just knew it was a matter of time before I went to jail." That happened yesterday because he wouldn't leave after Caldwell insisted on it.

Last month, Peters filed a complaint against Caldwell with the Judicial Qualifications Commission. He said the complaint centered on "nepotism." Peters continued, "It's either his way or the highway and that was evident yesterday when I was led away in handcuffs."

“Turmoil and tension have filled the Catoosa Magistrate's Office”—what a marvelous gift for understatement. Since one judge had another taken away in handcuffs you might say that!

Meanwhile, both the Judicial Qualifications Commission and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation are investigating.

Why can’t the judge’s in San Francisco be this interesting?

DEBBIE LORENZANA, THE WOMEN FIRED FROM CITIBANK FOR BEING TOO SEXY, GOT BOOB JOB BEFORE FIRING, NOW HAS ALRED AS ATTORNEY

2010-06-17T12:18:00.000-07:00

Video report of Lorenzana’s boob job and "DETERMINED MANHUNT"

We first posted on this story here.

We now have an update from the Above the Law blog that is so convoluted that we must let Elie Mystal tell it in his own words:

It’s been a couple of days since we’ve mentioned former Citibank banker Debrahlee Lorenzana. In fairness, I’ve been afraid to criticize her and risk alienating all of the women in the world.
Maybe her former lawyer is safer ground? A couple of days ago we mentioned that Lorenzana hired Gloria Allred. But yesterday news surfaced about the lawyer Lorenzana fired, Jack Tuckner. Dealbreaker claims that Debrahlee might have just fired the perfect man for her case:

Specifically, Lorenzana says that she was told not to wear pencil skirts or stilettos. And while Tuckner may be the creepiest lawyer of all time, it turns out he has deep knowledge of this sort of footwear (and the other accoutrement that might fill out the ensemble), and how its presence in the corporate world can only enhance business, such as when a stilleto is shoved up one’s ass.

Yeah, it turns out that Tuckner is no stranger to sexual harassment claims…
The New York Post reports:

In June 2008, Manhattan women’s-rights lawyer Tuckner was sued by his former office manager, Lisa Brockington, who claimed in court papers that he watched porn at his desk and wore a “slave” collar at work. Her suit called him a “self-described ‘testosterone-poisoned’ attorney with a penchant for bondage and sadomasochism who demeaned . . . the women who worked for him.”

What we are not clear on is has Gloria "have news video will take case" been brought in the sue Citibank or the former attorney?

UPDATE: READ, After SM spanking scandal involving former lawyer, Debrahlee's lawyer is legal-counsel-to-the-starfuckers Gloria Allred (Gawker)

UPDATE: Mood music for this post (Rick James)

WEST VIRGINIA LAWYER DISBARRED FOR JAIL SEXCAPADE

2010-06-16T08:49:00.001-07:00

Was it love or lust that cost the attorney appointed by Gov. Joe Manchin to head the West Virginia Office of Consumer Advocacy his license to practice law last week?

According to the Opinion of the West Virginia Supreme Court that defrocked him, lawyer G. Patrick Stanton, Jr. entered the Prunytown Correctional Facility in Taylor County in October 2005 to see a female inmate, Rose Auvil. Stanton told prison officials that he was Ms. Auvil's attorney. But as the Director of the West Virginia Office of Consumer Advocacy, Stanton could not practice law privately. That was his first mistake.

His second mistake—and it was a doozey—was getting caught in the inmate interview room having sex with the inmate femme fatale.

Prison officials were not amused.

Neither was the West Virginia Supreme Court, which rejected a recommendation by a disciplinary panel that the lustful lawyer merely be suspended in favor of booting him permanently out of the profession.

Stanton had represented Auvil in the past, but he had also engaged in a sexual relationship with her that dated back to 1986. Stanton admitted that he had lied to a corrections official over the phone to schedule an attorney-client visit with the woman.

Stanton had been a lawyer in West Virginia since 1979.

MICHAEL JACKSON DR. CONRAD MURRAY WILL KEEP LICENSE (FOR NOW)

2010-06-14T20:22:00.001-07:00

****Breaking News****

LINDA DEUTSCH-AP

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor today refused a request to suspend the medical license of Michael Jackson’s “house physician” who is criminally charged with causing the music legend’s death by negligently administering a powerful anesthetic drug to Jackson typically reserved for serious medical procedures in an operating theatre, LAT reporter Linda Deutsch reports in an AP story filed hours ago.

Judge Pastor was emphatic about his refusal to change an order previously issued by Superior Court Judge Keith Schwartz declining to suspend Murray's medical license when he was arraigned in February, Ms. Deutsch reports in the story.

According to the story:

“Pastor told Deputy District Attorney General Trina Saunders the medical board had the option of holding an administrative hearing on the license. He also said she could appeal his ruling. “Pastor said he might revisit the issue if there was new information.

California authorities have sought the suspension since Murray was charged with involuntary manslaughter in February.
He is accused of giving the pop star a lethal dose of the anesthetic propofol.

“The pop music legend died after Murray, his personal physician, administered propofol and other drugs to help him sleep. “Murray maintains nothing he did should have killed Jackson. He remains free on $75,000 bail.”

Read more: Doc charged in Jackson death to keep Calif license (Linda Deutsch AP)

PUBLIC DEFENDER CHOKES PROSECUTOR OVER COURT DATE

2010-06-03T13:31:00.001-07:00

This just in, from Above the Law:

“A Cook County prosecutor was hospitalized this morning after being choked in a hallway of the 26th and California criminal courthouse, allegedly by an assistant public defender, police said.

“The 50-year-old assistant state’s attorney “might be injured very badly,” an official could be heard telling prosecutors at the courthouse. But another source said the prosecutor was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital only for observation.”

Reading between the lines here, and as a veteran defense attorney once exclaimed to the undersigned—as we sighed “I hate victims” as a witness made his way into court on crutches:

“You have been doing this too long”.

Jim Wagner was right-we just did not realize it until 20 years later.

Read more:

Lawyer of the Day: Public Defender Needs Defending (Above the Law)

TOO SEXY FOR CITIBANK FIRED WOMAN ALLEGES

2010-06-03T09:04:00.001-07:00

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com

NY Post

Is it possible that a woman could be so sexy, even in a conservative business suit, that no men in the office can get any work done?

That is precisely why Debbie Lorenzana claims in her wrongful termination suit that she was fired from her job at Citibank-- her bosses told her they couldn't concentrate on their work because her appearance was “too distracting”.

Lorenzana, a 33-year-old single mom, pointed out female colleagues whose clothing was far more revealing than hers:

"They said their body shapes were different from mine, and I drew too much attention," she says.

"Men are kind of drawn to her," says Tanisha Ritter, a friend and former colleague who also works as a banker and praises Lorenzana's work habits.

"I've seen men turn into complete idiots around her. But it's not her fault that they act this way, and it shouldn't be her problem”, a Village Voice story reports.

Lorenzana's gender discrimination suit was dismissed last month because her deal with Citibank called for any disputes to be settled in private arbitration. She's pressing on with her case there.

"Are you saying that just because I look this way genetically, that this should be a curse for me?" she told the Village Voice, which first reported her case.

In a statement, Citibank said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and we will defend against it vigorously."

View Slide Show (Villiage Voice) [please refrain from shouting "Yea, Baby" if viewing at work].

Read more:

Woman Claims She Was Fired for Being Too Attractive (Above The Law)

Woman says she was from Citibank for being too hot (NY Post)

Is This Woman Too Hot To Be a Banker? (Village Voice)

Curvy Banker Says She Was Fired for Being ‘Too Distracting’ in Business Suit and Heels (ABA J.)

Is This Woman Too Hot To Work At Your Office? (Deal Breaker)

ATTORNEY FINE DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS (JAIL)

2010-06-01T18:05:00.001-07:00

Much as happened (Fine-wise) since we reported that a State Bar judge recommended the disbarment of notorious adjudicated legal bully Richard L. Fine—likened by the State Bar Court to a “gladiator”—and not in a good way.

For one thing, Fine has been disbarred.

For another, Fine has been incarcerated for the last 12 months over his refusal to appear at an Order of Examination and truthfully state what all of his assets are so some of his scorched-earth litigation victims can collect some of the court ordered fines that Fine was ordered to pay.

Then things really went downhill for Fines.

As reported by Legal Pad, quoting the LAT:

“The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Fine's petition to end his confinement. Fine has filed habeas corpus petitions, from his jail cell, at the district, Ninth Circuit and California Supreme Court level. Fine alleges that Yaffe is biased against him because of his work on advocating against judicial perks.

“According to the LAT, Fine intends to continue his battle, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to take up his petition "effectively [puts] an end to his dogged legal quest.”

HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY

2010-05-31T13:40:00.000-07:00

Time to log-off those computers and BBQ some protein.

SUBWAY™ SENDS CEASE AND DESIST LETTER TO “FOOT LONG” PERSONALS AD

2010-05-19T14:49:00.001-07:00

Humor

By Blogonaut

"You are hereby put on notice to cease and desist from using FOOTLONG (TM) in association with sandwiches. You must immediately remove all references to FOOTLONG (TM) in association with sandwiches."

Dreaded words to the shoestring entrepreneur/sandwich vendor to be sure, but the now classic Subway™ cease and desist letter sent to a purveyor of an entirely different kind of “foot long”—PRICELESS.

We must confess to some skepticism at the starting gate to the ability of any corporation to trademark the phrase “footlong”—especially after Jonny Keyes' iconic appearance in Behind the Green Door.

But Subway—the sandwich chain—has embarked on a "savage"—even Jonny-Keyesian—campaign to capture and keep all commercial uses of the synonym for, let’s face it, sexual prowess.

And there is no way to trademark™ that.

Read more: Subway Says Other 'Footlong' Sandwich Sellers Violating Its Trademark

LATEST POLANSKI “VICTIM” TRIES TO REKINDLE HER LONG FADED CELEBRITY

2010-05-19T10:03:00.000-07:00

Opinion

By Blogonaut

Robert Harris has raised some thought provoking questions about actress, Charlotte Lewis’ retention last week of Gloria Alred and the faded star's international press conference announcing that director Roman Polanski “forced himself” on her “in the worst possible way” when she was “only 16 years old”.

Setting aside the facts that the “actress” (who has not worked in 7 years) chose to come forward with this 1983 tale of “abuse” in a Paris apartment not through a quiet word to Los Angeles prosecutors but to the international media with the same press hog (Alred) who represented two of Tiger Woods’ mistresses, that the age of consent in France is 15, and that Lewis never told the tale before: This is not the first press conference wherein the actress mentioned Polanski. Except then, several years after the year of the alleged assault, the actress gushed about how sexy Polanski is, how she would like to know him “physically” but that he had never laid a hand on her!

Not to mention the fact that the occasion for the press conference was her part in a Roman Polanski film that she accepted AFTER the alleged assault occurred.

That’s right, Lewis is now alleging that Polanski “took advantage” of her “in the worst possible way” in 1983—but the alleged experience was not so traumatic that it prevented her from being directed in Polanski’s 1986 film Pirates.

Not only that, the former Playboy centerfold had this to say about Polanski at the time:

"I found him very attractive. I'd love to have had a romantic relationship with him – and a physical one. You can't help falling in love with him. But he didn't want me that way."

But there’s more, a third version by Lewis.

A profile, titled "Wild Child", clearly written with Lewis' cooperation, appeared in the News of the World on 8 August 1999: "In a no-holds-barred interview Charlotte … confessed how she seduced kinky director Polanski when she was a nubile 17-year-old …"

Meanwhile, Gloria Alred—who is perhaps the single most annoying public figure in the media universe—tersely brushed off a press question if Lewis was “"shopping for a book deal" with: "Next question."

Of course she is.

As for Alred’s motivation: Put up a news camera and Klieg lights and she will come.

Read the full Robert Harris piece in the Guardian UK here.

KEY ENDORSEMENTS GO TO MODERATE AG CANDIDATE STEVE COOLEY

2010-05-13T16:20:00.001-07:00

Moderate Republican Steve Cooley has swept California law enforcement endorsements in his quest for California Attorney General.

The District Attorney has been endorsed by the California Narcotic Officers’ Association, the California Peace Officers’ Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, the California Fraternal Order of Police, the California Reserve Peace Officers Association, the Southern California Alliance of Law Enforcement, the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association, the L.A. Airport Peace Officers’ Association, the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association, and the Los Angeles School Police Association.

The third term Los Angeles County District Attorney has also won the endorsement of the Sacramento Bee and San Francisco Chronicle newspapers.

The San Francisco Chronicle said:

“In Cooley, Republicans would be choosing a seasoned, savvy prosecutor with a solid record of accomplishment who would be formidable against any Democrat in November.”

AG CANDIDATE KAMALA HARRIS HAS WORST CONVICTION RATE IN STATE

2010-05-11T11:54:00.001-07:00

Opinion, by Blogonaut

We have made no secret of our view that San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, with her anti-law enforcement views (including refusing to enforce the death penalty in all cases—not to mention dismissing provable charges against the drug crazed man on two burglary probations caught by SFPD on our penthouse balcony where he crouched with a knife, duct tape and rope) is a weak candidate for California’s top prosecutor.

While we were across the street grabbing a cup of Joe this cover story in the SF Weekly (a left wing neighborhood paper that would favor Harris as much as any periodical would) caught our eye:

A Lack of Conviction.

Apparently, if you are charged with murder in San Francisco, and decide to roll the dice on a jury trial, with Kamala Harris as the District Attorney you have a 50-50 chance of beating the rap. Even though Harris takes only the strongest cases to trial, and dismisses the rest:

"In the first quarter of 2010, things got worse. During that time, Harris' office secured guilty verdicts in just 53 percent of its felony trials — a remarkable figure, revealing that defendants accused of serious crimes who took their case to trial had an even one-in-two shot at winning an acquittal. By contrast, the most recent recorded statewide average was 83 percent, according to statistics from the California Judicial Council.

"The general decline in felony trial convictions has included more failures in murder cases specifically, according to records released by the D.A.'s office in response to a request from SF Weekly. From January 2009 through the end of last month, according to the records, Harris has obtained murder or voluntary manslaughter convictions for just 11 out of 20 homicide defendants at trial, with the rest acquitted or convicted on lesser charges."

Read the full SF Weekly cover story on Harris' courtroom record.

Read how Kamala Harris does not even know how many SF cops she convicted of crimes!

[That's right, up to 100 SF police officers have been convicted of crimes, and Harris cannot even tell the Chief of Police who those officers are!]

The bottom line is that if those of you in other counties want to step over drunks and drug addicts laying in the sidewalks, and you are against enforcing the laws on our books--like the death penalty for cop killers and serial killers--then Kamala Harris is YOUR cantidate for California Attorney General.

Which is why, no doubt, Nancy Pelosi has endorsed Harris for Attorney General.

POLANSKI REQUESTS UNSEALING OF CORRUPTION EVIDENCE

2010-04-29T14:13:00.000-07:00

Following our breaking report of a Los Angeles Appeals Court panel ruling refusing to unseal recent testimony pointing to possible skulduggery by (former) prosecutors and the (now dead) sentencing judge, the fugitive director has now made that explicit request in the trial court.

The appeals panel was reluctant to grant Polanski's request, on the technical ground that Polanski's lawyers had not yet formally made the unsealing request to the trial judge before presenting his "writ' application (which is a form of prejudgment request for appellate review that is heard on the merits in a tiny percentage of all cases).

Roman Polanski's lawyers asked a judge Thursday to unseal secret testimony by the original prosecutor in the director's 33-year-old sex case to help Swiss authorities decide his extradition case—LAT reporter Linda Dutch reports in a Associated Press story filed 60 minutes ago.

