John Clark Pro Se Blog

Appellate judges in the United States occasionally hear criminal cases at the District Court level when they have free time on their calendar, and by chance Chief Justice of the Ninth Circuit Alex Kozinski was randomly given United States vs. Ira Isaacs, a pornography case which will be based on Miller vs. California  (1973), which deals with local community standards. Isaacs is accused of selling and distributing videos depicting bestiality and other beastly images. Right now they are in  the midst of difficult jury selection (nobody wants to view the videos in evidence.) But not so fast!

The L.A. Times this week broke a story concerning pornographic content found on a personal and publicly accessible website maintained by Judge Kozinski, which raises conflict of interest issues. The site has now been locked, but according to the Times, the material included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows, a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal, images of masturbation and public and contortionist sex, a slide show striptease featuring a transsexual, a series of photos of women's crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear, and content with themes of defecation and urination. Questioned about the content, Judge Kozinski told the Times that some of the material was inappropriate, although he defended other sexually explicit content as "funny." The Times in its headline story today states that Kozinski granted a 48 hour stay before the commencement of trial after the prosecutor requested time to explore "a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having a ... sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here."

Now that their season is over, law professor Brian Fitzpatrick wrote an opinion piece appearing in the L.A. Times concerning the fact that during their last term the right-of-center Supreme Court had reversed or vacated the left-of-center Ninth Circuit 19 times out of the 22 cases it reviewed, and concluded that the appeals court might not have been doing a very good job.

Brian Fitzpatrick

Then former law clerk Julia Campins weighed in with a letter to the paper about what she calls "bully jurisprudence".  She pointed out that the Supreme Court isn't last because it is right, but is right because it is last.

her letter

For me, that put everything in its proper place.

I have witnessed many cases of court ordered assessments of children by means of a 730 evaluation by a court appointed clinical psychologist.

There are cases, too, where an MMPI-2 personality test is brought in as proof that a father, or mother, is a fitting person to have un-monitored association with a child, their own, even.

Nowhere do I see any kind of test being brought in as proof that a man or a woman is a fit person to judge people. Judging is not just about the what of man-made law, it is perhaps even more about the why of God-given human behavior.

The current list of legal qualifications for those aspirers should be augmented, and the California Constitution should be amended by the legislature to take care of this omission. California Constitution-Judicial. Examine especially Articles 6 and 13.

Judges are, for all of us, the common Gods upon which all of the world's societies rely. They have the penultimate meaningful word to order our fate, prior to the ultimate word, which is unknown at this time: what happens after death? And yet their own mental health is ignored. It is way overdue to put that right.

I here propose that all people who aspire to, and apply for, a judgeship first produce the results of a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) test, and an interpretation and report from a clinical psychologist licensed by the High Court. These documents are not unduly expensive to come by, perhaps no more than $5,000. They should be mandatory before any judge is unleashed to preside in Family or Probate court.

If this were to happen, we the People, would have been spared the judger who had sex with a defendant, the judger who masturbated while on the bench, the judger who kept pornographic child images on his computers (yes, as those who keep up with such things know, these things all actually happened), and the judger who makes rulings that seem to fit in with personal controversial past life views and happenings.

However, because there are thousands of situations where lawyers act pro tem as judges, there should be a Commission of Inquiry set up by the governor first, to determine the mechanics. I would be happy to testify. After all, why wouldn't a "straight-shooter" of a judge not want to satisfy those who come before the bench seeking his (or her) transparency? This would be a happily worn "badge of office".

Let this question be put on the ballot for us to decide at the next election.

My desolate friend Idelle, another pro per/pro se, has sent out an SOS to her many supporters, of whom I certainly am one. If you live in the Los Angeles area, come on down on Friday (don't expect media attention though, they're very uninterested in this burning situation).

Her story in Family Court, much longer than mine, is on her very informative website UNITED FOR JUSTICE, which details her tangles with Judge Arnold Gold, and how her daughter Heather, now an adult, was taken from her by court action.

[Judge Gold won't be there, however, because he now sits as a "private judge", selling his services more lucratively than when on the bench. I know, because I overheard heard him say this to a bunch of Loyola law students in court - detailed in my motion to dismiss him before my wife's suit was heard against me. You can download it here, law students. Download file. If you have money and are a celebrity, you can hire him through "Alternative Resolution Centers", a Limited Liability Company, its hungry judges beyond judicial oversight, and offered to consumers for the privacy it offers.]

