Feed a lawyer, or else …

Family Law

Color of Law


NOTICE FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE NEAL CABRINHA

This is the best example of how corrupt judges play “street politics” with the support of California Supreme Court.   (Connections)

Based to my sincere belief that judge’s conduct of evading prosecuting perjurious attorneys Kennedy and Costa was unlawful and contrary to the Codes of Judicial Ethics and that it represents obstruction of justice (which is a federal crime under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”), I filed a “Notice of Disqualification and Verified Statement for Disqualification of Judge Neal Cabrinha, Set 1”, based on CCP 170.1 (6)(A)(iii) and violation of Code of Judicial Ethics 3D(2).

September 21st, 2011, Wednesday

Notice of Disqualification and Verified Statement for Disqualification of Judge Neal Anthony Cabrinha, Set 1, was filed. Judge was served personally at 2:03 PM.    (Disqualification, Set 1)

September 30th, 2011, Friday

I received a letter with “Verified Answer of Judge Neal A. Cabrinha to Statement of Disqualification”. According to mailed proof of service the document was filed on September 28th, 2011. In his declaration Judge Cabrinha denies any wrongdoing.    (Cabrinha, answer)

October 11th, 2011, Tuesday

As I noticed some of the case law Judge Cabrinha was quoting was not applicable in this particular matter, I wrote and filed on October 11th, 2011, a “Verified Response to Verified Answer of Judge Neal A. Cabrinha to Statement of Disqualification, Set 2” and moved the court to strike inapplicable case law from the record.    (Disqualification, Set 2)

October 18th, 2011, Tuesday

At 3:40 PM, I went to Santa Clara Family Court Clerk’s office to file a document regarding other upcoming hearing and at the same time I inquired about the “Disqualification” documents and whether they had been submitted to the court file as public record.[1]

I was informed by the clerk that  “Disqualification” related documents were never filed.

October 19th, 2011, Wednesday 

At 10 AM, I called Judge Cabrinha’s clerk and left a message on her answering system, asking about the filing of the “Disqualification” documents.

At 7:30 PM, I received a phone call from court’s clerk who claimed that she was working late, and she told me that “Disqualification” documents were filed earlier, but they were not entered into the electronic file. She stated that the error had been corrected and that records now reflect the filing. EXHIBIT 1 is October 20th, 2011, CASE FILE printout from the Superior Court of Santa Clara website which shows that documents were filed and postdated on 9/21/2011 and 9/28/2011 respectively, with the latest Number-Sequences of 0350-000 and 0351-000, respectively. Older Number-Sequence 0349-000 relates to newer 10/18/2011 filing.

Please note that by that time THREE documents were filed in regards to “Disqualification”, but only two were submitted to the file on the record. Also note that filing on 9/28/2011 was attributed to my filing (“For: Mirko Vojnovic/PTR”, PTR stands for petitioner), even though, based on the date, it should have been Judge Cabrinha’s filing of his “Verified Response”. Something looked very “fishy” and improper regarding all of that filing business.

This was additionally very suspicious as I already had previous bad experience with Judge Cabrinha’s “altered and doctored” Court Transcripts.[2]

October 20th, 2011, Thursday 

All of the above prompted me to call California Supreme Court Office of the Courts, to inquire about the status of the “Disqualification” process. At that time I learned that my case was assigned to Judge Lynn Duryee.

October 20th, 2011 – October 23rd, 2011, Thursday – Sunday

Immediately, I started researching Judge Duryee’s qualifications and what I found shocked me. It turned out that public and legal community view of Judge Duryee is that she is a judge with questionable ethics and who apparently had been involved in “document shredding”, State Audited incident in Marine County Family Court.

In addition, I found that Judge Cabrinha and Judge Duryee know each other outside the regular court business and that both of them are graduates from The University of San Francisco School of Law.

I found out that Judge Cabrinha’s long time friend and partner from his University of San Francisco School of Law student days is Supreme Court Associate Justice Ming W. Chin.

Justice Chin is the chairman of Supreme Court’s Commission for Impartial Courts that is involved in “disqualification” processes.

I also found out that Justice Chin is Judge Duryee’s boss, as she is also a member of the Commission for Impartial Courts.

Relationship between Justice and two Judges is undisputable and it raises great suspicion that the whole “disqualification” process is staged as a “kangaroo trial”.

