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: 16. This is page 1 of 2.
Michael los angeles
Posted: 07:29 pm [PST] on April 13 2008
I love your show and website. You are a great watchdog for the state of California. I also wanted to comment about your program regarding Federal Indictments..
The people always want justice in their state, but it seems that that news media is always trying to make it easier for criminals to beat a charge or conviction. People are tired of attorneys using legal manuevering to allow their clients to escape justice. So you ask the question... are there enough checks and balances in the precess of indictements? Yes. What are they? The courts themselves.
The court is supposed to feret out the cases where a crime has not been committed. The court is supposed to listen to the arguments on both sides and make the correct decision. The evidence is supposed to be exposed and the charges justified in court. And the court performs this task in most cases.
I have personally witnessed the problems with prosecuting the wrongdoing of persons in the taxation system and it is very... very... very... difficult to prosecute this wrongdoing. If any person ever goes to prison... it is a fortunate occurence for the people of the state and country. It is fortunate because for too often people get convicted and they get home detention or they get probation. Is that fair? No But this is the Federal prosecution system. In the state courts... prosecution is easier and going to prison for tax evasion is far more certain.
So when you hear these attorneys telling you that the system is flawed and it may not be fair... they may be correct. However, that inequity could be easily illustrated by the prosecuters side as well. Just look at the Yagman decision to understand this point. But I did not see any representative from the prosecuter's side on your program. I did not see any attorney from the US Attorney's Office to tell you about the system. A former prosecuter does not count.
Keep up the good work... You are doing a great service for the people and the state of California. Thank you!!!
jennifer lynn caldwell san agabriel
Posted: 12:22 am [PST] on April 02 2008
i think yagman should've been aquitted.
Phil N. Hollywood
Posted: 06:19 am [PST] on March 30 2008
One more instance of the judicial system exposed as haven and tool of protection for the wealthy gentry class and corporations...the middle class be damned!
Jonathan Fischbach Hollywood
Posted: 11:21 pm [PST] on March 21 2008
Yagman is a True American ! Someone needs to take on the LAPD. The LAPD's Affirmative Action Policies have led to extreme negligence, which results in numerous lawsuits against the CITY OF LA. And rightly so !
dan encino ca.
Posted: 04:50 pm [PST] on January 28 2008
How can you get justice, if the judges are biased in your case, and no attorney has the backbone to go after them?
Shirley Borchardt Los Angeles, CA
Posted: 11:45 am [PST] on January 24 2008
I am not a lawyer and I represented myself in 4 related lawsuits, 2005-2007 in the LA County Superior Court System. I can tell you from personal experience that there ARE NOT
sufficient checks and balances to insure judicial integrity. I encountered six (6) judges
at two courthouses in the West District who astonishingly, did not honor the rule of law.
Two of those jurists committed felonies attempting to cover up the automatic disqualification of another judge. Three out of those six jurists participated in a different scheme/scam to block the disqualification statements I filed against them. I was never held in contempt of court for filing those
disqualification statements, which is a telltale sign that my claims were well founded. Clear & convincing evidence exists proving that several of the six (6) judges failed to honor the rule of law in an apparent effort to protect an attorney I was suing. I have reported the criminal acts of four (4) judges to the Commission on Judicial Performance
(California state agency responsible for the investigation of complaints of judicial misconduct), the office of the Attorney General AND the LA District Attorney's Office.
ALL HAVE TURNED A BLIND EYE TO UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTS
BY SITTING JUDGES. Without a doubt folks, there are insufficient checks and balances
to assure judicial integrity in the State of California. IMO, the pervasive corruption within the courts is the reason so much other
corruption exists. If we concentrate on cleaning up the courts, a lot of government corruption would be curtailed. As for me, I will continue to fight like hell to remove these unethical lawyers from the bench. If I don't, then I'm contributing to the corruption.
VIDA CLAY JACKSONVILLE,TX.
Posted: 08:58 pm [PST] on November 28 2007
i have had this to happen to me and it is wrong,we had an attorney that was friends with an attorney,we felt,that this judge recused himself,but he didn't, it is wrong.
sharon roman los angeles
Posted: 10:51 pm [PST] on November 21 2007
I do not see the conflict here. Many judges and lawyers have reciprocal respect for each other. It is no different here. Has anyone asked the question of whether or not the dismissal of the six counts was appropriate? The media always targets the left, Yagman is a high profile civil rights lawyer. There treatment of him in the media is no different than the allegations. It is not an accident that Yagman was special prosecutor in the Ruby Ridge matter.
JOHN SAN DIEGO
Posted: 05:16 pm [PST] on November 19 2007
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT JUDGE HANDLES A CASE, BECAUSE THE LAW IS THE LAW, JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL. I THINK THE GOVERNMENT WAS AFTER MR. YAGMAN FOR HIS PRIOR LAW SUIT AGAINST THE I.R.S. ITS A SHAME THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T BELIEVE IN CIVIL RIGHTS
Robert Los Angeles
Posted: 10:32 am [PST] on November 19 2007
Yagman invents lawsuits that are frivilous, and without merit, in order to make as good of a living as he possibly can. He enhances his income by hiding a lot of his assets, to make it appear like he doesn't owe as much in income taxes. Money is quite important to him. The friendly judge should have recused himself from the beginning because of his 20-year relationship with Yagman. And even after he didn't recuse himself, he should have bent over backwards to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, by simply honoring the jury's verdict. And the LA Times should have reported on this potential scandal. The reason why they didn't is because of their bias toward people who appear to have their civil rights infringed upon, but really don't. In Yagman's cases, the civil rights violations are suffered by the people who must face the annoying lawsuits by Yagman, not the other way around. And both the LA Times and Yagman should quit bashing the LAPD. The LAPD's job is already quite difficult, especially for the average pay they get, but they must constantly be on their guard for people who actually want their civil rights to be violated, so that they can go for a juicy lawsuit, and try to taunt the LAPD into abusing these people. Illegal immigrants, for example, are notorious for this tactic. In order to have a more sane city, and to cut down on frivilous lawsuits, we should be enforcing our immigration laws.