The Law and Legal Issues - Articles - Zimbio

Judge Fisher...corrupt Van Nuys Superior Court jurist violates rights, coerces defendants, and destroys documents!

Tue, 8 Oct 2008 03:00:13 GMT

posted by julianayrs

Judge Fisher is the most corrupt Judge in the Superior Court Judiciary system in the greater Los Angeles area.

Fisher, a Judge who warms the bench in Van Nuys, is under the mistaken impression that he is above the law - can willy-nilly ignore the rights of a defendant at whim - and destroy court documents to suit his dishonest purposes to avoid scrutiny or prosecution for his illegal conduct.

In addition, Fisher is either ignorant of the law - or simply chooses to ignore it - to maintain ultimate control over his courtroom at any cost.

Notwithstanding, the man is a liar.

On a regular basis - he makes false representations to defendants - in a bold-faced deceitful effort to extract plea bargains from innocent victims that he will never honor.

Yes, he has a perverse sense of humor, too.

In one case that I am familiar with, Judge Fisher approved a plea bargain it's obvious he never intended to follow through on, when you review the facts of the case in retrospect.

For example, Judge Fisher promised one defendant that if he pled to one felony count, there would be no jail time and three year's probation. In addition - the dishonest Jurist assured the defendant that at the end of the probationary period - the felony count would be reduced to a misdemeanor.

On the day the plea bargain was to be signed, sealed, and delivered - Judge Fisher tricked the defendant into admitting to two felony counts - again on the premise - that both counts would be reduced after the probationary period ended.

When the probation ended - and the defendant submitted a request to the court (and to Judge Fisher, in particular) to follow through on the terms and conditions of the plea bargain - the Judge refused to follow through.

In sum, he did not honor the terms and conditions of the plea bargain agreement!
If the court doesn't meet its obligation, shouldn't that render the plea bargain null and void?

But, that is not the extent of Fisher's disreputable conduct.

At one hearing, after Fisher was informed that the FBI had been contacted regarding rights violations a defendant alleged he encountered in Fisher's courtroom - suddenly (and without explanation) the court file (poof) magically disappeared from the records.

Curiously, in spite of this, Fisher proceeded to rule on an issue before the court!

If there was no file, and nothing to reference in the court records, how would it be possible for Fisher to review the facts and evidence in the case?

More importantly, how would it be possible to render a decision in the matter before the court?

Under the circumstances, Fisher should have dismissed the action.

His failure to do so, amounted to a gross violation of the defendant's Constitutional rights.

On another occasion, Fisher used questionable "strong-arm" tactics to force a defendant to admit a probation violation under duress.

For example, when a defendant was hauled into court to explain to Fisher why she failed to appear at the office of a probation officer (the individual thought she had summary probation) Judge Fisher proceeded to coerce the defendant into admitting a probation violation.

Knowing that the defendant was ill and in need of urgent medical care, he informed the defendant that if she admitted to violating probation, that she would be released from jail that day.

What person, who is ill and in dire need of medical assistance, wouldn't be tempted to agree to such an offer?

In sum, Fisher's conduct amounted to an act of coercion!

It should be obvious to any fool, too, that because the defendant was forced to make the admission (a false one, by the way) under duress, that she could not be held to the forced admission.

But, if the defendant filed a complaint with officials afterward, there probably would not have been any record of what transpired.

Why?

Because Fisher would have taken appropriate illegal action to ensure that the transcript and/or court reporter's notes "disappeared"

I wouldn't doubt it considering his track record.

In one particular case - when a defendant wised up to Fisher's lies and deception - (and got wind of the fact the disreputable Judge was prone to bend and change the terms and conditions of court agreements at whim) - he asked Judge Fisher for a copy of the transcript for future reference.

Judge Fisher refused to order the court reporter to prepare it, in spite of the fact the defendant was entitled to a copy, pursuant to applicable Statutes under State Law.

"You can get the information you need from the public defender," he barked at the defendant."

Fat chance.

The Public Pretenders (State-appointed attorneys for indigent defendants) and the Prosecutors in the District Attorney's office are all in a handful of the Judges' pockets over there at the Van Nuys Courthouse.

The Judiciary system in the San Fernando Valley, after all, is a cesspool of corruption!

Until the Los Angeles Superior Court rids itself of the likes of Judge Fisher, the integrity of the court, will continue to be compromised.

Hopefully, the FBI will step in and investigate, and prosecute accordingly.

New Orleans Law Firm Denies Allegations Of Corruption; Everyone Shocked

Tue, 4 Jun 2008 20:28:54 GMT

posted by Lazlo

Fact or Fiction?

Welcome to Round Two of our very own local clash of the titan greedmongering hosebags, also known as Adams and Reese, L.L.P., and the illustrious political leaders of New Orleans. If you missed Round One, it was a doozy, so be sure to check it out.

Yes, here in the Crescent City, we like our lawyers corrupt and our leaders corrupt-er. Hell with it, we like ‘em corrupt-est. But we save the best of the worst for times like these, when the haves host a good old fashioned showdown with the the have-even-mores. In fact these “haves” have so much they just can’t stop themselves, they have to take your house, your health insurance, and a few hundred million dollars in “refinancing” or whatever they call it, just to show they can.

But the haves (Adams and Reese, L.L.P.) made a minor miscalculation this time; they kicked Mr. James G. Perdigao out of their good ole’ boys club, and Mr. James G. Perdigao is having none of it. Hence his lawsuit accusing the firm of - try to keep up with us now - bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, obstruction of criminal investigations, tampering with a witness/victim/informant, retaliation against a witness/victim/informant, extortion, and of course, plain old racketeering. Unfortunately for the haves, Mr. Perdigao is no stranger to being a witness for the government, as his suit explains:

Plaintiff [Perdigao] had…developed various relationships with the U.S. Attorney’s office based on his previous testimony on behalf of the government in an earlier, unrelated video poker case. At the request of the U.S. Attorney’s office, plaintiff had provided general background information regarding the licensing and regulation of riverboat gaming in connection with their investigation. Plaintiff also agreed to provide testimony to the grand jury and if an indictment was returned, at trial if requested by the government. Plaintiff advised [firm partner Robert] Vosbein that he had agreed to assist the government through the provision of information and testimony regarding the regulation of riverboat gaming activities. Vosbein became furious at the plaintiff, advising him that he worked for Vosbein, not the federal government and that he and the firm would decide if, when, and how plaintiff could testify.

You see, Vosbein is a part owner of the Treasure Chest Casino, along with Robert Guidry - one of the firm’s most prominent clients. Vosbein’s (and the firm’s) financial interests are not served by aiding the prosecution of the gaming industry’s misdeeds. Unfortunately for Vosbein, when the house of cards that is Adams and Reese, L.L.P., began to fall, the firm decided to kick Perdigao out of their club. Therein lies what is likely to be their greatest miscalculation of all; because Perdigao, who realized he was about to become public enemy #1, knew who to go to for advice. And surprise, surprise, Perdigao offered to turn state’s evidence and filed his own suit against the still-haves. And here we are.

Now Adams and Reese, L.L.P., has decided to return fire via a surprisingly brief blurb released to the local media.

Statement by Adams and Reese Managing Partner Charles P. Adams, Jr. Regarding Perdigao Lawsuit
(New Orleans, LA) – The lawsuit filed Tuesday represents the latest episode in Perdigao’s continuing fantasy of blaming the government and our firm for his wrongdoing and lashing out at those who are holding him accountable for his actions. Adams and Reese denies Perdigao’s allegations of wrongdoing. We look forward to his upcoming criminal trial and we will continue to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney and the FBI to ensure that justice is done.

That’s it. They’re staying as cool as the other side of the pillow. They say the guy’s a criminal, the only snake in a nest full of lambs, end of story. Mind you, they say this not as part of any legal proceeding. The firm has yet to file an answer for the suit one imagines they must have seen coming from light years away (er, wasn’t that suit filed on Wednesday, boys?). But then if you were them, wouldn’t you rather try this case in the media than in the courtroom? Yet interestingly, this article about the case from the New Orleans Times-Picayune was removed from the site’s main page in a mere matter of hours. Curious…

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Appellate court can review acquittal: Supreme Court

Wed, 13 Nov 2008 12:34:29 GMT

posted by Joycebabu

New Delhi, Nov 13

The Supreme Court has said that though the appellate court generally does not intervene with an acquittal order in a criminal case, there was no bar on a high court on reviewing evidence.

The bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice C.K. Thakker said in a judgement last week that normally the appellate court does not interfere with the acquittal order because such an order strengthens the presumption that an accused is innocent till he is found guilty.

The judgement written by Justice Pasayat said grounds of "substantial reasons" were the underlying principle for the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence and intervene with the acquittal order of the trial court.

The bench said the appellate court could re-examine the evidence if it felt that "admissible evidence" had been ignored.

The bench dismissed an appeal by the Haryana government against the judgement of a single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitting Krishan convicted under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relating to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The Bhiwani sessions judge had convicted Krishan and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.

