Los Angeles, CA. FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK® presents a five minute Video News Blog covering the controversial civil rights attorney Stephen Yagman who claims to be a 20 year friend of U.S. Judge Steven V. Wilson who presided over the Federal trial where Yagman was convicted of 19 counts of tax evasion and fraud earlier this year.
This five minute video reveals: the fact Judge Wilson recently dismissed six out of 19 counts of tax evasion and fraud after the jury found Yagman guilty on all counts and features Loyola Law School Professor Stanley Goldman who provides legal background and commentary. The Court Order, issued by Judge Wilson on August 17, 2007 was never reported in the mainstream media, nor was it posted on the U. S. Attorney's website along with a usual press release. This extraordinary development was only found on the www.patterico.com website.
Conflict of Interest? The 2001 video clip of Stephen Yagman describing his friendship with Judge Wilson, raises questions as to whether or not their friendship posed a conflict or if it had been properly disclosed to the prosecutors.
VIEWERS ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN AN OPINION SURVEY:
Following the online video, viewers are asked to vote in an opinion poll on the following questions:
- Do you think that Judge Wilson should have recused himself from the trial of his friend Stephen Yagman? Yes or no.
- Do you think the media and the press deliberately did not report Judge Wilson's acquittal of several counts against Yagman? Yes or no.
- Are there sufficient checks and balances in the judicial systems to assure judicial integrity? Yes or no.
Known as "the news behind the news" Full Disclosure Network®® cable television programs are featured on 45 cable systems and the Internet since 1992 and produced by host Leslie Dutton and Producer T. J. Johnston. In 2002 the Full Disclosure® special series "L. A.'s War Against Terrorism" was recognized by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences with a local Emmy Award for a public affairs, informational series. Channels and airtimes can be found on the website at www.fulldisclosure.net.
Comments to date: 29. This is page 1 of 3.
paysvfnus mSLYAMcXotrm
Posted: 01:01 am [PST] on May 31 2011
J9izLU , [url=http://iuqmmhemdvqo.com/]iuqmmhemdvqo[/url], [link=http://kbxxyptvlekq.com/]kbxxyptvlekq[/link], http://tvqktifoqvbi.com/
kaugwahpbc snRDQmpRRub
Posted: 07:58 am [PST] on May 27 2011
L6pXye nbedrumzlvyw
qerfea bXJxhGDkg
Posted: 09:12 am [PST] on May 23 2011
pguKC0 , [url=http://xogqtbgxgwuy.com/]xogqtbgxgwuy[/url], [link=http://qzpxnqipnpug.com/]qzpxnqipnpug[/link], http://fljhmdsdbkkp.com/
KatyaDavis Rome
Posted: 07:57 am [PST] on February 02 2011
Best regards, Katya, CEO of plextor external dvd burner, iscsi network design
sofia LA
Posted: 03:21 am [PST] on January 26 2011
Détection d’un doublon : il semble que vous avez déjà envoyé ce commentaire !
Best regards, Sofia, CEO of microsoft iscsi initiator vista
Bill Orange County CA
Posted: 12:51 pm [PST] on May 11 2010
Just because someone has the title of "Civil Rights Attorney" doesn't make them a saint. In fact, Stephen Yagman is scum. Mr. Yagman, like his comrades Thomas Beck and the late Johnny Cochran, knew cities and counties had deep pockets. They were nothing but ambulance chasers. Most of what they did amounted to nothing more to shaking a tree, hoping some fruit falls out. Yagman was well known for settling suits out of court for a fraction of what he was actually suing for. He dealt in quantity, not quality lawsuits. He was a frivolous lawyer in the most extreme.
Emanuel McCray San Diego
Posted: 09:18 am [PST] on May 05 2010
Mr. Yagman was convicted. The duty was on the prosecution to present Judge Wilson with a reason for his recusal. The prosecution never claimed and was never worried it would not receive fair and impartial treatment from Judge Wilson. Usually, and when the prosecution has a favorable case, recusal is the least favored option. In legal perspective and context, a new judge could be worse than the recused judge.
Andrew Roles Phoenix AZ
Posted: 01:08 pm [PST] on July 10 2009
Very unethical.
Fred Sottile Los Angeles
Posted: 09:21 pm [PST] on July 07 2009
See Caperton v. Massey. The U.S. Supreme Court has seen so much corruption that it had to actually state that appearences of impropriety by judges can no longer be tolerated. Well, they are right. This case stinks of impropriety. Judge Wilson has demonstrated his inability to be responsible for his own behavior. How can he judge others. Judge Wilson has got to go. It's simple logic. His qualification to hold his job is that he is trusted. He has betrayed that trust. He is no longer qualified. He can no longer be called "your honor." The questionable Judge Wilson must step down. If he is not compelled to do this by his superiors, then they are disqualified from their job. See how simple it is. Someone must have integrity at some point or you will end up with.........uh oh, you will end up with what we've got.
Beleagured Attorney 111 N. Hill St, L.A. CA
Posted: 08:57 am [PST] on July 03 2009
Judge Chalfant does not always disclose his conflicts of interests. He has connections with some of the major L.A. firms but he does not disclose these connections, making it impossible for opposing counsel to inquire whether Judge Chalfant's associations with these law firms might prejudice his decisions. When Chalfant covers up his associations, even after being asked many time for full disclosure, one may reasonably believe that those associations did bias him. If the associations were non-prejudicial, then they could have withstood the light of day.
There is also an apparent conflict with the Association of City Attorneys making campaign contributions to councilmen who can improve or worsen their working conditions and then supporting the councilmens' friends and other campaign contributors in court. Citizens have a right to expect that the City Attorneys are acting impartially and not doing the special bidding of developers and councilmen. The courts are simply a moral cesspool. A corrupt city hall requires a corrupt judiciary.