Attorneys Chad Hummel and Bart Dalton said they need to submit the testimony of retired Deputy District Attorney Roger Gunson to Swiss authorities who are pondering whether to extradite Polanski to the U.S. after decades as a fugitive.

The motion said the transcripts will prove the extradition request is based on false and incomplete statements by the Los Angeles district attorney's office.

"These transcripts are urgently needed," the motion said, seeking a May 10 hearing before Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza.

Gunson testified this year in what is known as a conditional examination. Such proceedings reserve the testimony of a witness who might not be available for future hearings. Espinoza kept the transcripts sealed based on his interpretation of the law governing such examinations. The defense said the interpretation is wrong.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys were present at the closed sessions in February and March, and the defense paraphrased portions of Gunson's testimony from its own notes in a petition to the state appellate court.

Defense lawyers want to provide his exact words to the Swiss authorities.

They noted the district attorney's office previously asked that all hearings and conferences in the case be public "so as to appropriately respect the public's right to know." They argued that the same right to transparency should apply now.

District attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said prosecutors would reserve any comment on the motion for its legal filings.

Meanwhile, as extensively reported here--scroll down the acclaimed septuagenarian director remains under house arrest in his Swiss residence in way-cool Gstaad.

LOS ANGELES COURT OF APPEAL DENIES POLANSKI PETITION

2010-04-22T17:21:00.001-07:00

******BREAKING NEWS*******

By Blogonaut
April 22, 2010

Acting summarily, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District today denied fugitive actor Roman Polanski’s alternative request for a dismissal of the 33 year old sex charges or to unseal the new evidence of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct so the Swiss Authorities may consider that testimony.

The appellate panel decision was short and sweet:

“By petition for writ of mandate filed March 18, 2010, petitioner requests relief from this Court on the basis of new evidence and ask this Court to overturn the magistrates's order sealing a conditional examination transcript. Petitioner has failed to present this evidence to and request his desired relief from the trial court. (Phelan v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 363, 372; Safai v. Savia (2008) 164 Cal. App.4th 233, 243), and he has not established that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Code Vil. (sic) Proc., sec. 1086.) Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that the trial court lacked the discretion under Penal Code section 1193 to refuse to approve Petitoner's absence at sentencing. The petitioner for writ of mandate is Summarily denied.”

In a separate order the same court also denied Polanski 40 year old victim Samantha Geimer’s petition asking for the right to join in Polanski’s dismissal request.

This latest development in the 33 year old case clears the way for the Swiss government to act on Polanski’s bid to have extradition proceedings pending in that country dismissed.

The award winning director has been under house arrest in a gilded cage since his arrest by Swiss authorities under the United States extradition warrant.

This "summary denial" means that Los Angeles prosecutors will not be able to use the decision against Polanski should he be returned to the United States for further court proceedings since the denial was not on the merits of the director's claims.

FRENCH PRESIDENT DELIVERS POLANSKI LETTER TO OBAMA

2010-04-22T12:31:00.001-07:00

Fugitive director Roman Polanski wrote a letter to Barack Obama asking for the president's help with efforts to be sentenced in absentia in his 33-year-old sex-with-a-minor case. The correspondence was delivered to the American leader by Polanski supporter and French President Nicolas Sarkozy during his recent visit to Washington, D.C., French news outlet L'Express reports.

See our prior coverage, here. (Click, then scroll down from this post.)

The Swiss authorities have put Polanski’s extradition proceedings on hold until the California Court of Appeal acts on the director’s and the victim’s respective pending California Court of appeal petitions to dismiss the 33 year old case for judicial and prosecutorial misconduct and/or to at least transmit the testimony proving the misconduct to the Swiss authorities who are holding the 77 award winning director in a gilded cage.

Stay tuned folks.

LA PROSECUTORS: POLANSKI VICTIM HAS NO SAY IN THE MATTER

2010-04-19T15:59:00.000-07:00

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Prosecutors on Friday urged a California appeals court to deny a bid by the victim in Roman Polanski's sex crime to have the decades-old case against the film director thrown out.

In court documents, prosecutors said Samantha Geimer, who was 13 years old when unlawful sex charges were brought against Polanski in 1977, has "no right or authority to dictate the outcome of a criminal case."

Geimer has long sought to end the long-running legal case, arguing that she has become a victim of the battle to bring the fugitive director to justice.

"Samantha Geimer was first victimized by Polanski. Whatever harm was done to her 33 years ago by Polanski is now a memory. Samantha Geimer is currently victimized by the judicial system in the maintenance of a prosecution, stale of fact and devoid of current purpose," her lawyer rgued in court papers.

Geimer was an aspiring child model in 1977 who went to a Hollywood house for a photo-shoot with Polanski. Now a mother of three children who lives quietly in Hawaii, she publicly forgave the director in 1997.

Polanski, now 76, pleaded guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor but fled California in 1978 before being sentenced because he thought the judge at the time would make him spend more time in jail than he had agreed to in a plea bargain.

The Oscar-winning director of "The Pianist" was arrested in Switzerland in September last year on a U.S. warrant and is currently under house arrest in Switzerland.

Swiss officials have said they are awaiting the result of U.S. legal proceedings before deciding whether to extradite him.

Prosecutors have demanded Polanski return to California for sentencing, which could see him spending years in jail.

But Polanski's Los Angeles lawyers are trying to have him sentenced in his absence to the 42 days he already served in 1978 for a psychiatric evaluation. They have also claimed judicial misconduct in the original case.

Read more: Prior Blogonaut Coverage HERE

SF DA DISMISSES 445 DRUG CASES IN POLICE LAB SCANDAL—1,500 MORE CASES FACING DISMISSAL

2010-03-29T19:50:00.001-07:00

San Francisco
March 29, 2010
By Blogonaut

The San Francisco Police Department is in the midst of a colossal drug lab scandal that threatens to cause the dismissal of as many as 1,900 drug cases, and the investigation against SFPD criminalist Deborah Madden—whose tested cocaine samples are “missing” weight—as widened to implicate several more crime lab employees.

No drug lab employees, including Madden, have yet been arrested.

We became aware of the story today when a friend late for jury duty was told not to bother—the case had been dismissed.

That case, against accused cocaine dealer Mario Bell, precipitated the dismissal of at least 45 more drug cases last Friday (including Bell’s), after his attorney, James Senal, asked Judge Anne-Christine Massullo earlier this week to release the internal police investigation into Madden—who is suspected of taking small amounts from cocaine samples she processed for testing.

The judge ordered the release of the 1,000 page internal affairs report last Tuesday to Bell’s attorney, but gave the District Attorney’s Office until last Friday to review the report. After doing so, and determining that other criminalists in addition to Madden were implicated, the DA dismissed 45 additional cases including Bell’s.

Bell was charged with three separate cocaine sales transactions, but the evidence from only one of the sales was tested by Madden.

According to the San Francisco Examiner, the San Francisco District Attorneys Office is considering the dismissal of 750 additional pending drug cases.

In addition to the 445 pending cases already dismissed because of the scandal and the 750 cases reported by the Examiner that are facing dismissal, an unknown quantity of defendants arrested for drug offenses who have not even been charged never will be.

Meanwhile, the number of drug cases that the District Attorney’s Office estimates may be dismissed grows by the day. USA Today reported today—March 29, 2010—that the number of cases facing dismissal or that have been dismissed has grown to 1,900 cases total—a staggering number.

Read more: Drug lab scandal jeopardizes hundreds of cases (SF Chron.)

LA APPEALS COURT RECEPTIVE TO POLANSKI’S RENEWED DISMISSAL BID

2010-03-22T14:05:00.001-07:00

******BREAKING NEWS*******

As we reported in some detail here and here, during the last days of 2009 a Los Angeles appellate panel strongly encouraged LA Superior Court judge Peter Espinoza to allow Roman Polanski—on the lam since a (now deceased) judge and Los Angeles prosecutors violated ethics rules (and the director’s plea-bargain) by conferring in secret, then revealing an intention to double-cross and ambush Polanski at the sentencing hearing (leading the director after he got wind of this to flee to his native France)—to consent to sentencing “in absentia” so Espinoza’s reasons for refusing hear evidence of judicial and prosecutorial corruption would go away.

But when his bluff was called, Judge Espinoza essentially said “hell no” to the court of appeals by flatly rejecting Polanski’s motion to be sentenced “in absentia” as the appellate court recommended.

Following Judge Espinoza’s nose thumb at his own supervising court of appeal, the Swiss authorities who are being asked to extradite the French director into Espinoza’s appellate court defiant, pro-prosecution embrace, balked—placing Polanski’s extradition on indefinite hold.

Polanski’s latest attempt to break that log jam—with the continued support of his now 46 year old “victim”—is his March 18, 2010 court of appeal petition to dismiss the 33 year old statutory rape charge based on new evidence of judicial an prosecutor corruption—or at least to unseal the secret evidence of that corruption and allow Polanski’s attorneys to provide that evidence to Swiss authorities now being asked to return the director to face the same corrupted, 30 year old court case.

A frustrated Los Angeles appeals court apparently agrees that Polanski’s latest allegations have potential merit, because they have taken the rare step of ordering Los Angeles prosecutors to file a written explanation of why the director’s latest court of appeal peitition to dismiss should not be granted:

“The court has read and considered the petition for writ of mandate filed herein March 18, 2010. The People are requested to serve and file opposition, on or before March 30, 2010.”

And so the plot thickens—stay tuned…..

NEW POLANSKI APPEAL REVEALS MORE OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT BY JUDGE, DA’S

2010-03-18T19:53:00.001-07:00

******BREAKING NEWS*****

March 18, 2010

By Blogonaut

As we reported in the last days of 2009 here, on December 21, 2009, the California Court of Appeal in Los Angeles issued an opinion in response to fugitive and award winning director Roman Polanski’s request to dismiss the decades old statutory rape case against him, but strongly suggesting that prosecutors cut a deal with Polanski—or that the Lost Angeles Superior Court at least consider allowing the director to be sentenced without having to return to a Los Angeles court room so that procedurally the Superior Court could then look into and act on Polanski’s motion to dismiss for alleged serious misconduct by the now dead trial judge and several prosecutors.

Despite this firm “advice” by the California appeals court, earlier this year Judge Peter P. Espinoza of Los Angeles Superior Court has stubbornly refused requests by Mr. Polanski’s lawyers to dismiss his case or sentence him in absentia or to review claims of official misconduct in the prosecution.

Polanski was arrested in Switzerland last year when the director left his primary home in France (who has refused to extradite Polanski) to attend an award ceremony.

While Los Angeles prosecutors’ request to extradite Polanski back to a Los Angeles courtroom dragged on, Polanski has been released from a Swiss jail to remain under house arrest in his fabulous villa in uber luxurious Gstaad.

The Swiss had earlier announced that a decision on Polanski’s fate could be handed down any time, but after Judge Espinoza refused to implement any of the suggestion ways in which the matter might be resolved short of the director’s waiver of extradition, in February of this year the Swiss then announced that they were putting the matter on indefinite hold until the courts of appeal in California had a definitive ruling on whether the director could be sentenced without returning to the U.S.

The other shoe dropped today with a new Los Angeles appeals court filing by Polanski that brought with it disclosure of sealed testimony about secret dealings between high-ranking prosecutors and a now deceased judge in the director’s three decades old statutory rape plea.

According to today’s story in the New York Times:

“The 68-page petition asks the California Court of Appeals for the Second District, in Los Angeles, to act on an emergency basis. It argues, among other things, that the court should free Mr. Polanski by imposing a sentence for time served, or at least make the sealed testimony alleging wrongdoing available to Swiss authorities.”

Polanski’s allegations of wrongdoing involve highly improper contacts between the (now deceased) trial judge and two high ranking prosecutors with the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office, who have been identified as Stephen S. Trott, who was the chief deputy of the Los Angeles district attorney’s office, and Michael J. Montagna, a supervising deputy, according to testimony described in the petition and detailed in the Times story.

“One or both of the prosecutors met in the summer of 1977 with Judge Rittenband, who is now deceased, after [Roger Gunson, a deputy district attorney who prosecuted Mr. Polanski after his 1977 arrest] told them he intended to file an application to disqualify the judge because of misconduct, according to the petition’s account. The pair later told Mr. Gunson that the judge had “admitted all of the alleged misconduct,” according to the petition, but they denied Mr. Gunson permission to file the disqualification motion”, the times reports.

The appeals writ application today by lawyers for Polanski, described a series of sworn interviews in February and March during which Gunson described his severe misgivings about the conduct of the case, the Times reports.

Montagna told the Times he denies any improper contacts Gunson refused to comment, and Trott, who is now a senior federal appeals judge, declined comment.

In the meantime Polanski’s alleged victim in the case who is now an adult woman in her 40’s is adamant that the director has been punished enough and her attorney has joined in Polanski’s prior requests for a dismissal of the 33 year old charges.

SPECTOR APPEAL: TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY TESTIFIED ON VIDEO TAPE

2010-03-11T21:01:00.001-08:00

Phil Spector trial judge Larry Fidler

Constitutional prohibition on trial judge giving testimony threatens to derail conviction

By Blogonaut

March 11, 2010

Phillip Spector’s Opening Brief on Appeal (“AOB”) contains a very surprising issue, and one that if found by the court of appeal to be error is almost certain to result in a reversal and remand for a new trial. Here is the story:

At the first trial the prosecution’s criminalist Lynn Herold testified (and later reiterated in a December, 2008 statement) that after 6 years of investigation, the physical evidence could not exclude the possibility that Lana Clarkson committed suicide.

But by the time the state criminalist testified in trial #2 she had dramatically changed that opinion, stating that blood spatter allegedly noted by rookie evidence technician Jamie Lintemoot on the back of Clarkson’s hand—“evidence” that the criminalist was allegedly unaware of until she testified in trial #2 and that Lintemoot never documented —persuaded the criminalist that suicide was impossible.

Understandably, defense counsel Doron Weinberg vigorously cross-examined Lintemoot on this alleged blood spatter evidence, because Lintemoot’s report was so vague on where the blood was seen on Clarkson’s hand that she was called into a meeting with the coroner (who did not see the blood) and criticized about the inadequate documentation.

To counter Weinberg’s implication based on his reading aloud from Lintemoot’s prior trial testimony (in trial #1) that the blood was not on the back of Clarkson’s hand at all, the prosecution was allowed to introduce a Court TV video tape of Lintemoot’s prior testimony pointing to areas on her hand where she claims to have seen blood on Clarkson’s hand.

Prosecutor Truc Do falsely represented to the court (and falsely told the jury during her part of the closing argument when the video was again shown to the jury several times) that the Lintemoot video taped testimony took place in front of the jury during trial #1, and therfore explaned the very prior testimony that Doron Weinberg had called into question by showing Lintemoot's clarifying gestures (allegedly) while giving that prior testimony.

But the prior testimony by Lintemoot was not part of the prior trial evidence at all, instead taking place out of the jury's presence during a hearing related to whether one of Spector’s lawyers in trial #1 could be compelled by the prosecution to testify that she saw Dr. Henry Lee remove an object from the crime scene during a defense visit. In other words, Lintemoot's gestures on the video tape did not explain the prior testimony that Weinberg read from at all. The video tape was made at an entirely different hearing.

But the error is far worse than prosecutor Truc Do's misrepresentation of when the testimony was given (and therefore whether the video tape was even relevant).

Trial Judge Larry Fidler is depicted in the video tape as well, describing for the record the areas on Lintemoot’s hand where Judge Fidler claimed he saw Lintemoot pointing to while on the witness stand to show where the blood was on Clarkson’s hand (which only the judge could see clearly at the hearing).

In other words, the video tape showed the very judge who was presiding over the retrial trial giving what amounted to video taped testimony about where on Clarkson’s hand Lintemoot claimed during the first trial to have seen blood splatter—blood spatter that was never seen by anyone else and that was not described as to precise location in Lintemoot’s report.

Blood spatter that was so crucial to the case it caused the state’s criminalist Lynn Herold to change her testimony during the first trial from “suicide cannot be ruled out” to suicide is “impossible”.

In addition, prosecutor Truc Do admitted during her closing argument in trial #2 that Lintemoot’s testimony regarding blood spatter evidence was the most important in the case, stating that this “…this was the single piece of evidence that [the defense] cannot explain away. It is absolutely [inconsistent] with Lana Clarkson holding the gun.”

All of this is very problematic for the prosecution because as a matter of federal constitutional law (as well as California statute) a trial judge may not testify to the jury in the very matter that he is presiding over.

But the prosecution showed the video tape of Judge Fidler explaining exactly where he saw Lintemoot testify she saw blood spatter on Clarkson’s hands to the jury several times during its summation to bolster Lintemoot’s undocumented assertion during trial #2 that she saw blood on the back of Clarkson’s hands—which in turn was the sole foundation for criminalist Lynn Herold’s change in testimony in trial #2—for the first time testifying that suicide was impossible.

The bottom line?

If the court of appeal concludes that showing Spector’s retrial jury the video of Judge’s Fidler describing where on Clarkson’s hand Lintemoot allegedly saw blood spatter was the equivalent of Judge Fidler “testifying” in trial #2—and under the case law we do not see any way around that conclusion—then Spector’s conviction must be reversed unless the error was “harmless” as a matter of law.

But how can the error be harmless if prosecutor Truc Do has already told the jury during her summation that the location of the Lintemoot observed (but undocumented) blood splatter was the most important evidence in the case as well as “the single piece of evidence that [the defense] cannot explain away”?

And how can this error be harmless if Lintemoot’s undocumented testimony that she saw blood spatter on Clarkson’s had was the sole reason why the state’s criminalist changed her testimony, claiming for the first time in trial #2 that a Clarkson suicide could not have happened?

Stay tuned, as we intend over the coming days to highlight the other arguments on appeal Spector makes in his AOB.

However, we believe that this issue—standing alone—is sufficient to virtually guarantee Phil Spector a new trial.

LONG AWAITED PHIL SPECTOR OPENING BRIEF ON APPEAL FILED

2010-03-10T16:55:00.001-08:00

Appellate attorney Dennis P. Riordan confers with his client

*****BREAKING NEWS*****

March 10, 2010

Imprisoned music producer Phillip Spector has just filed his long awaited Opening Brief on Appeal (“AOB”)—all 164 pages of it!

This brief is the foundation for the music producer’s bid for a reversal of his second degree murder conviction and for a new trial.

We are reading and analyzing Spector’s AOB as we speak, and we will be posting our analysis early next week.

Many thanks to top notch Phillip Spector appellate counsel Dennis P. Riordan, who was kind enough to provide us with an electronic copy of the AOB for our review. (It is always a treat to read a brief filed by the venerable Riordan & Horgan.)

We note from the cover page of the AOB that Mr. Riordan’s co-counsel in the matter is famed criminal appellate attorney Chuck Savilla of San Diego, California.

Now that is an appellate dream team!

Stay tuned, because from here on out it gets very interesting.

LA DA’S RETALIATION “STRIKING AND RAMPANT,” FEDERAL JUDGE FINDS

2010-03-04T19:40:00.000-08:00

LAT

U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II has issued a preliminary injunction against Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, expressly finding that Cooley's retaliation against union members in his office is “striking and rampant” and in violation of law, the Los Angeles times reported yesterday.

The injunction orders Cooley and other Los Angeles County officials not to discipline or discriminate against prosecutors for belonging to the union that represents hundreds of local deputy district attorneys.

The order and findings were made in a lawsuit filed by the District Attorneys Union alleging that Cooley and others transferred to remote offices, demoted and gave sub par job performance reviews to prosecutors in retaliation for union membership and activities in violation of federal law.

Cooley, who is the county's top prosecutor, could be held in contempt of court if he ignores the order.

The order comes at a bad time for Cooley, who recently announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for California Attorney General.

COPS RAISE POSSIBILITY OF BAY AREA SHRINK’S PROSECUTION IN BOSTON ON CHILD MOLEST CHARGES

2010-03-03T13:35:00.001-08:00

Joel Silver can still remember his private sessions with child psychiatrist William H. Ayres at a renowned Boston guidance center decades ago, the Boston Herald reports (image, second to the left front-page column-below-the-fold).

“I thought he was going to ask me why I didn’t like school. That’s why I whas there. But everything was sexual.’’

Ayres’ alleged misconduct as a Harvard affiliated psychiatrist 50 years ago is relevant because in 30 days the San Francisco Bay Area child psychiatrist will be retried on allegations that he molested several patients in his San Mateo, California practice over the last 30 years; Ayers' criminal trial last year on the decades old allegations ended in a hung jury.

Ayres, who is 78 and a former president of the American Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, insists he is innocent of the charges he is facing. “He has spent almost all his life working with children and being dedicated to the community, so he’s anxious to clear his reputation and his name,’’ said Jonathan D. McDougall, Ayres’s lawyer—who took over for Ayres after the embattled shrink’s first attorney, Doron Weinberg, bowed out of the case after the first jury refused to unanimously convict on the decades old evidence presented.

Five years ago, Ayres paid $395,000 to settle a civil suit filed by a California man who was barred from pursuing criminal charges only because his allegations of abuse were too old to prosecute. The settlement expressly provided that Dr. Ayres admitted no wrongdoing—but questions remain.

According to the Boston Globe article, officials at Harvard Medical School and Children’s Hospital acknowledged that Ayres was an instructor at Harvard and a resident child psychiatrist at the Judge Baker Guidance Center, from 1959 to 1963. Since then, the Center has been renamed the Judge Baker Children’s Center, located on Mission Hill.

Officials at Harvard and Children’s also stressed that they have no complaints on file against Ayres.

Boston area law enforcement officials are interested in Ayres in part because they might be able to prosecute him if they can show he committed crimes against children while living in Massachusetts. That’s because the clock in the state’s statute of limitations - the period after a crime during which prosecutors may file charges - would have stopped when Ayres crossed state lines to begin a new life in California. Normally, civil and criminal statues of limitation are “tolled” (the time clock to sue or prosecute is halted) during the time period that an alleged wrongdoer is outside of the state where the alleged offenses occurred.

Meanwhile, scores of now adult men (and their families) who consider themselves alleged victims of the now notorious child therapist eagerly await the upcoming San Mateo molest trial as promising some form of “closure”.

Ayres at age 77 and in ill health, in the meantime, has literally become a an infirm shell of his former self and it remains to be seen what satisfaction (if any) can be afforded his many alleged bicoastal victims through his incarceration—should he be convicted of the charges (which appears likely) and should he live long enough to be punished for his alleged crimes—let alone remember them—(which appears less certain).

JUDGE JAILS 20 MINUTE LATE JUROR FOR MOM’S SURGERY, CHILDCARE ISSUES

2010-03-03T11:06:00.001-08:00

A Michigan trial judge has ordered a stay-at-home mom to attend a murder trial as a spectator and then to do 24 hours in jail because she was 20 minutes late to jury selection due to her mother’s oral surgery and child care arrangements that fell through.

Carmela Khury, was juggling child care, her mother’s surgery, and a summons to appear for jury duty.

When she was late for jury selection because her mother was having surgery, a backup babysitter fell through and her husband was already at work, she called the court. Told the judge would arrest her if she didn't appear, she arrived late along with her 8-month-old and 3-year-old, the Detroit Free Press reports.

Acting without a hearing, advisement of rights, or appointed counsel—and with no opportunity to present a defense, Judge Leo Bowman found her in contempt, ordered her to sit as a spectator for the expected two-week-long murder trial and sentenced her to 24 hours in the county jail, and ordered her to report to jail immediately after the trial.

What a gentleman!

In addition to holding Khury for days, the judge also detained Ramesh Sapra, a businessman, who told Bowman jury service would cause his small company harm because it was facing an upcoming deadline.

Fortunately for the people of the great state of Michigan—as well as Judge Leo Bowman’s future victims of this walking violation of civil rights—Judge Bowman is under investigation by Michigan judicial watchdog authorities.

STEVE COOLEY PRIMARY OPPONENT HIGHLIGHTS DIFFERENCES IN TV AD

2010-02-26T13:14:00.000-08:00

We will let this ad, produced by one of incumbent Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley’s Republican primary opponents for Attorney General speak for itself—and simply comment that the ad highlights Cooley’s obstacles to securing the Republican nomination from unreasonable right-wing voters in the face of sensible Cooley policies (like his opposition to the 3-strikes law).

CONTROVERSY SURROUNDS REPUBLICAN COOLEY AS HE SEEKS TO BE CALIFORNIA’S TOP PROSECUTOR

2010-02-23T12:09:00.001-08:00

With no household name Democrat declared in the race to fill incumbent Jerry Brown’s shoes as California’s out-going top prosecutor, the hopes of California Republican’s have been reportedly buoyed by the recent entry of third term Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley into the race for State Attorney General.

But those thinking that Cooley might trounce the ultimate Democratic nominee from the current field of six “no name” candidates for AG should think again.

Among the Democrats, Kamala Harris, 45, outpaced her opponents to collect $2.2 million last year, some it from such Los Angeles household names as Steven Spielberg and David Geffen—but Harris—who is San Francisco’s incumbent District attorney—has no chance of being elected attorney general due to her categorical opposition to the death penalty, including in a recent San Francisco case involving the cold blooded murder of a police officer---not to mention an otherwise dismal prosecutorial record in San Francisco.

But several obstacles lie in the path of liberal Republican Cooley’s swearing in as California Attorney General in 2011.

First, Cooley, who is on the left to middle side of the spectrum for a Republican prosecutor—how else could he be elected three times as district attorney in Democrat leaning Los Angeles County—must survive a Republican primary midterm election dominated by the statewide Republican faithful expected to turn out for the primary election in the greatest numbers. Can Cooley appeal to the party faithful in traditional republican strongholds like Orange County and the Central Valley while retaining his moderate cross-over appeal that assured his reelection in Hollywood? That remains to be seen.

Second, Cooley has been plagued of late with internal office dissension—leading Cooley’s deputy district attorney who oversees criminal filings for most of Los Angeles to say:

“"There is a lot of apparent acrimony between the administration and the union””, and leading another veteran prosecutor to describe the infighting in the District Attorney’s Office as a “snake’s nest”.
(Source: Los Angeles Daily News.)

It is perhaps the former issue—Cooley’s current legal troubles regarding union allegations of retaliation and demotions of employee’s supporting unionization of the office—that provide the most likely obstacle to Cooley’s success in a general election for California Attorney General.

For example, Cooley is accused of shifting pro-union attorneys to postings a much longer commute from their homes, trimming benefits, demotions, and bad job performance reviews—all as political pay-back.

And, according to Los Angeles news sources, U.S. District Court Judge Otis D. Wright II is leaning toward a findings that Cooley committed the above charged misconduct. (Source: Los Angeles Daily News.)

"Is it just coincidence that we have experienced deputies suddenly finding themselves in Pomona or at Los Padrinos (Juvenile Hall)?" [Judge] Wright asked. "Is it just a co-inkydink?"

Should liberal Steven Cooley make it past a field of two other Republican’s in the primary election, that (among others) is question that California voters must answer on election day.
..
UPDATE—from the Recorder’s Legal Pad Blog:

http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/02/aghopeful-cooley-to-challenge-la-pot-dispensaries-.html

A.G.-Hopeful Cooley to Challenge L.A. Pot Dispensaries
[Cynthia Foster]

L.A. County District Attorney Steve Cooley, who recently announced his intent to run for California attorney general, may be trying to gain some political capital among conservative voters by waging war against medical marijuana dispensaries.

Cooley's office announced today that it is charging noted dispensary owner Jeff Joseph, of popular Organica in Venice, with 24 felonies related to the unlawful sale of marijuana. Cooley "warned that state law does not allow dispensaries to sell medical marijuana," according to LAT.
Joseph's case, which was intensely investigated by police and federal agents, has the potential to test whether state law permits dispensaries to sell marijuana.

A court commissioner set Joseph's bail at $520,000, which his sister and mother tearfully announced he does not have. Joseph's attorney, Eric Shevin, says that the charges are political and that Joseph was targeted due to his pot club's notoriety. Cooley's office denies these claims and says that other dispensary owners are facing charges as well.

EXTREME WEATHER STORIES

2010-02-09T14:49:00.000-08:00

Someday we will tell you about our trip to a strip-mined out armpit near the upper Great Lakes called Houghton Michigan during a 100 year snow storm at 25 below zero, clad in an unlined overcoat, a suit, and Gucci shoes. Three identical and utterly depressing motels in town that smell vaguely of the chemicals used to clean up after the last guy blew his brains out there (a real temptation, believe me). Three bar and grills (in reality pizza joints serving hard liquor), pick one, doesn’t matter which one, the plan being to get as drunk as possible and then (try to) sleep through the night, but you have to move your car from the main drag by 11:00 pm for the snow plow and the motel room water smells of chlorine when you drink it and on your skin after you shower in it, and the next morning the stinking lobby does not even have a coffee machine let alone a coffee shop, and we are loudly crunching 8 foot of hard snow pack with our loafers down the main drag walking the three blocks to the law firm hosting the deposition thinking man, this town really is at the bottom of the barrel, then listening to some baby lawyer from a 2,000 NYC law firm go on and on in excruciating detail about how our food distributor client allegedly damaged Nabisco by selling stale Gummy Bears, and us, not caring any more, for the first time in our life walking out of a depo, announcing to the baby lawyer that he could stay all week and ask questions about stale Gummy Bears, but we are not missing the last fricking flight out of this town at 3:30 PM so good bye, we fly back to Detroit, get on a plane back to SF and count ourselves lucky because plenty of others got so depressed in that toilet of a motel between 3:00 and 4:00 in the morning that they (no doubt) hung themselves from the curtain rod and wound up part of the snow pack behind the motel ….

LEONARD COHEN SHRUGS OFF LOSS OF ESTATE TO FORMER MGR WITH GRAMMY AWARD, SOLD OUT VENUES

2010-02-04T11:07:00.001-08:00

Regular readers of this blog are well aware that the singer, songwriter, and 60’s icon Leonard Cohen suffered a financial blow in his 70’s that would have relegated most of us to the fetal position—if not a lifetime of food stamps: the loss of his entire $6 million retirement nest-egg to his former manager, against whom the music legend has a completely uncollectible $7.9 million judgment.

But unlike the rest of us, let alone the pool of former music greats who now languish in obscurity, Cohen deftly landed on his feet with a multi-year, international, wildly successful and critically acclaimed world tour—coming back more popular than ever, more financially secure than ever.

What could be a more fitting emblem of the comeback story of the decade that the lifetime achievement award presented to Leonard Cohen at the Grammy Awards last Sunday, next to Cohen’s (posthumous) co-award recipient Michael Jackson?

Congratulations Leonard Cohen, you are awesome!

Read more: Michael Jackson, Leonard Cohen win special Grammys
.
Related: MTV Newsroom Leonard Cohen, John Cale Rule 'Hallelujah' Poll Results

SACRAMENTO JUDGE MCBRIAN BITCH SLAPPED BY CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL WATCH-DOG AGENCY

2010-01-12T12:06:00.001-08:00

We were recently notified by the Commission on Judicial Performance—the often toothless judicial watch-dog agency in charge of disciplining California’s state court judges—that Sacramento Family Court judge Peter J. McBrien has been given a “strong public censure”.

Not toothless this time.

