Supreme Court Gets Kangaroo Small Claims Case

January 2, 2012No Comments

Donald L. Zachary
Former Vice President KNBC News Legal Affairs
Attorney Fees To Non-Profit Disputed
 
Los Angeles, CA– The California Supreme Court has received an unprecedented Petition For Review of a Santa Monica Small Claims Court case that started in the courtroom of Judge Lawrence Cho and involved an attorney fee dispute between Donald Zachary, the former Vice President of NBC News Legal Affairs in Los Angeles and American Association of Women,  the parent organization of the Full Disclosure Network®, a non-profit, cable and Internet television program.
JUDGE ISSUES VOID DECISION, IGNORES COURT RULES
AAW appealed to the Superior Court Appellant Division after Judge Cho rendered a “VOID” decision which then the AAW filed with California Court of Appeals, Second District. At issue was whether or not Small Claims cases are to be decided under existing State Laws that guarantee an unbiased and fair trial or are Small Claims cases relegated to a different standard of Justice and application of the law?
 
KANGAROO COURT TV SERIES ONLINE HERE:
The Full Disclosure Network® has produced a Documentary TV series featuring court room witnesses to what happened during the trial. The full six segments (8 minutes ea) are featured online here.
 
ISSUES PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT
1.    When a trial court judge:
a) “has permitted and considered an exparte communication thereby given an appearance of impropriety.”b) “has failed to ‘swear in’ parties and witnesses,”

c) ”has denied a party its legal right to present witnesses”

d) “has failed to enforce a valid subpoena for records, and”

e) “has failed to require a party to produce a statutorily required statement (calculation of liability), is such a judge disqualified for cause from hearing the

disqualified for cause from hearing the cases?”
2.    “Is a California Judge, who lacks personal jurisdiction, disqualified from hearing a case?”
3.    “Are all California judges required to comply with the Code of Judicial Ethics?”
4.    “Are trial court judges allowed to receive secret, expartecommunications froma party in a
case?”
5.    “Are trial court judges allowed to ignore the California Evidence Code?”
 
CONSUMERS PLAN SMALL CLAIMS CASES TO SUE HONDA ON MILEAGE DISPUTES
The L A Times reported in this article on December 27, 2011 that disgruntled Honda owners are abandoning their lawyers to get a fair shake in Small Claims Court against Honda, do consumers stand a chance?

Leave a Reply

Make a