Custom Search

Thursday, September 13, 2007

CORRUPT JUDGES/ The secret is out!

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the post.

3 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

*
**

The SECRET is OUT
The “Powers that Be”
respond to Lazaryan’s Complaint
against Judge Smith and Judge Cleary.

The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards prides itself as being “secret”.

The information concerning a complaint against a judge, which is posted on this blog has NEVER BEFORE BEEN REVEALED TO THE PUBLIC.

The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards sent the following letter to Nancy Lazaryan, in response to her complaint against Judge Smith and Judge Cleary:

August 31, 2007

Dear Ms. Lazaryan,

The Board on Judicial Standards (“Board”) acknowledges receiving your complaint naming 2nd District Judges Joanne Smith and Edward F. Cleary on August 21, 2007.

Pursuant to Board policy, all complaints remain confidential until such time as a determination of sufficient cause has been made or formal charges have been filed. Accordingly, with rare exceptions, the Board will not be able to keep you informed as to the progress of your complaint during processing.

Enclosed is a copy of the Board’s brochure. Will you take a moment and read it? As the brochure suggests, the Board is an agency with very limited powers. Except under very rare circumstances, judicial action based upon alleged findings of incorrect facts or the improper application of procedures or laws does not constitute judicial misconduct. The Board has no legal authority to correct factual or legal mistakes in a court decision. The Board may not direct a judge to take, or refrain from taking any specific legal action.

If the alleged improper communications initiated by Mr. Kantrud and Judge Cleary were in writing, could you provide copies? I would appreciate receiving these documents on or before September 10, 2007. Also, if you have them, please provide the names and telephone numbers of all lawyers representing the parties in this case.

I will notify you when the Board takes action on your letter. Please call me if I can answer any further question.

Yours truly,
David Paull
Executive Secretary

NANCY LAZARYAN COMPOSED A RESPONSE…here is what she said:

From: Nancy Lazaryan
To: Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards
2025 Centre Pointe Blvd. Suite 180
Mendota Heights, MN 55120

Re: BJS File No. 07-67 (Judge Smith)
BJS File No. 07-68 (Judge Cleary)

By mail and by fax to: 651-296-3999

September 8, 2007

To the members of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards:

I am in receipt of a letter from David S. Paull, dated August 31, 2007 and am writing this correspondence in response.

First and foremost, the Board has not addressed my argument that this Board has a conflict of interest investigating my complaint against Judge Cleary, in that Judge Cleary is a member of the “Special Advisory Committee” that is investigating the Board.

PLEASE address my so stated argument concerning the conflict of interest.

Second, I am concerned about the following statement made in the August 31, 2007 letter:
“Except in very rare circumstances, judicial action based upon the alleged findings of incorrect facts or the improper application of procedures or laws does not constitute judicial misconduct.”

Apparently the Board contests the legal definition of JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.

The above “declaration” made in the August 31, 2007 letter, on behalf of the Board, is indicative of the incompetence of the Board, and proves the Board’s flagrant opposition to protecting the rights of the Citizens.

For the record, and for the EDUCATION of the members of the Board, please read the following, with emphasis added:

In re: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct
Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit
Order No. 03-89037

at 13806:
It is wrong for a judge to exercise his power without the normal procedures and trappings of the adversary system—a motion, an opportunity for the other side to respond, a statement of reasons for the decision, reliance on legal authority. These niceties of orderly procedure are not designed merely to ensure fairness to the litigants and a correct application of the law, though they surely serve those purposes as well. More fundamentally, they lend legitimacy to the judicial process by ensuring that judicial action is—and is seen to be—based on law, not the judge’s caprice.
Judicial action taken without any arguable legal basis ---and without giving notice and an opportunity to be heard to the party adversely affected---is far worse than simple error of abuse of discretion; it’s an abuse of judicial power that is “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” See U.S.C. § 351(a); Shaman, Lubet & Alfini, supra, § 2.02, at 37 (“Serious legal error is more likely to amount to misconduct than a minor mistake. The sort of evaluation that measures the seriousness of legal error is admittedly somewhat subjective, but the courts seem to agree that legal error is egregious when the judges deny individuals their basic or fundamental procedural rights ”); In re Quirk, 705 So. 2d 172, 178 (La. 1997) (“A single instance of serious egregious legal error, particularly one involving the denial to individuals of their basic or fundamental rights, may amount to judicial misconduct.” (citing Jeffery M. Shaman, Judicial Ethics, 2 Geo J. Legal Ethics 1, 9 (1988))).