Here's Idelle's message:

"Dear friends,

This coming Friday, August 12 at 8:30 AM in Department 58, fifth floor of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse at 111 N Hill Street in LA , Heather's ultimate fate will be resolved. The Court will decide if she is to live her life under the absolute control of her father under a permanent Conservatorship with permanent restraining orders against my having any contact with Heather - replacing the "Temporary Limited Conservatorship" that was illegally imposed without notice to me shortly before Heather's 18th birthday last October. That happened after her father heard Heather's phone conversations about moving home with me, redecorating her room, etc. Her father has testified that he sought the Limited Conservatorship available only to clients of the Regional Center which Heather is not nor has ever been [a client] only after he was contacted by Dr. Phil to appear on that show. I think however this was planned as the final nail long ago to insure that as an adult Heather will never have the option to seek civil or criminal retribution for all the harm she has suffered at the hands of her father, court appointed attorneys and therapists.

I urgently need the Court to see that there are many, many people who have been and are concerned about Heather. I need you in the courtroom on August 12. I know it is summer and you have other places to be but this is the day that will determine the rest of Heather's life - and of course my own.

Please do what you can to come on Friday and show your support for justice and freedom and for Heather and me. There is parking across the street from the court on both Hill St and 1st St.

After 12 long years of trying to protect Heather, I feel as though I will be going to my own execution on Friday.

Thank you in advance.

Idelle"

FOLLOW-UP:
August 13, 2005

Well, I said I would be there, even though we hadn't communicated in a year, so I got some background of the case from a web article see this and then went. Actually, the case had now matured to Probate Court, and these were my impressions:

I won't get into the case itself, Idelle can plead her own cause, but the case drags on as though life's length is infinite. Rulings have yet to be made, but certainly I can report on what I observed.

I was surprised to see that Mr. Cowles had brought his daughter to the courtroom, and because the courtroom was fairly full, I seated myself against the wall so I could observe Heather during the proceedings, just an empty seat between us. She didn't look at me once, but seemed nervous and preoccupied. We didn't speak.

She's now almost 19 years old, and has grown into a very beautiful and sexy brunette, and I'm told interested in being an actress.

This time, I saw that Idelle had a male lawyer to represent her, which was smart, considering her forceful pro se arguments tend to annoy judges, and her ex-husband had 2 female lawyers to represent him, and Heather, it appeared, was represented by a male court-appointed lawyer. None of whom came and greeted her.

The judge appeared, and waved to Heather with a smile, which she returned. Good, I thought, he cares about her. Perhaps this was the moment for her to leave the room, but no.

During a break in the proceedings, Heather's father, Ovando Cowles, stood and came up to me, identified me by name, shook my hand, and said he'd studied this blogsite. Good, I said, I'm glad somebody's reading it.

He then, astoundingly, leaned down and yelled at me to withdraw his name from this site, or there would be consequences. I don't know what they might be, but I told him that I would not remove his name. I also said that I had heard that she enjoys acting in her school plays, shows talent, and that I as a professional theatre director would be very interested in coaching his daughter for an acting career.

At which point the court bailiff shouted that this conversation should be held in the corridor, and I said that I certainly wasn't shouting, and I didn't start it anyway, and the bailiff said that's true.

Then the judge reappeared, and proceedings continued.

I listened to evidence from his lawyers that Heather was a plus or minus 70 IQ and should be protected and that conservator protection should remain with the father where it has been for the last ten or more years.

I kept hearing his lawyers say that if Heather were put on the stand she would say so and so and this and thus.

I waited in vain for the judge to interject that she was certainly capable of speaking for herself, and should immediately be put on the stand to speak.

But that didn't happen, and she sat and fidgeted, squirmed even, while having to listen to lawyers arguing her fate. Which included that she could only see her mother in a room strictly supervised by a psychotherapist, and that restraining orders would be continued against the mother into the foreseeable future.

That nobody in her case asked Heather to wait outside (or not as she wished) was astonishing to me, and to my mind was an abuse of her and her civil rights, assuming she is being allowed to have any.

For my money, I would take a 70 IQ actor or actress to direct any day over a super intellect with a 140 IQ. Acting is a profession that makes use of one's "child", and a director takes that offering with the awe and respect it deserves attendant with a tremendous sense of responsibility. Clint Eastwood, the director, goes even further. He says to his actors when working "Empty your brain." And while we're discussing IQ's, it's worth considering that the writers of Forrest Gump assigned him a 75, and look how he dealt with what he had!

Meanwhile, I think the comfort and support of a mother's love cannot be underestimated. One hopes that the conclusion of the court will be that Heather is an adult, should be given the benefit of the doubt, and should not be held captive by anybody.

Incidentally, it is worth checking out the full range of what IQ is and how it's interpreted. Here's a site on Wilkipedia that explores the subject thoroughly.

Wilkipedia

Fast Company Magazine is a magazine for fast rising business executives. They did us all a service in their July issue no. 96, by running a feature for business executives about a little known 71 year old professor emeritus from the University of British Columbia named Robert Hare. The FBI and the British justice system have long relied on his advice, for his field is criminal psychology, and psychopathic behavior.

What are psychopaths? Here, for those who aren't too sure (and I was one of them) he gives a description:

Psychopaths have a profound lack of empathy. They use other people callously and remorselessly for their own ends. They seduce victims with a hypnotic charm that masks their true nature as pathological liars, master con artists, and heartless manipulators. Easily bored, they crave constant stimulation, so they seek thrills from real-life "games" they can win -- and take pleasure from their power over other people.

Professor Hare was not just describing Mafia hit men and sex offenders. He was referring to top executives from the business world, executives from world renowned companies such as WorldCom, which had just declared bankruptcy, and Enron, which imploded. The securities frauds would eventually lead to long prison sentences for WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers, Enron CFO Andrew Fastow, Adelphia Cable's founder John Rigas, and there will be others currently on criminal (and impending civil) trials. He said "These are callous, cold-blooded individuals. They don't care that you have thoughts and feelings. They have no sense of guilt or remorse."

He talked about the pain and suffering the corporate rogues had inflicted on thousands of people who had lost their jobs, or their life savings. "Some of those victims would succumb to heart attacks or commit suicide", he said.

He is then quoted as saying that these recent corporate scandals could have been prevented if CEOs had been screened for psychopathic behavior. "Why wouldn't we want to screen them?" he asked. "We screen police officers, teachers. Why not people who are going to handle billions of dollars?"

To which he might have added lawyers and, yes, judges.

This is where I left off with my own thoughts, based on my own empirical knowledge of both flavors in America's judicial system, especially the system in use today in California's Family Courts under the watchful eye of our Chief Justice Ronald George, and details of my experiences which are dotted throughout this website.

Well, 25 years ago, Professor Hare created what is now used as a standard test for psychopathic traits. It is called the "Psychopathic Checklist", and is commonly used for making clinical diagnoses of suspected psychopaths.

Firmly based on his list, the magazine customized it somewhat, with the disclaimer that it should be ignored by professional shrinks (wonder why?). I have customized it a little further, where it is obvious I have changed the word "boss" to the word "Lawyer" or "Judge", and placed this quiz into a legal context. All of the questions remain, and if the reader wishes, he or she can insert a familiar name, and run it for each individual:

QUIZ: IS YOUR LAWYER OR JUDGE A PSYCHOPATH?

"He" can also mean "she", and for each question, score two points for "yes," one point for "somewhat" or "maybe," and zero points for "no."

[1] Is he glib and superficially charming?
Is he a likable personality and a terrific talker -- entertaining, persuasive, but maybe a bit too smooth and slick? Can he pass himself off as a supposed expert in legal matters even though he really doesn't seem to know or care much about the topic? Is he a flatterer? Seductive, but insincere? Does he sign his emails or letters "warmly", when he is anythng but? Does he tell amusing but unlikely anecdotes celebrating his own past? Can he support a certain position this week -- and then argue with equal conviction and persuasiveness for the opposite position next week? Can he appear on TV and somehow get away without answering the interviewer's direct questions or saying anything truly substantive?
SCORE__

[2] Does he have a grandiose sense of self-worth?
Does he brag? Is he arrogant? Superior? Domineering? Does he feel he's above the rules that apply to "little people" such as "pro pers and pro ses"? Does he act as though everything revolves around him?
SCORE__

[3] Is he a pathological liar?
Has he reinvented his own past in a more positive light -- for example, claiming that he rose from a tough, poor background even though he really grew up middle class? Does he lie habitually even though he can easily be found out? When he's exposed, does he still act unconcerned because he thinks he can weasel out of it? Does he enjoy lying? Is he proud of his knack for deceit? Is it hard to tell whether he knows he's a liar or whether he deceives himself and believes his own b/s?
SCORE__

[4] Is he a con artist or master manipulator?
Does he use his skill at lying to cheat or manipulate other people in his quest for money, power, status, and sex? Does he "use" people brilliantly? Does he engage in dishonest schemes such as cooking the books by making unsupported claims of billable hours?
SCORE__

