RSS
Home
Commissioner Friedenthal steps away from family law case, e-mail shows
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
What seems to be a committee effort resulted in the voluntary recusal of Commissioner Alan Friedenthal from a family law case. The case is mired in what seems to be inappropriate communications and led to alleged suppression of a litigants Freedom of Speech rights by Commissioner Friedenthal, his wife Commissioner Steff Padilla, an appointed visitation supervisor, the Sheriff and the Court.
Made public by inclusion in the case file was the following email. There are hand written notes and cross outs on the email. The email appears to be from Court Counsel Brett Bianco to Commissioner Friedenthal. It is dated 6/25/2009 at 8:54 am. The subject is “(litigant's name) recusal”.
***********************************************************************
Commissioner Friedenthal:
I suggest the following minute order: “The court believes that the interests of justice require that it not participate further in this proceeding. Accordingly, the court voluntarily recuses itself pursuant to Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter is returned to Department 87 for further proceedings.”
Judge Feffer is aware and understands that the matter will be returned to her.
Brett
D. Brett Bianco, Court Counsel
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
111 North Hill Street, Suite 546
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 974-5137 telephone
(213) 217-4960 facsimile
bbianco@lasuperiorcourt.org
**************************************************************************************************************************************
“suggest the following minute order” and “Judge Feffer is aware and understands that the matter will be returned to her” are scratched out.
According to the California Code of Judicial Ethics section 3B7, a judge is usually excluded from ex parte communications, but may consult with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out the judge's adjudicative responsibilities or with other judges.
This writer questions the appropriateness and the extent of the awareness and understanding of the proposed order by the receiving judge, Elizabeth Feffer. Are the litigants being given a fresh judge, or one who enters this controversial case with preconceived conclusions? Reader comments are appreciated.
The litigants were given the final draft of the minute order recusing Alan Friedenthal on July 1, 2009 at 8:30 am outside Division M in San Fernando where Commissioner Friedenthal is now assigned to hearing criminal traffic court (DUIs).
Information about the Suppression of Freedom of Speech allegations can be found in this story and here.
Laura Lynn supports her writing habit and investigative activity by selling interesting books. Thanks for thinking. Bohemian, ink.