at 13811:
“A judge may not use his authority in one case to help a party in an unrelated case”…
The judge’s response, moreover, adds a further dimension to his misconduct: His orders were not merely lacking in lawful authority, they were based on ex parte communications…See Shaman, Lubet & Alfini, supra, § 5.01, at 160 (“At the very least, participation in ex parte communications will expose a judge to one-sided argumentation…At worst [it] is an invitation to improper influence if not outright corruption.”)

at 13812:
It is well established that a judge may not exercise judicial power based upon secret communications from one of the parties to the dispute. United States v. Thompson, 827 F.2d 1254. 1258-59 (9th Cir. 1987)

at 13822:
Merely reversing an erroneous judgment that is the product of misconduct does not undo the misconduct….
“In some instances…legal error may amount to judicial misconduct calling for sanctions ranging from admonishment to removal from office.”; accord Oberholzer v. Comm’n on Judicial Performance, 975 P.2d 663, 679 (Cal.1999) (legal error “can constitute misconduct if it involves ‘bad faith, bias, abuse of authority, disregard of fundamental rights, intentional disregard of the law or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty’ ” (citing cases)); in re Quirk, 705 So.2d at 178.


When a judge’s actions are “improper application of procedures or laws”…these actions by the judge ARE judicial misconduct.

Third, the letter states, “As the brochure suggests, the Board is an agency with very limited powers.” The “brochure” does not carry any authority of law.

The power of the Board is derived from Art. 6, Sec. 9 of the Minnesota constitution. In 1971, the Board was established based upon Art. 6, Sec 9. And the power given to the Board is for removal and discipline of judges for misconduct.

The Board’s conduct of opposing the legal definition of “judicial misconduct” is an attempt by the Board to circumvent the charge and duty placed upon the Board to remove judges for misconduct in office.

Fourth, the letter requests “If the alleged improper communication initiated by Mr. Kantrud and Judge Cleary were in writing, could you provide copies?….Also, if you have them, please provide the names and telephone numbers of all the lawyers representing the parties in this case.”

Apparently, the Board has not read my complaint. The admission by Judge Smith of the “improper communication” initiated by Mr. Kantrud is contained within the Judge Smith’s July 13, 2007 Order. I am aware of the “improper communication” between Judge Smith and Mr. Kantrud, only because Judge Smith admitted to this communication; communication that I was not privy to nor had any opportunity to respond to.

The names of the attorneys are contained within the court file.

Why doesn’t the Board get copies of the court file?

As to the communication of Judge Cleary to Judge Smith…why doesn’t the Board ask Judge Cleary for a copy of the letter Judge Cleary sent to Victoria Marchetti, a letter that he copied to Judge Smith? If Judge Cleary denies sending the letter to Victoria Marchetti, I will produce the original letter, which shows Judge Cleary copied Judge Smith.

Oh, but this gets back to what I said in the beginning. Judge Cleary sits on the “Special Advisory Committee” that is investigating the Board. The Board actually acting as an independent investigative agency would seem a bit difficult, if not impossible in this case.

Please respond to my letter, including but not limited to:
My concerns that the Board opposes their charge, made by the Citizens, to remove judges for misconduct.
The conflict of interest of this Board investigating Judge Cleary.

Thank you.

Nancy C. Lazaryan

cc: Judge Smith, Judge Cleary, Rep. Dan Severson

10:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's starting to look like there is no justice for the common people anywhere.

How the hell can a judge who refuses to apply the law correctly not be Judicial misconduct?

The city of St Paul rigged the court in the landlords lawsuit also. Apparantly these court and cities just think they are above the law.

The thing that comes to my mind is why should I obey and respect the law if the law is not going to protect me?

1:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this is

"green baloney and ham"

2:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home