[5] When he harms other people, does he feel a lack of remorse or guilt?
Is he concerned about himself rather than the wreckage he inflicts on others or society at large? Does he say he feels bad but acts as though he really doesn't? Even if he has had a complaint filed at his law society, does he accept blame for what he did? Does he blame others for the trouble he causes? Does he have a conflict of interest, and did he try to conceal it? When you found out, did he deal with it in a professional manner, such as by offering to give up the brief or recusing himself?
SCORE__

[6] Does he have a shallow affect?
Is he cold and detached? Does he make brief, dramatic displays of emotion that are nothing more than putting on a theatrical mask and play-acting for effect? Does he claim to be your friend but rarely or never ask about the details of your life or your emotional state? Is he one of those tough-guy lawyers who brag about how emotions are for whiners and losers?
SCORE__

[7] Is he callous and lacking in empathy?
Does he not give a damn about the feelings or well-being of other people? Is he profoundly selfish? Does he cruelly mock others? Is he emotionally or verbally abusive toward courtroom or office employees? Can he make rulings without concern for how they'll get by in their new life? Can he profit from the unfair taking of funds by overcharging clients without concern for the harm he's doing to them or their children and other family members, or their retirement lives?
SCORE__

[8] Does he fail to accept responsibility for his own actions?
Does he always cook up some excuse? Does he blame others for what he's done? If he's under investigation by his law society, or the Commission on Judicial Ethics, will he tell you? Does he refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing even when there is hard rebuttable evidence not allowed in? Does he say "The Appeals Court will take care of it."
SCORE__

Total____
If your judgement scores:
1-4 | Be frustrated
5-7 | Be cautious
8-12 | Be afraid
13-16 | Be very afraid

Finally, if you have completed this test, you might want to apply it to others (O.K., other than your unfavorite politician) that you know through personal contact, whether in your profession (your agent, your manager, your press agent, your accountant, your director, your producer, your star), your personal life (your spouse, your partner, your children, your boss, your friends)

or last, but not least, YOURSELF!!

March 13, 2001

These were the low-lifes that the Los Angeles Times was responsible for concocting this story, although only Roug covered our trial.

The press seems to maintain an unholy alliance with celebrities, probably because they are the source of countless future interviews and collaborative undertakings of mutual benefit, and their unfortunate spouses are not. And as for the general public, they would really prefer not to know any bad things going on in the lives of their favorites, which is understandable, but neither should they be misinformed with celebrity white-washing by the media.

Because I wanted the press to be present at the trials to report on the truth of what was going on for the all important reason that my reputation was at stake, I was glad to meet up front with Louise Roug, sent by the Times. I took her out for lunch. I wanted to know where she was coming from, I wanted to free up her mind in case it was set already. I discovered that she's full-blooded Danish, as was my mother. We got on fine, and I thought I had an ally in truth. She attended for several days, and had access to the facts.

I had been living for two years under the effects of the stunningly awful reports in the press and television media of what a cad I had been, and I was defending Lynn and my kids by not speaking up. Now the truth was about to be revealed, under oath at trial. What better way for me to clear my name. And to do this, unavoidably without a lawyer, I thought at least would attract attention. The air would be cleared, and I could get on with my life. She attended for several days, and had enough of the facts to create a real story. (As a side note, interesting that not one member of the public dropped by to take a look over the entire ten days of trial.)

Instead, to my utter astonishment, she presented this biased and misrepresented account against me in the service of celebrity Lynn, and to please her editors in support, I now see, of her ambition to become a serious journalist with a foreign posting (at this time, unbelievably, she's reporting for them from Iraq!). Her publicized view of me still sticks as part of the false view held by Lynn's fan club. At least that was true until now, where I have a chance to reveal the smoke and mirrors surrounding the case, and provide context with this blawg. If, that is, people will read it.

The account of this trial, of course, belonged on the Business page or the News pages where other trials are reported for the enlightenment of serious readers, not the Entertainments page.

I filed this document with all of its ersatz dirty laundry as part of my Appeal. And it's on the public record, so that other media, like CNN, could read it.

Bear in mind that much of the detail is for the benefit of others contemplating divorce, to correct the serious smear to my reputation, and to show what the courts can do to you if you are not represented. I don't think anyone else has the stomach to do this.

I risk revealing the details of how they play dirty with pro per defendants. They may be emulated by opposing professional attorneys, but I know that their law-schools already taught them the same tricks.

Download PDF file

Judge Lloyd Jeffrey Wiatt 1943-2005

Sad to read about his death. He had a connection to showbiz, his brother Jim Wiatt is the CEO of The William Morris Agency, the leading and oldest of them all.

He was a former deputy D.A., he fought in Vietnam for four years, he had his pilot license, owned a plane, played guitar and golf. A well rounded person one might say.

