Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Judge Sterne you must answer to the American Public!

Corruption in Santa Barbara Superior Court, only I have been following the story all along!Posted by Larry Mendoza on June 2, 2010 at 2:46pm
View My Blog
.Admin Options.Edit PostAdd Tags Cancel
Delete Post Edit Blog Posts..Just because I am the first to bring things to your attention does not mean I do not know what I am talking about. The only difference is I am not afraid to ask or to share! When you cannot trust a Superior Court Judges Integerty what chance do we have to prevent Corruption? I do not know but here I stand telling you all it happens every day!

In Santa Barbara California Governor Schwarzenegger this past January 2010 had made an appointee to fill a Superior court vacancy. He named Colleen K. Sterne as the replacement for the deceased Judge Lafferty. Now my concern is when the story broke immediately the new Judge Sterne announced she had a six year term and did not have to run, I find her statement incorrect. Well with elections just around the corner I am still waiting for Judge Sterne to announce her intentions. It seams if I read the below portion of the California Constitution correctly she has in effect told us she will be abandoning her Judgeship on the first Monday after January 1st 2011. In fact if I recall correctly and I usually do 5 other Santa Barbara Superior court Judges will have also abandoned there Judgeship. You see Appellate and Supreme Court are appointed for terms of six years. However in Superior court you must be elected and there is no six year appointee! That is right so for Judge Sterne to state she does not have to run as Judge Lafferty was about to this June is simply another crime against the people of the State of California and the County of Santa Barbara. Other wise how could the general public have any clue who was asking to be reelected if the do not appear on a primary ballot? CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONARTICLE 6 JUDICIAL

(2) The Governor shall fill vacancies in those courts by appointment. An appointee holds office until the Monday after January 1 following the first general election at which the appointee had the right to become a candidate or until an elected judge qualifies.

Below is my source on why I felt Judge Sterne had to run!

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Judge William McLafferty, who very much embodied the role of judge with his large frame, somber voice, even disposition, and perennial bow tie, died on Friday. He was reportedly 70. McLafferty, who first took the bench in 1997, had been ill for several weeks and had been hospitalized at Cottage Hospital, reportedly for problems with his one remaining lung. McLafferty had existed with just one lung for several decades, perhaps setting a medical record for one-lunged longevity.

With McLafferty’s death, prospective judicial candidates now have an open seat for which to run, something that rarely occurs. That election will take place this June. A number of other judges’ terms come due this June as well, but the power of the incumbency in judicial races is all but omnipotent. Beyond that, there are at least two other vacancies on the Santa Barbara bench as well.

Judge William McLafferty listens to arguments in the Pappas v Farr trial March 2009

Early on, McLafferty, a civil attorney by professional background — he worked for the law firm of Archibald and Spray — heard criminal cases. But he moved on to civil cases, where he reportedly relished presiding over complex litigation. Most recently, he presided over supervisorial candidate Steve Pappas’s challenge of Doreen Farr’s victory last November for 3rd District Supervisor. Pappas lost by 809 votes and was attempting to disqualify many ballots cast in Farr’s favor by making sweeping allegations of voter fraud. When Pappas’s attorney failed to present any evidence of such fraud, McLafferty called him out, and ruled in favor of Farr.

Likewise, McLafferty ruled in the matter of Cruzito Cruz, a candidate for the Santa Barbara City Council in last November’s election. Initially, city election officials ruled that Cruz had failed to turn in the requisite number of signatures from registered city voters to qualify for the ballot. But Cruz, acting as his own attorney, challenged City Hall in McLafferty’s courtroom and prevailed. Although Cruz didn’t come close to victory in the actual election, his court victory had a lot of resonance in the world of local politics. Council member Iya Falcone, then running for mayor, had also been disqualified from the ballot for lack of signatures on her petition, and she chose not to challenge the city’s determination, based, in part, on the prevailing wisdom that such challenges could not win. While the facts in Cruz’s case were different than Falcone’s, they suggest that the outcome (had Falcone fought back) would not have been as pre-ordained as the experts suggested. Falcone disqualification certainly helped the mayoral campaign of then-councilmember Helene Schneider.

In addition, McLafferty also presided over the probate and conservatorship calendar, a prickly case load involving the mental competence of senior citizens and the disposition of their wealth by those assigned to care for them. Last year, there were a spate of controversies surrounding conservatorship cases, and McLafferty became the subject of criticism from a group claiming that the court was appointing conservators when it needn’t and shouldn’t. This group circulated a petition to have McLafferty recalled, but their efforts ultimately went nowhere.

McLafferty served as presiding judge in 2007 and 2008, during which time he pushed hard to have civil cases diverted away from the judges handling the civil case load and given instead to mediators and arbitrators to handle outside the courtroom