Confirmed: Huffman resigns JC effective June 30th

JCW—

I have “trust issues” regarding breaking news here since April 1st…..I’m working hard on getting over it and thinking about starting therapy again—-so be gentle—-

Lando, you said:

“In the end it is sad that a Judge as bright as J Huffman became so insular that he attacked his fellow Judges that respectfully dissented from his positions as “clowns”. Not a great legacy by any means.”

As I was researching Justice Huffman and tangentially his son, and read Justice Huffman’s bio, I thought the very same thing.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: WATER SEEKS ITS LEVEL.

So if J. Huffman felt it necessary to support the less savory aspects of George’s administration, and attack George’s legitimate critics, that is his level.

Similarly, the new CJ has shown her level, by publicly and purposefully (knowing it will engender severe public disgust) embracing Marin County’s Kim Turner and Verna Adams, who, along with her Administrative Office of the Courts, and her AOC “investigator” (cleaner) John Judnick, have, in the middle of state audit, taken part in/justified the destruction of trial court child custody evidence at the expense of families and children.

Frankly, my dears, I don’t really give a damn who the new CJ fires/replaces, until she gets rid of those two. Period. End of story. Again, water seeks its level, and Cantil Sakauye sought out and appointed two horrifically, ethically challenged Marin pariahs who have knowingly (and, IMHO, in some instances gleefully) harmed children.

And, I am hearing stories about increased 2011 retaliation against court critics in certain ethically challenged counties, under Cantil-Sakauye’s new reign.

Newsflash. Oppression will not be tolerated.

Regarding comment about situation with Justice Huffman’s son, Richard D. Huffman, II, Deputy District Attorney, San Diego: Apparently that “news” is old, dating back to 2004 and a DUI incident. Here’s the URL: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2005/aug/11/his-eyes-were-red-and-glassy/

and an excerpt from same:

“Shortly after midnight on April 25, 2004, Richard Dennis Huffman, 45, was stopped on Gilman Drive in La Jolla by California Highway Patrol officer G. Mendes. Huffman is a deputy district attorney for San Diego County. Two preliminary alcohol-screening-device tests indicated he had blood alcohol levels of .135 percent and .137 percent. Huffman was arrested and, at a highway patrol office shortly afterward, two breath tests showed his blood alcohol levels to be .09 percent and .10 percent. (The legal limit is .08 percent.) Officer Mendes wrote in his report of the incident: “I recommend that a copy of this report and other related documents be forwarded to the San Diego City Attorney’s office for prosecution of Huffman” on drunk driving charges.

Yet the accused was released into his father’s care only an hour later, at 2:05 a.m. Mary Prévost wonders why it was Justice Huffman who went to pick up his son. “Wouldn’t a 45-year-old man living on his own,” she asks, “have his girlfriend or one of his friends come to get him? And how often does anyone arrested for drunk driving receive the ‘cite and release’ treatment immediately after arrest?” … On October 18, 2004, the court backed off charging the younger Huffman with the strict offense of driving under the influence of alcohol and allowed him to plead to a lesser offense. The decision occurred after assistant city attorney Tracy Rogers had completed and signed a “Declaration in Support of Reducing Charges.” As reasons for her action, Rogers checked the box on the form called “Problems of Proof.” She then checked the following subsections of the box: “No observed erratic driving or defendant not observed driving…; No impairment shown by field coordination tests; Low blood-alcohol level when tested or evidence of rising blood alcohol level.”

But arresting officer Mendes’s report paints a different picture. Huffman was driving his motorcycle 80 miles per hour when Mendes first spotted him. To catch the suspect, he had to increase the speed of his patrol car to 85 miles per hour on Gilman Drive. After pulling Huffman over and “while speaking with [him],” Mendes writes, “I could smell the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his exhaled breath. I also noticed that his eyes were red and glassy and he was unsteady on his feet…. As Huffman continued his conversation with me, I noted that his speech was thick and slurred.”

UPDATE ON THE HUFFMAN, MCCONNELL, GEORGE Pro-SLAPP Law 425.19(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) Now Introducing Item (h)!

425.19(h) states, “a citizen of California can be gagged from republishing sentences which they never published in the first place if it helps to cover up that Huffman, McConnell and George were willing participants in a malicious litigation carried out by criminal means that aids interstate insurer unfair advantage in litigation and claims handling practices in the billions by the friends of the trio and the US Chamber of Commerce.”

(Actually I think this newest judge is a very nice man, who does not understand the situation….while he ruins my life and aids a fraud in health policy to continue!)