October 24th, 2011, Monday

As a result of my research regarding Judge Cabrinha’s, Judge Duryee’s and Justice Chin’s relationships, on Monday  October 24th, 2011, I filed “Notice of Disqualification and Verified Statement for Disqualification of Judge Lynn Duryee Re. Disqualification of Judge Neal Anthony Cabrinha”.    (Disqualification, Set 3)

October 24th, 2011 – October 27th, 2011, Monday- Thursday 

I was checking Court Case Information website all these days; in the morning, in the afternoon and in the evening to find out whether there were any new developments in the Disqualification case.

October 28th, 2011, Friday 

At 10:25 AM I checked Court Case Information website again.  It stated that Lynn Duryees Order Denying Disqualification to Judge Cabrinha (as expected 🙂 ) was filed on October 27th, 2011. Around 2PM I went to Court Clerk’s Office to obtain the copy of that Order.  Order states that Judge Duryee made her ruling on October 17th, 2011.   (Duryee, Order)

Judge Duryee filed her Order THREE DAYS AFTER I requested her disqualification, stating that she made the order SIX DAYS BEFORE I requested her disqualification. Smart, she created  fait accompli (An accomplished fact, something that has already occurred; a done deal. Often said of something irreversible or performed without going through standard procedure). But, how bogus is that? Do they really believe this does not look like a scam? 🙂


JUDGES CABRINHA AND DURYEE MADE A MOCKERY OF CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 170.3:

  1. Fact is that I had not been informed about any developments in “disqualification” proceedings until I inquired about it myself on October 20th, 2011.
  2. Fact is that, pursuant to CCP 170.3 (5)[3], the judge selected to hear the case of disqualification shall be determined by mutual agreements of all parties involved.
  3. Fact is that, pursuant to CCP 170.3 (5), in the event that parties are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge’s answer (filed by Judge Cabrinha on September 28th, 2011), only then judge hearing the disqualification shall be selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Counsel or his or her vice chairperson. This step had been completely bypassed and 25 days had passed since Judge Cabrinha’s filing of his “Verified Answer”.
  4. Fact is that selection of Judge Lynn Duryee was not transparent and not agreed upon by me, i.e. Petitioner.
  5. Fact is that Judge Lynn Duryee was appointed illegally and against the law, by whoever appointed judge Duryee (most likely by Justice Ming Chin, who is the chairman of The Commission for Impartial Courts).
  6. Fact is that, pursuant to CCP 170.3 (5), no challenge may be made against the judge who is selected to decide the question of disqualification.
  7. By forcing the selection of Judge Duryee on me and me not having a legal recourse to challenge her appointment, and taking into the account trio of Justice-Judges’ personal relationships, a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the stage was set up for “kangaroo hearing”.
  8. Fact is that, pursuant CCP 170.3(d)[4], once the decision regarding the disqualification is made, the order is not appealable and I would be left with no recourse to challenge the apparent scam.
  9. Fact is that Judge Lynn Duryee signed an Order to deny my motion for disqualification of Judge Neal Cabrinha on 10/17/2011 and postdated and filed on 10/27/2011, three days after I filed Motion for her disqualification.
  10. Fact is that such conduct is criminal.
.
.

November 4th, 2011,  Friday

Letter was sent to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye outlining what happened in this disqualification case; urging her to review the process. To this date, December 4th, 2011, there was no reply. (update)

.


[1] Judge Cabrinha was served with the original documents and it was his clerk’s duty to file them on the record.

[2] I had my first bad experience with Judge Cabrinha’s Court Reporter, Melody Dickinson’s transcripts related to October 14th, 2011, hearing. In that transcript certain words had been added to Judge Cabrinha’s statements which completely altered the meaning of my subsequent arguments. I can provide you with that transcript (19 pages long), per your request, if you think it is relevant.

EXHIBIT 2 is my April 7th, 2011, letter to Judge Cabrinha’s Court Reporter Melody Dickinson regarding April 5th, 2011, hearing, regarding other separate incident.

[3] CCP 170.3 (5)

A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible. No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may be made against the judge selected to decide the question of disqualification.

[4] CCP 170.3(d) The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought only by the parties to the proceeding.

Advertisements

November 2, 2011 Posted by | Family Law, Law | , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments