Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Is Election Fraud allowed by our corrupt Santa Barbara Superior Court Judges when dealing with there first six year term?

Based on my recent research into the election history of our sitting Santa Barbara Superior Court Judges and the obvious lack of transparency I felt there was still more to explore. When you add that I am just as unfamiliar with the appointment process to the Superior Court Bench, again I felt more work was needed there too. What little I do know is that the Governor shall appoint a person to fill a vacancy temporarily until the elected judge’s term begins. You see at first I thought my confusion came from my lack of knowledge. However since there is no ambiguity as to the time frame that a Superior Court Judicial  appointee may occupy the bench. An because there term is clearly defined though our California Constitution and the timing of there appointment. An after I made a call to a State agency I began to realize that my confusion may actually be an intentional act. More deceit by those who may have also committed election fraud the "Judges" themselves. So lets continue on with some very specific examples I have regarding our Judges and there actions once they take there place on our Bench.

As usual I am not sure about much and look forward to any one who decides to come forward and correct me if indeed I have made incorrect assumptions. Even after saying that you have to question why there would be any variance of the law and by our Judges.

Based on Judge Herman being appointed to the bench 05/2005 when would you think he would be required to appear on the next general election ballot? You can look to the bottom of this posting and apply the reference material I have supplied. Based on my interpretation of the reference material Judge Herman would be required to have nomination papers in for the  06/2006 election.

I have mentioned this many times before but I feel our local media plays far to great a roll in the misleading of the public.An the story below seems to be another example of just that.

Quintin Cushner 7 Staff Writer Lompoc Record | Posted: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 12:00 am | (0) Comments
5/18/05 A Santa Barbara lawyer who recently served as president of the California State Bar was appointed Tuesday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to a vacant Superior Court judgeship in Santa Maria.
James Herman, 59, has spent the past 20 years practicing business litigation. Born in Kansas City, Mo., Herman earlier served as a deputy public defender for Riverside, San Diego and Santa Barbara counties.
Herman, a Democrat, is filling a vacancy left by Judge James Jennings, who retired in June with more than four years remaining in his term. The seat will reopen in 2008 for an election, though sitting judges are usually given the edge. With the appointment, there are no current bench vacancies in Santa Maria.  A judicial seat is newly created If created in an election year, it will be on the ballot in two years; if created in a non-election year, it will be on the ballot the following year.   So if you believe the story you just read newly appointed Judge Herman would not have to appear on the June ballot until 06/2008. How can that be so? 2 years is the maximum term for any appointee under any circumstance best as I can tell. That would mean Judge Herman's original appointment would cover the remainder of 03, all of the year 04, 05 an 06. An of course based on that example he would run for re election in 06 in order to win his first six year term that would start in January 07. I cannot find any Legislation that would allow for the example I just shared to actually happen.

Judge Jean Dandona and Judge Kay Kuns were appointed to the bench on 11/05/08, So when would they need to be on the June ballot?
06/2010 is my guess, what do you think?

Judge Arthur Garcia and Judge George Eskin are appointed to the bench on 08/27/03 So based on the criteria I have provided you all here what I see is this. January 1 2004 is an election year and the next available primary would have been March 2 2004. The primary's switch to there current June date in 2006.Yet Garcia does not run for reelection until June of 06. People how can that be? That would mean his appointment covered the remainder of 03, all of 04, all of 05 and all of 06. An he would seek re election in 06 for his first six year term to start 01/01/07 an that is just what he did!

Santa Barbara County, CA

June 6, 2006 Election
Additional Endorsements for Arthur Alvarez Garcia

Candidate for
Superior Court Judge; County of Santa Barbara; Office 7

If I am correct look at all the Superior Court Judges that play along as if Judge Garcia's uncommon challenged reelection is legal at the link below!

This information is provided by the candidate
Partial Endorsement List See also
Judges of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County
Hon. Rodney S. Melville, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Hon. J. William McLafferty, Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Hon. Thomas R. Adams
Hon. Clifford Anderson III
Hon. Thomas P. Anderle
Hon. Denise de Bellefeuille
Hon. James W. Brown
Hon. George Eskin
Hon. Rogelio R. Flores
Hon. Diana Hall
Hon. James Herman
Hon. Brian Hill
Hon. James F. Iwasko
Hon. Joseph Lodge
Hon. Frank J. Ochoa
Hon. James F. Rigali
Hon. Timothy J. Staffel
Commissioner Steve Belasco
Commissioner Edward DeCaro
Commissioner John F. McGregor
Commissioner Colleen Sterne
Commissioner Deborah Talmage
Retired Judges
Hon. Barbara Beck
Hon. Zel Canter
Hon. Terrill Cox
Hon. Bruce Dodds
Hon. William L. Gordon
Hon. S. Jon Gudmunds
Hon. Gene Huseman
Hon. Royce R. Lewellen
Hon. Harry J. Loberg
Hon. Rick Brown
Hon. James M. Slater
Court of Appeal Justice
Hon. Arthur Gilbert, Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District Division 6
Below is the reference material I used in my attempting to unravel the election process of our Superior Court Bench in our Santa Barbara Count!

Timing in Judicial Elections

Part 3: Comparison of Requirements for Municipal, Superior Courts

[With the trial courts in all California counties now unified, legal requirements relating to municipal courts are of historic interest, only.

 A judicial seat is newly created If created in an election year, it will be on the ballot in two years; if created in a non-election year, it will be on the ballot the following year. 
A newly created seat produces a vacancy which, under Art. VI, §16(c) "shall be filled by election to a full term at the next general election after the January 1 following the vacancy." Fields v. Eu (1976) 18 Cal.3d 322.
A judge leaves office (dies, retires, resigns, is removed from office or is appointed to another post) in a non-election year. The election will be held the following year. 
Under Art. VI, §16(c) of the state Constitution, "the vacancy shall be filled by election to a full term at the next general election after the January 1 following the vacancy, but the Governor shall appoint a person to fill a vacancy temporarily until the elected judge’s term begins." The person who is to "temporarily" fill the vacancy will, of course, nearly always become the elected judge owing to the advantage of incumbency in running for election.
A judge leaves office early in the year in which his or her term expires. 

The election will be held that year if a candidate has filed nominating papers; otherwise, it will be held in two years.   Once a candidate qualifies, however, a primary election will take place in June (and in November if there is a run-off). Stanton v. Panish (1980) 28 Cal.3d 107. The governor may still make an appointment to the post after a candidate qualifies, though the term of the appointee will expire the Monday after Jan. 1. Const., Art. VI, §16(c). The flip side of Stanton, however, is that if the governor makes an appointment before a candidate qualifies for the office by filing nominating papers, the election for the office will be called off and will take place in two years. That holding, however, must be assumed to apply only where the incumbent who leaves office was elected to his or her post. Pollack v. Hamm (1970) 3 Cal.3d 264, which Stanton does not purport to overrule, held that the departure of an appointed judge will not result in the postponement of an election.

No comments: