Complaints about court commissioners

June 20, 10:18 AMLA Family Courts ExaminerLaura Lynn

Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the LA Family Courts Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

AP Photo

Complaints about Commissioner Alan Friedenthal of the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Family Law Division are flowing in to Presiding Judge Marjorie Steinberg, first, and the the Commission on Judicial Performance, when Judge Steinberg does not satisfy the complainant.

Commissioner Friedenthal was moved from Family Court to Small Claims in early February, 2009 without explanation to the public. Much to the consternation of litigants, the unpopular Commissioner is still writing orders in family law disputes and able to sit on reconsiderations on orders he already wrote.

This writer submitted a complaint to Judge Steinberg on February 15, 2009. It reads in part:

I met some of the other victims of Alan Friedenthal and the Superior Court of California on a website called www.courthouseforum.com. I posted blogs about my case and Alan Friedenthal in general. A printout of a few pages is included, but I recommend the Commission Members read the entire content. Alan Friedenthal did.

In a direct violation of Canon 3B7 which states in part “A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding”, Alan Friedenthal considered the comments from courthouseforum.com. In the transcript of PD016769 from January 21, 2009, copy enclosed, Alan Friedenthal, hereafter referred to as The Court, made the following statements:

2:14-15 TAKE GOOD NOTES. I LOOK FORWARD TO READING YOUR SUMMARY.

4:13 –5: 3 FIRST, I DON’T KNOW WHY YOU CAN’T FIND MY STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST FOR 2007, BUT IF YOU KEEP LOOKING, YOU’LL FIND IT, OKAY, AND YOU WON’T FIND ANYTHING UNTOWARD. OKAY.

SECOND, I DON’T HAVE ANY INVESTMENTS OR PARTNERSHIPS OR ANY INTEREST IN ANY PROPERTY OWNED BY KEN SHERMAN OR HIS FAMILY. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN ANY PROPERTY OR INTEREST IN OR ANY INVESTMENTS WITH MR. LYNN OR JAMES LYNN, WHO I ASSUME IS A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY. SO YOU CAN CONTINUE THIS WITCH HUNT TO YOUR HEART’S DESIRE. OKAY. KNOCK YOURSELF OUT. I RULE ON THE FACTS. I’M NOT BLIND. YOU CAN CALL THE D.A.’S JUDICIAL INTEGRITY UNIT ALL YOU WANT. IT’S NOT GOING ANYWHERE. I’VE NEVER COMMITTED A CRIME. I AM NOT ABOUT TO START IN THIS CASE OR ANY OTHER CASE.

SO THANK YOU FOR THE DEFAMATION. KEEP THAT IN MIND, THAT IT IS DEFAMATION, AND MY GERMAN-JEWISH ANCESTORS WOULD BE VERY PROUD OF ME. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

The entire complaint is five pages and can be obtained by email from Bohemian_books@yahoo.com.

Three months latter Judge Steinberg replied by letter. Judge Steinberg referred to “[Commissioner Friedenthal] reading the comments you made on the Courthouse Forum website… He has indicated that because your allegations were false, he felt that he had to clear the air… Your posting on Courthouse Forum was not a communication to him so it is difficult to conclude that it violated Canon 3B(7) which prohibits ex parte communication. However, his statement on the record to you concerning those postings contained in the transcript you provided raised concerns as to which the court has taken appropriate action." I found the following definition of “ex parte” communications in a memo of the Judicial Council Of California Administrative Office Of The Courts dated April 5th, 2006.

“Ex parte communication” is a direct or indirect communication on the substance of a pending case without the knowledge, presence, or consent of all parties involved in the matter.”

You can read more about ex parte communications in family court here. The California Code of Judicial Ethics 3(B)7 clearly states “A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding, except as follows:”

None of the exceptions include reading blogs on the internet, even if the judge really disagrees with the postings.

You can read the California Code of Judicial Ethics here.

The complaint was forwarded to the Commission on Judicial Performance on May 18, 2009. Their investigation is still pending.

If you have a complaint about a commissioner in California, contact the presiding judge first. If you do not receive a satisfactory response within 90 days, write to the CJP. Their information can be found at www.cjp.ca.gov/. 

ADDENDUM: www.courthouseforum.com is having technical difficulties. You can read past posts there, but cannot add new posts or replies. If you want to be heard, feel free to post on comments from any of my articles, even if you are slightly off subject.