But, not kidding. Besides six Fourth District Division Appellate Court justices turing a blind eye the irrefutable evidence that a US Chamber medico-legal author, committed perjury to establish needed reason for purported malice while strategically litigating over the first public writing (mine) of how the US Chamber got their fingers into US & CA health policy over the mold issue; and his attorney willfully suborned the perjury right up thru his appellate brief submitted to the courts in Sept of 2009, with Huffman, Benke and Irion pretending they were never provided direct evidence it was criminal perjury and suborning of perjury; or that they were also evidenced McConnell, Aaron, and McDonald did the same thing when denying the anti-SLAPP,

NOW the courts have issued an injunctive relief that I be gagged from “republishing” a sentence I never published in the first place. And the US Chamber author has to give me $5000 not to do something I couldn’t do even if I wanted to. (you can’t “republish” a sentence you have never published before).

New temporary injunctive relief:

“..the Court believes it is proper to enjoin the defendant from republishing the statement that has been determined at trial to be defamatory. That statement is: XXXXX’ See Kelman Decl., Exhibit B [Judgment dated 9/24/08 in GIN044539] …Finally, the Court must require an undertaking if the preliminary injunction is grnted. CCP 529. The Court believes that an undertaking in the amount of $5000 is reasonable in this case.”

(I can’t write the sentence in the Order that I have never written before because once I do, I can never “republish” it without violating this bizarre order. So I am going to save it for my premiere publishing somewhere that it really counts.) Not only did they just gag me from republishing a sentence I have never published, there is NO Decl of Kelman, Exhibit B that contains the never published sentence I am gaged from republishing.

So in its new entirety: CCP 425.19

HEAR YE! HEAR YE! The Chair of California Commission, Judicial Performance (CJP) Justice Judith McConnell & the ex-Chair Of Executive Committee, Judicial Council (JC) Justice Richard Huffman, Jointly Establish The Enactment Of New California Pro-SLAPP Law Provision CCP 425.19(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h), Approved By California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George, January 2007 and ratified by him, December 2010.

Code of Civil Procedures, CCP. 425.19 finds that too many California citizens are using the Internet to glean and share information of corruption, waste, abuse, fraud and ineptitude of the governing bodies of the California judicial system that are advantageous to the financial interests of affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce and adverse to the public’s best interest. As such, to stop truth that stops injustice in the courts, the inner circles of said governing bodies find and enact,

(a.) should the need arise to strategically litigate against the public’s best interest and if one writes medico-legal policy for the US Chamber of Commerce and/or the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) that aids intrastate and interstate unfair advantage in insurer claims handling practices and of which the Regents of the University of California profit when their employees testify as expert witnesses for the insurance industry in toxic torts, primarily claims of worker, tenant and homeowner injury from exposure to microbes found in poorly constructed and/or poorly maintained buildings; these US Chamber/ACOEM policy authors and their (illegal) legal counsel shall be permitted by the courts to use criminal perjury and suborning of criminal perjury to establish false reason for a defendant’s malice while strategically litigating; and

(b.) if a California citizen writes of the fraud of science and marketing behind the policy established by the US Chamber and/or ACOEM and of which the Regents of the University of California profit, the courts shall be permitted to deem the citizen to be a “malicious liar” with no evidence required to substantiate their words are a lie and/or malicious; and

(c.) the courts may use state funded web sites such as the appellate courts’, to maliciously character assassinate the citizen by deeming them to be a “cyberstalker” while knowing this fallacy was established by false hearsay documents that somehow, got in a jury room and caused a verdict for the US Chamber/ACOEM authors;

(side note to CCP 425.19, see:
1.) Fourth District Division One Appellate Court website, October 14, 2010, amendment to opinion putting the “cyberstalker” slur on the government funded website: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1385769&doc_no=D054496
2.) See Amended Opinion; Declaration of Juror #5, Attorney Shelby Stuntz; Dec of Trial Attorney, Lincoln Bandlow, etc. stating somehow docs not in trial mysteriously went to the jury with “cyberstalker” slur that caused the verdict at: http://freepdfhosting.com/e025ff30d3.pdf
3.) See CA Supreme Court, Ron George, being informed that Huffman, Benke and Irion added new and false argument in their Amended Opinion so they could get that “cyberstalker” slur on the Fourth District’s website, pdf page 18: http://freepdfhosting.com/b8365e1ddb.pdf)

Back to CCP 425.19

(d.) if the citizen attempts to bring it to the attention of the legislature or to public light that the Chairs of the CJP & JC have jointly established Pro-SLAPP CCP 425.19 with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court’s approval, then upon motion by the criminal perjury committing US Chamber/ACOEM policy authors, lower courts are encouraged to be used to issue injunctive relief motions to gag the citizen from writing of the existence of CCP 425.19, how it came to be, who was involved and how it aids with the continuance of interstate and intrastate insurer fraud in the billions on behalf of US Chamber affiliates, while the Regents of the University of California continue to profit off the backs of the sick, injured and deceased; and

(e.) CCP 425.19 is only to be used in unpublished opinions and only by affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce and/or affiliates of Justices McConnell, Huffman and retired Chief Justice George; and

(f.) this amendment to the California Anti-SLAPP laws shall be known as the “SLAPP EACH OTHER ON THE BACK WHILE WE SCREW THE PUBLIC AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT” addendum or in short title, the “JUDICIAL CORRUPTION WHISTLEBLOWER RETRIBUTION” act.

(g) CCP 425.19 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) are never to be applied in conjunction with Judicial Ethics Canon 3.(D)(1)which states, “Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority”

(h) a citizen of California can be gagged from “republishing” sentences which they never published in the first place if it helps to cover up that Huffman, McConnell and George were willing participants in a malicious litigation carried out by criminal means that aids interstate insurer unfair advantage in litigation and claims handling practices in the billions by the friends of the trio and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Can tell you this, am not gagged from writing:

“Dr. Bruce Kelman of GlobalTox,Inc, a Washington based environmental risk management company, testified as an expert witness for the defense, as he does in mold cases throughout the country. He admitted the Manhattan Institute, a national political think-tank, paid GlobalTox $40,000 to write a position paper regarding the potential health risks of toxic mold exposure. Although much medical research finds otherwise, the controversial piece claims that it is not plausible the types of illnesses experienced by the Haynes family and reported by thousands from across the US, could be caused by “toxic mold” exposure in homes, schools or office buildings.

In 2003, with the involvement of the US Chamber of Commerce and ex-developer, US Congressman Gary Miller (R-CA), the GlobalTox paper was disseminated to the real estate, mortgage and building industries’associations. A version of the Manhattan Institute commissioned piece may also be found as a position statement on the website of a United States medical policy-writing body, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.”

Or gagged from writing this of the ramifications of what Huffman and McConnell KNOW they have done by being willing participants in a malicious litigation.

“When this Reviewing Court acknowledges what legally cannot be denied: Kramer’s overwhelming, uncontroverted and irrefutable evidence that seven judges and justices ignored Kramer’s overwhelming, uncontroverted and irrefutable evidence of Kelman’s perjury on the issue of malice and ignored Kramer’s vast evidence of Scheuer’s willful suborning of Kelman’s criminal perjury; then seven years worth of scientific fraud perpetrated on US Courts over the mold issue by the US Chamber of Commerce et al, will immediately cease by the acknowledgment that their author of their scientific fraud has no qualms about lying under oath to the courts and strategically litigating; and while their other author does not disclose he is a party to the strategic litigation.

The entire point of using criminal perjury in this strategic litigation was so the fraud of the US Chamber et al, could continue by the discrediting of the truthful words of a Whistle blower by deeming her to be a malicious liar for the mere word “altered”. Thus far, errors of the San Diego courts have inadvertently aided and abetted the US Chamber of Commerce et al,’s scientific fraud to continue on its merry way in US courts by deeming the wrong party in this strategic litigation to be the “malicious liar”.

UTTERLY AMAZING!!

Ms. Kramer and Judicial Council Watcher are correct about Justice Huffman and Justice McConnell. I retired as a San Diego Judge last year. It was under pressure after Justice McConnell filed a complaint about me on to the Commission on Judicial Performance. I did nothing illegal but they had me on some technical stuff that was taken out of context. In any event, the CJP (who reports to the Judicial Council /AOC) gave me scorched earth treatment. Note: I became the FIRST WHISTLEBLOWER judge in U.S. History. I filed a Writ of Mandate in the Appellate Court seeking an order to require that my fellow San Diego Judges follow MANDATORY Domestic Violence Laws. DDA Richard Huffman (who has more than one DUI arrest) was a big thorn in my side and known to give preferential treatment and complain about how I was a stickler for following the law on DV and DUI cases. So…his father was the same Justice who denied my Writ, saying I should take it up internally.. Hello!! I had done so for many many years and it got me and the public nowhere. His son was a key problem that i mentioned in my lawsuit. So Justice Huffman should have recused himself and so should Justice McConnell since she initiated the investigation into me. So…stay tuned for more details…book is being written (and my proof is safely located in multiple locations).

Court Watcher,

Did you know that the Commission on Judicial Performance does not answer to the AOC/JC…technically speaking? They are an independant state agency, seperate from the judicial branch, as I understand it. Their function and funding are to police corruption and ethics violations within the judicial system. The problem stems from the fact that the Commission is chaired by one of the most power hungry, political animals in the state. This justice issues opinions from the same bench as the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Council – soon to be overseer of accountability in the AOC on whatever that new committee is called.

So in essance, there is currently no policing of ethics and corruption in the judicial system, with key justices able to cover for each other by unbridled fraud in the opinions they issue; and no recourse against them even when it can be proven their actions are criminal.

Given the make-up of committees, commissions and close association of certain justices, the system of the CJP supposedly being an independant state agency offers no safeguards against collusion to defraud the public. They can retaliate against judges who expose waste, fraud and abuse. They can turn a blind eye to serious ethics violations by those who further and cover for their own agendas. Basically, when it comes to what judges need to watch their backs for retaliation and what judges are free to rape, pillage and plunder, its the Dick and Judy from San Diego Show. I know that this is not news to many who are reading this board. So why is it permitted to continue?