If you think Judges are a non-partisan office, you would be technically correct.  But in reality, as attested to by rulings of the 9^th Circuit Court, we have judges trying to write the law from the bench.  Many of these judges worked their way up through California Courts.  We are working to get Judges elected that will rule fairly based on the constitution and existing law.  These races are L.A. County wide.

Judicial Recommendations:

Office No. 8:  Bob Henry

Office No. 18:  Daviann L. Mitchell

Office No. 28:  Judith L. Meyer *

Office No. 95:  Susan L. Lopez-Giss

Office No. 102:  Hayden Zacky

Office No. 120: DzintraI. Janavs*

Office No. 122: Daniel J. Lowenthal*

Office No. 144:  David W. Stuart

* The most important races to vote on.

If you want to help restore sanity into the L.A. Court System, tell your friends, tell your neighbors, to vote on the Judges recommended above.  Please read the analysis to understand how our recommendations were arrived at.

Candidate Statements:  Having a candidate statement is a big advantage.  For judidical races it is very expensive, $45,000 estimated for this race.  Good judges are not necessarily good fundraisers or ones that have made lots of money.  That is why you will see only one candidate statement in the voter guide.

Judicial Summary:   This year was especially difficult to obtain information on the Judicial Races.  We sent out a short questionnaire to each judicial candidate. (Note: judicial candidates are barred from answering issues based questions).

We would like to thank the Metropolitan News-Enterprise (http://www.metnews.com/ ), they are doing a fantastic job of digging into each of the races and providing much needed background information. 

Fortunately, we have also made a number of contacts that provided advice and guidance.  We thank these people for their tremendous assistance and we respect their desire to remain anonymous.

We were particularly surprised that the L.A. Times recommendations were almost the same as the results of our research.  The replacement of some of their editorial staff is obviously working to get factual based decisions in their recommendations.

Update 21 May, 2006:

The LA County Bar Association (LACBA) ratings were made available on May 15^th.  Many people had already received their ballots and voted.  Our opinion is that the LA County Bar Association should revisit their  schedule so their information is available in a timely manner for those that receive absentee ballots, which in this case should have been about two weeks earlier. 

While the LACBA provides valuable information, we do not see it as the absolute final authority in choosing a judicial candidate.   We use the LACBA ratings as a guideline

 My research has found that the LACBA rating is similar to a Chamber of Commerce endorsement.  Their evaluations, while informed, are not completely based on quantifiable criteria as a certain amount of subjectivity is involved.  Ratings can vary depending on who is on the panel of evaluators, and, like any volunteer organization, personalities can sometimes impact decisions.  Our individual research resulted in choosing 6 of the 8 highest rated individuals in races. 

Bob Henry was rated Well Qualified by the LACBA in 2004, yet in 2006 he was rated Qualified.  What happened between 2004 and 2006, well Henry handled his highest profile case during that time period, however, the LACBA evaluators changed.

In 2004, a very well qualified candidate was rated Qualified.  Because she questioned that evaluation, the LACBA downgraded her to Not Qualified.  What about the case of Larry H. Layton, who in 2002 and 2004 was rated Qualified, yet in 2006 he is suddenly Not Qualified. 

We hope that the LACBA will address their schedule to get their evaluations out earlier, and also work on their process.  One of our local papers, the Press-Telegram, has taken the LACBA ratings at face value even though we know that they disagree with similar recommendations from the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce.

We hope that the LACBA takes this as constructive criticism.  

End Update

Below is our analysis for each candidate we will update as additional information is available. 

Office No. 8 Bob Henry:

Update 21 May 2006:

We spoke at length to Henry on 21 May 2006.  This is one of the two races that we did not pick the candidate with the highest rating. When Henry questioned the drop from Well Qualified in 2004 to Qualified this year, Henry was informed that different people at a different times were making the evaluations.  We suspect when he was asked why he was not involved in bar activities, and that he seemed to only do his job and go home is indicative of a LACBA club mentality and not a true evaluation of ability. 

In 2004, a quote Henry made in defense of a colleague following an appeal of a Qualified rating that resulted in a Not Qualified rating, was taken out of context. In 2005 Henry tried one of the biggest cases of his career, an appeal of an Anderson Hawthorne death penalty case, in which the defendant latched onto the recent fad of appealing on the basis that it would be cruel and unusual to execute a mentally deficient person, even though that person had never demonstrated any previous deficiency. 

We believe that not being part of the social activities of the LACBA, defending a colleague against a LACBA downgrade (we rate exceptionally high his actions in this regard), and representing the people to defend the death penalty, caused the drop in his LACBA  rating.  Of particular note, Henry has defended other candidates which he considered qualified but were rated Not-Qualified, including David Crawford, who was rated Qualified in 2002.  Consequently, we are reaffirming our recommendation.