The Supreme Court bench said that the trial court verdict could be reviewed only if the judgement under challenge was clearly "unreasonable and irrelevant and convincing material has been unjustifiably eliminated".

"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view that is favourable to the accused should be adopted," the bench said.

"The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent," noted the judgement.

Last updated on Nov 13^th, 2008 at 17:14 pm IST--IANS

Possibly related news:

Print Email Comment Share

Grasso case "over" as court dismisses claims

Tue, 2 Jul 2008 05:31:00 GMT

posted by sarfun
Grasso case "over" as court dismisses claims

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former New York Stock Exchange chief Richard Grasso won a knockout victory on Tuesday in his four-year fight to keep every last penny of his $187.5 million pay package, as an appeals court threw out the state's remaining claims against him. The ruling, Grasso's second court victory in the past week, prompted New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to throw in the towel.

The New York Supreme Court's appellate division, in a 3-1 vote, dismissed two legal claims against Grasso brought by former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in 2004.

The ruling follows a decision last week by the New York Court of Appeals, New York State's highest court, that dismissed other parts of the suit.

The appellate division said claims seeking the return of more than $100 million of Grasso's pay -- a case brought under state law governing not-for-profit companies -- could not be pursued because the exchange is now a publicly traded, for- profit company called NYSE Euronext.

"We conclude that the attorney general's authority to prosecute the causes of action seeking that relief lapsed with the merger," the court said in its 99-page written ruling that also threw out a lone claim against Kenneth Langone, a former NYSE director and head of its compensation committee.

Cuomo declined to comment on the ruling, but spokesman Alex Detrick said: "We have reviewed the court's opinion and determined that an appeal would not be warranted. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the Grasso case is over."

NYSE Euronext spokesman Rich Adamonis said the ruling "recognizes the substantial and significant changes the NYSE has undergone since the case was brought."

LONG BATTLE

Spitzer had become a political star in large part for his crusading prosecution of powerful Wall Street figures. He won election as governor by a landslide in 2007, but resigned in March after being caught up in a prostitution scandal.

The then attorney general sued Grasso in 2004 amid an uproar over the size of his pay package. Grasso, who ran the exchange for eight years and resigned in 2003, contended he did nothing wrong and never misled an NYSE board packed with some of Wall Street's most powerful executives.

A spokeswoman said Spitzer was traveling in Southeast Asia and was not available to comment.

For Grasso, the rulings mark the end of a legal nightmare.

Grasso "is gratified by the ruling of the Appellate Division. His devotion to the stock exchange never wavered, and neither did his faith that he would be vindicated by the courts," his lawyer said in a statement.

The New York Supreme Court decision also threw out a claim against Langone, a co-founder of Home Depot Inc. A New York State appeals court in April had denied his bid to dismiss the lawsuit, which charged him with breaching his fiduciary duty at the NYSE in connection with Grasso's pay package.

Langone was not available for comment.

Cuomo, who continued to press Spitzer's suit when he took over the office, argued Grasso's pay was unreasonable and that recouping the money was in the public's interest.

But the appeals court ruled that, because the attorney general was only seeking the return of money and because the money would now benefit a for-profit corporation, a ruling against Grasso no longer served the public interest.

"The motions to dismiss these causes on the ground that the Attorney General no longer has authority to maintain them should have been granted," the ruling said.

The sole dissenting judge, Angela Mazzarelli, argued that because the NYSE still has a not-for-profit subsidiary, the attorney general does have the power to enforce the not-for- profit corporation law.

(Additional reporting by Joseph A. Giannone and Phil Wahba)

(Editing by Andre Grenon, Phil Berlowitz, Gary Hill)

Berg v. Obama Update: Berg: U.S. Supreme Court Awaits Response To Berg's Writ of Certiorari From Obama

Sun, 10 Nov 2008 19:32:00 GMT

posted by tmrfiles
Just to let everyone know, Philip Berg has recently issued a press release and it does not appear he is about to let up on this extremely critical Constitutional issue.
From Obama Crimes

For Immediate Release: - 11/07/08
U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO BERG'S WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 11/07/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.

Mr. Berg remarked today, “I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama's response to the Writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.”
Related Story: Judge Gives Obama 'Till Dec. 1 To Respond to Philip Berg's Challenge Regarding Obama's Proof of Citizenship
The Great Obama Swindle of 2008
Tag: Philip J. Berg, Obama, Berg vs Obama, Obama Not Eligible To Assume Office of Presidenthttp://filesfromtoni.blogspot.com/atom.xml