He was respected by his peers, although attorneys appearing before him did not rate him highly on the list of judges who get to be peremptoraly challenged; over a period of time he rated well over 50, deemed to be an average indicator of feelings from attorneys that he is unfair, not wanted. He was controversial too, in his handling of certain of his cases.

But what brings me to this note is the news that he shot himself as he was about to be questioned in connection with a charge of child molestation.

Why? Was he guilty? Or was he afraid only of the process of investigation?

His family needs to know, and so do we. But will we?

The matter should be put to rest, but not yet. Too often, it's "let sleeping dogs lie, nothing to be gained here".

But the behavior of judges, the commonly accepted (because we have no choice) Gods of this society, all of whom cross every religious and non-religious boundary, must be seen to be held to the highest of high standards.

No cover-up. We need an answer just because he was a judge.

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

Here we have the lower courts in Los Angeles. Again, a well run and informative site. As a pro per (or as a pro se) you are encouraged to use it!

Los Angeles Superior Court

Here are the Federal Court Rules here in California

Central District of California, Local Rules

JUDGES

Judges rule our lives. They are closer than Gods to us, at least from a practical point of view. So read this to gain a better understanding of the role they play, and how they got there - in California anyway, and I didn't write this.

"A judge oversees everything in the courtroom. A judge must see that all cases assigned to his or her courtroom are handled in a timely manner.

In every case, the judge must be impartial or fair to all parties (the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s)) involved in the case. If a judge thinks there is any reason that the parties may question the judge's ability to be fair, the parties and judge must discuss this prior to the start of trial. If there is any reason that a judge might not be able to be impartial, such as the judge is a friend of a person involved in a case, the judge must withdraw from the case. This is called a recusal.

When a case is set for a hearing or for trial, it is the responsibility of the judge to:

* Set the hour for the hearing or trial
* Keep order in the courtroom
* Permit presentation of evidence through testimony of witnesses or the introduction of exhibits
* Make a ruling on a motion
* Decide the outcome (judgment) of the trial

And in jury trials:

* Preside over the selection of the jurors
* Decide on what evidence can be considered by the jurors in making their decision
* Explain the law that applies to the case to the jurors so they can deliberate
* Sentence the defendant if the defendant is found guilty in a criminal case

Qualifications Needed To Become a Judge

There are two ways to become a judge in California:

* To be appointed by the Governor
* To run for election against another judge or for a particular judge's position

In order to become a judge, a lawyer must be a member of the State Bar of California and have practiced law for at least 10 years.

In order to seek appointment from the Governor, a lawyer must fill out an application, and usually provide letters of support from friends, including lawyers, judges, law school professors, and others who know the candidate's qualifications. The application is reviewed by the Governor's staff, and if they feel that the applicant is qualified, the State Bar of California Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation is asked to review the candidate's application. The commission solicits additional information and recommendations from other lawyers and judges who are familiar with the applicant. If the applicant receives a high rating, the Governor's staff will submit the application to the Governor, who will then decide whether to grant the appointment. The Governor will appoint a new judge when there is a vacancy at a particular court.

A lawyer may also seek a judicial position by running for election. The lawyer may run against a current judge or run for an open position on a court's bench. Candidates for judicial election are usually evaluated by a committee of the local bar association, who will rate the candidate(s) and inform the voters before the election.

The term of office for a trial judge in California is six years."

Here's a link, if you feel the judge isn't behaving the way he should. It will make you feel better if you follow this up, but it won't do you any good. It's amazing what a judge can and does do, and it is all within his powers, which seem to be unlimited. Oh, and they do not and cannot touch a retired judge. Here in California we look to

California Commission on Judicial Performance

CALIFORNIA CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS

These words are worth reading and re-reading, and not just by you.

They are enshrined by the Supreme Court of California, and display those ethics, Canon by Canon.

And it reveals here perhaps most of all that while we may look to the Gods of our individual Faiths for the strictures and Rules of moral Codes of Behavior, we all have only one system of justice in this country, and we need to have the FAITH that the judges can be trusted. Yes, here in California, the buck stops with Chief Justice Ronald George.

However he performs, he will be remembered at voting time.

California Code of Judicial Ethics

Here in Los Angeles, we have the Second Circuit Courts of Appeal. Read this. The website is remarkable for what it can do. You can check out cases, including the progression of your case, if you get that far.

You get assigned to the Division supposedly at random, but believe me, you will wish for some and not for others. And download forms, and get a sense of who the justices are (in the COA the judges are justices). And you get lawyers who specialize in appeals cases. I did my own. Huh!

The Los Angeles Courts of Appeal