This is the CJP equivalent of what in street parlance would be referred to as a “bitch-slap”, for, among other things, threatening to declare a mistrial when female out-of-town counsel requested 5 minutes to use the restroom and walking off the bench before the trial was finished never to return. (Can you spell H-O-M-E T-O-W-N-E-D?) Not to mention vindictively trying (and succeeding) to get the husband in the divorce case fired from his state job based on McBrien's personal embroilment in the case and after hours vendetta.

We will let the words of the CJP in its lengthy opinion speak for themselves.

A teaser from the opinion:

“While presiding over a family law matter over a period of months, Judge McBrien engaged in a course of serious misconduct which rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, denied a litigant his due process right to complete his presentation of evidence, and culminated in the judge’s lengthy investigation of a litigant’s possible violation of the law without disclosing his actions to the parties. We conclude that a severe public censure is warranted based on the gravity of this misconduct, coupled with Judge McBrien’s pervasive lack of accountability and insight into the impropriety of his conduct.”

Translation: Hiz Honor messed-up big-time and completely screwed the pooch, but is so-far-gone that after all of the formal legal charges and a trial he just doesn't get it—therefore this “bitch-slap”.

LOS ANGELES COURT TO POLANSKI PROSECUTORS: CUT A DEAL

2009-12-31T10:10:00.001-08:00

In a highly unusual and lengthy (70 page) slip opinion, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles has declined to overturn a trial judge’s refusal to entertain award winning director Roman Polanski’s bid to dismiss the 32 year old pending “statutory rape” conviction against him due to his fugitive status.

However, the appellate court to the stars (the same court that will be weighing convicted music producer Phil Spector’s fate in late 2010) suggested that Polanski allow himself to be sentenced without returning to the United States and could then raise his claims of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct at the time of sentencing—without ever setting foot back on US soil.

The director is currently being held in a gilded cage: He is is under “house arrest” in his fabulous villa in ultra-exclusive Gstaad while a Swiss court decides whether to ship Polanski back to Los Angeles to face the charges he fled over three decades ago.

The court of appeal panel also emphasized the substantial evidence identified by the trial court supporting the serious prosecutorial and judicial misconduct that the famous fugitive has alleged:

“The trial judge now presiding over the matter, Judge Espinoza, has already indicated that at a sentencing hearing Polanski would be able to fully litigate the allegations of misconduct and a prior pledge by Judge Rittenband as to Polanski's punishment: At the same hearing at which Judge Espinoza ruled that he would not entertain Polanski's section 385 request, he also stated, “[H]aving reviewed all of the evidence in this case, notwithstanding the People's assertion that the misconduct that occurred is still in dispute, there was substantial, it seems to me, misconduct that occurred during the pendency of the case which will be among the many factors that would be considered by me and any other court that would sentence Mr. Polanski. He had a plea agreement with Judge Rittenband. Unfortunately, Judge Rittenband is long since deceased, but the terms and conditions of that plea agreement are well known.”

The panel went on to comment:

“We are disturbed by the district attorney's refusal in the briefing submitted to this court to address or consider what appears to be an admission by a former member of the district attorney's office that he: engaged in highly improper ex parte communications with a judge about a pending matter; recommended the misuse of a sentencing tool as a punishment; deliberately provoked the judge against a defendant based on a newspaper photograph and no further information; and pursued a personal agenda against a defendant. Such profoundly unethical conduct, if proven to be true, strikes at the heart of the prosecutor's role as a guardian of systemic integrity.”

But the appellate court saved the best for last, all but instructing prosecutors to cut a deal with the fugitive director:

“We exhort all participants in this extended drama to place the integrity of the criminal justice system above the desire to punish any one individual, whether for his offense or for his flight. As Justice Murphy wrote in dissent in Eisler, supra, 338 U.S. at pages 194 and 195, “Our country takes pride in requiring of its institutions the examination and correction of alleged injustice whenever it occurs. We should not permit an affront of this sort to distract us from the performance of our constitutional duties.” We encourage all participating parties to do their utmost to ensure that this matter now draws to a close in a manner that fully addresses the issues of due process and fundamental fairness raised by the events of long ago.”

Therefore, while Polanski did not obtain the outright dismissal he sought, the 70 page appellate decision was clearly a victory for the fugitive director. Los Angeles prosecutors have been ordered to investigate the alleged misconduct of one of their own, and if found to be true, to ask the trial judge to dismiss the case.

In any event, the court of appeal has instructed "all participants" (read as judge and prosecutors) to place the interests of the intgrity of the justice system over punishing Polanski for his crime--or even his flight from justice 32 years ago.

Polanski v. Superior Court (2009) __Cal.App.4th__, 2009 WL 4894667

MERRY CHRISTMAS BLOGONAUT READERS

2009-12-24T08:51:00.000-08:00

We will be back after the Holidays. Enjoy yours—no matter which religious holiday that you celebrate!

VICTIM’S ATTORNEY: DISMISS ROMAN POLANSKI CASE

2009-12-14T08:54:00.000-08:00

AP hearing video link, above.

Courtesy of the New York Times, we have learned additional details about last week’s Los Angeles hearing before a California appeals court: The now 46 year old victim addressed the court—which is considering Polanski’s bid to compel the trial court to consider his long-distance motion to dismiss the charges—and through her attorney has demanded dismissal of the charges.

As observed by the Times:

“Roman Polanski is getting help from his victim in a bid to have sex misconduct charges against him dismissed.

“The attorney for Samantha Geimer, who long ago publicly identified herself, argued for an end to the 32-year-old case on Thursday, saying she has repeatedly said she wants it dropped.”

The times reported:

“Geimer's attorney, Lawrence Silver, argued for dismissal on grounds of a recently adopted law allowing victims to have a say in cases.

“Justice Fred Woods responded that when the law was passed, ''No one could have anticipated the facts of this case.''

“Silver added, ''No one in this room would say the proceedings were fair. Thirty-two years is enough.''”

This request for dismissal by the now adult victim adds an additional dimension to an already interesting and unique set of circumstances: The very rare instance (at least in non-domestic violence cases) where the criminally accused is aided in his defense by the alleged victim.

How the prosecution can put on a 32 year old statutory rape case without the cooperation of the alleged victim is not known.

Earlier this year, Polanski's attorneys made similar arguments for dismissal in a Los Angeles court, and Judge Peter Espinoza said "substantial misconduct" did occur.

But in May, Espinoza refused to dismiss the case, saying Polanski must first surrender on the charges—leading to last week’s appeal hearing.

Video: Polanski victim requests dismissal (AP)

POLANSKI CASE HEARD BY CALIFORNIA COURT AS DIRECTOR CHILLS IN TONEY VILLA

2009-12-11T13:17:00.001-08:00

As Oscar winning—and fugitive—director Roman Polanski hangs at his chalet (under house arrest) in ultra-exclusive Gstaad (think Prince Charles, Rodger Moore, and international royalty of all sorts)—a California court of appeal is mulling over Polanski’s bid to return his motion to dismiss the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Peter Espinoza for an up-or-down determination on whether Espinoza should dismiss all charges against the director due to alleged judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

Judge Espinoza decided earlier this year that while Polanski had presented compelling evidence that 32 years ago and before the director fled to Europe from his Los Angeles home that his original trial judge (now deceased) improperly communicated with a member of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in aid of ambushing Polanski at his stenciling hearing, the judge was powerless to decide the case since Polanski is a fugitive—albeit a sable lined fugitive.

This hearing took place yesterday, in a Los Angeles courtroom at the California Court of Appeal.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

“An attorney for Roman Polanski urged a California appeals court panel Thursday to throw out the filmmaker's 1977 child sex case, citing what he called an "astonishing record of misconduct" by the district attorney's office and the judge who originally handled the case.

”Chad S. Hummel argued that Judge Laurence J. Rittenband improperly discussed with a prosecutor how to punish Polanski and threatened to lock up the director for a longer period if his attorney challenged the judge's decision to return Polanski to prison.”"

""It sends chills up your spine what this judge was doing," Hummel told the three appellate court justices in downtown Los Angeles.”"

The court of appeal is not expected to decide the issue of whether Polanski's case should be dumped, but only whether Judge Espinoza erred when he found earlier this year that a long line of prior appeal cases prevent a fugitive defendant from challenging their criminal cases until they surrender.

Up until now the universally applied rule is that fugitive criminal defendants have no standing to appeal their convictions, which appeals have been routinely dismissed in such circumstances.

By law the court of appeal’s decision must issue within 90 days.

Meanwhile, Polanski (as with other high-profile fugitives only recently arrested after decades of flight—think Susan Olsen)—now faces a much harsher sentencing environment and political mood toward most crimes. Especially crimes of “indiscretion” involving teen girls, no matter how “experienced” the girl was at the time, or how forgiving the victim has become in her adult years.

Stay tuned folks. It’s goanna get interesting.

ABOVE THE LAW BOG’S EDGY APPEAL THREATENED BY BEAN COUNTERS

2009-12-10T18:54:00.001-08:00

We stumbled upon this ABA Journal article presaging a possi
ble shake-up at the ground-breaking Above the Law blog.

ATL owes its caché and readership to David Lat--who has a golden history of creating , and nurturing a loyal blog readership (e.g., Beneath their Robes, Wonkette--forgive me, the three most successful niche blogs in the history of the non-Bosnian world).

That said, David Lat is above all a creative force who delivers page views by the zillions when left to his edgy best.

If anything, it has been the corporate interference of the present ownership group that has suppressed Lat’s (and therefore its portfolio of blog’s) edgy appeal.

We have no doubt that whatever David Lat is at once a brand and a creative force, and that wherever he winds up he will be on the cutting edge.

But bean counters have no place in a business model founded on edgy creativity.

And that is the ‘bottom line’.

Above the Law Gets New Management; Readers Wonder about Lat, Mystal (ABA J.)

500 POUND DEFROCKED VEGAS JUDGE HIT WITH $50,000 LIBEL JUDGMENT

2009-12-10T03:50:00.001-08:00

Long time readers of this blog will surely remember Las Vegas Judge Elizabeth Halverson—who was removed from the bench following a long soap opera consisting of allegations that she made her bailiff rub her feet, and other petty abuses of power (in addition to dining with jurors and falling asleep on the bench).

To browse the many highly amusing Halverson related posts on this blog, see here. (Scroll down.)

And now this from Above the Law:

"A one-time legal assistant to ousted District Judge Elizabeth Halverson won a $50,000 judgment Tuesday in the defamation case she filed against Halverson in 2007. District Judge David Wall on Tuesday ordered Halverson to pay the money and to return files to the assistant, Ileen Spoor….

"Wall denied Spoor’s claim for $100,000 in punitive damages. Halverson did not attend the proceedings."

For our prior coverage of the Spoor vs. Halverson libel suit, see here (think Alien vs. Predator).

FAMED TEXAS TRIAL LAWYER JOHN O QUINN DEAD AFTER SUV CRASH

2009-11-24T12:55:00.000-08:00

****Breaking*****

Texas trial lawyer John O Quinn has died as the result of the SUV he was driving at high speed in the rain leaving the road, the ABA Journal Reports.

Quinn’s employee, Johnny Cutliff, was also killed in the crash.

According to media reports, Quinn was driving more than 30 miles per hour over the published 40 MPH speed limit at the time of the single vehicle accident.

John O'Quinn is widely acknowledged as one of the most accomplished trial lawyers of his time, holding some of the largest verdicts and settlements in the country.

PAGEANT LAWYER USES SEX TAPE TO FORCE EX-MISS CALIFORNIA'S LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT-SOURCES REPORT

2009-11-05T16:38:00.001-08:00

From the ABA Journal

Former Miss California Carrie Prejean is accepting a lot less than the $1 million she sought in her lawsuit against pageant organizers because lawyers for the beauty pageant obtained, and used, a “solo sex tape” featuring the beauty in settlement negotiations—the ABA Journal, citing CNN reports.

Read More

LAWYER WHO CHOKED DOG, BEAT WIFE IS STATE BAR PANEL MEMBER

2009-11-05T10:57:00.001-08:00

Nevada State Bar hearing panelist, dog choker, wife beater, and common drunk Ed Miley, Esq.

We recently posted about the arrest of Vegas criminal defense lawyer Ed Miley for getting white-trash-drunk, choking the family dog, assaulting his wife, then discharging a firearm into the backyard (pretty much in that order)—our angle being the irony of the beaten spouse being Judge Stephanie Miley, the Vegas jurist who was voted in last year to replace disgraced (and later defrocked) Vegas Judge Elizabeth Halverson, whose husband also beat the 425-500 pound former jurist that everyone loves to hate. (See here and here.)

We now post to inform of the further irony in the case—that being the new info that thuggish wife beater, common drunk, and choker of gentle family pets Ed Miley, amazingly, for the last 12 years has served on a bar disciplinary panel that sits in judgment of Southern Nevada (i.e. Vegas) lawyers who allegedly transgress—er—get caught transgressing—Nevada bar ethics rules (such as they are in the "All For Our Country" state).

According to today’s article in the Las Vegas Sun news paper (that also describes the misdemeanor “citation” of a Vegas “attorney” who was disbarred in two Midwestern states, but never licensed in Nevada):

“[Mr. Miley] is well versed in how his profession deals with a lawyer who, like himself, winds up being charged with crimes.

“It turns out that for the past 12 years, Miley — who’s facing felony and misdemeanor charges stemming from an Oct. 1 altercation with his wife of 12 years, District Judge Stefany Miley — has been a member of the State Bar’s local disciplinary board.

“He’s among a pool of 49 lawyers in Southern Nevada who are called upon from time to time to hand out punishments to their colleagues who have run afoul of the standards of their profession.”

Why we are not surprised?

Read more.

IVY LEAGUERS TEAR PROFESSOR JONES TO PIECES OVER POORLY WRITTEN COMPLAINT AGAINST ABOVE THE LAW BLOG

2009-11-03T18:10:00.000-08:00

11-4-2009 UPDATE, via Above the Law:
Breaking: Jones v. Minkin Dismissed!!!(Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses lawsuit against ATL.)

Apparently, Professor Jones tired of the 24 hours of verbal pummeling that he was receiving from all corners of the Blogosphere and saw the handwriting on the wall regarding where his suit was headed--i.e the world's most frivolous lawsuits bin. Anyhow, its over.

In case you missed the major blawg story of the day (and probably the year) University of Miami law professor D. Marvin Jones —who made the pages of this blog when he was arraigned on charges that he allegedly solicited a hooker—has the law Blogosphere’s panties in a twist over his lawsuit against the legal blog Above the Law and its founding editor David Lat.

Adding an additional layer of hilarity to the already embarrassing circumstances of professor Jones’ arraignment on criminal charges is the astounding fact that a law professor would file a federal court complaint riddled with spelling and grammatical errors (he misspells the President’s name in the fist paragraph and goes downhill from there), let alone that attempts to set forth a legal theory that the Supreme Court of his own home State of Florida refused to recognize just last year.

We are not big fans of the self described “most prestigious law school discussion board in the world”--AutoAdmit, but we could not make our way through even part of this thread without laughing so hard we nearly peed our pants.

Suffice it to say that the comments were, well, a tad harsh.

As once commenter posted:

“Before I read [professor Jones’ complaint], I expected to respond to your post by saying that pleadings are the one place where you can write like shit and get away with it. “But after reading that festering shit pile, I agree that UM should be deeply embarrassed.”
And another:

"This complaint is truly a disgrace, and I am not even talking about fucking typos. Apparently, he really believes that statements such as "Or Donald Marvin Jones." are sentences. This complaint is truly truly terrible. I hope he wrote it while completely intoxicated and then put it in a mailbox to the court for fling, forgetting that he had done so and leaving him no opportunity for sober reflection. It is the only excuse."

Our favorite:

"dear god. how the hell did this guy become a law professor"

Now go, read, laugh, cry. We did.