End Update

Bob Henry was rated "Well Qualified" by the LA County Bar Association in 2004. 

Bob Henry was the only one to reply to my question for Office No. 8.  We are including his responses below.  He does not have a campaign website to refer you to, but he does have a little information at http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/la/vote/henry_b/

1. Please describe your qualifications to be a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge.  I am a graduate of Harvard Law School, Class of 1973, where I graduated with a B average.  I joined the Attorney Generals Office in 1974, starting in the Civil Division.  There, I tried the first OSHA citation given.  I was mainly responsible for closing diploma mills.  I filed suits to collect funds from wealthy individuals collecting state aid.  In addition, I filed actions against nursing homes for unsanitary conditions and filed actions to recover monies for medical assistance to medi-cal patients for injuries they received in auto accidents where 3^rd parties were responsible.

In 1978, I transferred to the Criminal Division and have handled approximately 800 felony appeals since then.  I have tried approximately 5 felony cases including a 5 defendant rape case.  My record of winning death penalty cases before the California Supreme Court is 4-0.  I have handled approximately 8 death penalty cases at one time or another.  From approximately 1991 to 1999, I was Asst. Capital Case Coordinator for the Los Angeles office.  I have reviewed approximately 100 capital pleadings done by other prosecutors.

2. Why do you want to be a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge?  At this stage of my career, I liken it to a Bachelors degree awardee wanting to get his Doctorate.  I feel that my experience has prepared me to be a judge at this stage of my life and that because of my extensive knowledge, I would make a good judge.

We completely agree with Bobs assessment of the U.S. Constitution, the legislative process is where changes to the U.S. Constitution should occur.

Opposing Bob Henry are Alan Friedenthal and Deborah Sanchez.  

Friedenthal appears to be that not so rare political activist judge type as determined by his endorsements.  His website, http://www.friedenthalforjudge.com/Biography.html.

Sanchez seams to be a solid Deputy City Attorney, but does not have the experience of Bob Henry.  http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/la/vote/sanchez_dl/

Office No. 18 Daviann Mitchell:

Update 21 May 2006:

We spoke with Daviann face to face on 20 May, 2006 and came away impressed.  We asked her about being rated Qualified, she believed that it might have something to do with a disproven complaint by an opposing defense attorney early in her career or perhaps that she does not have civil experience.  We believe that it is another case of Daviann not winning the popularity contest with the LACBA . 

Daniel Lowenthal came up in our conversation, and to her credit, she defended Lowenthals capability to be a judge.  Daviann stated that people should be evaluated on their merit and not be discounted because of his parents or wifes politics. 

We asked her about her lack of response to our questionnaire and she did not know what happened, but offered to immediately respond and gave me her direct number.  Again, our recommendation has been reaffirmed

End Update

We have spoken with acquaintances of Daviann Mitchell and they speak very highly of her.  The L.A. Times has endorsed her and it looks like they got it right.  Her website is http://www.mitchell4judge.com/ .  Noteworthy is her endorsement from Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley who does not give out endorsements lightly.  From her website "Mitchells experience has ranged from patrol officer in an urban police department, to a state Supreme Court judicial clerk, to civil litigation and finally to a Deputy District Attorney in the Los Angeles County Hardcore Gang Division."   Daviann has a wide range of prior experience and we rate being a former police officer very highly.

An example of what we are working against was provided by an opponent.  The last sentence is especially troubling and we are working hard to prevent this kind of thinking from continuing to gain control of our court system.  We left the answer in capitals as that is how it came to us.

"THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS A LIVING, DYNAMIC DOCUMENT.  IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF ITS LIVING, DYNAMIC NATURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS SURVIVED OVER SO MANY YEARS.  THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES A BASIC GUIDELINE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL RIGHTS.  THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES A FRAMEWORK BY WHICH EXISTING RIGHTS MAY BE EXTENDED OR CURTAILED AND BY WHICH NEW RIGHTS MAY BE CREATED.

Update 21 May 2006:

We have to agree with the rest of the assessments from the LACBA on this race.  

Richard A. Nixon whom we have met and heard about.  We find him to be not qualified. 

Stephen M. Feldman whose response appears above is rated not qualified and as reported by Met News "On Oct. 9, 2002, Feldman was arrested in Denver by U.S. Customs and Secret Service agents. He and three others were accused of attempting to sell 250 phony bonds, each with a face value of $1 billion." 

Daved Crawford III has been rated Qualified in the past and currently rated Not Qualified.

John C. Guitierrez is a serial judicial candidate and while he is rated Qualified, we believe that he falls in the low end of that rating.

That leaves the last candidate, Richard L. Loomis, who has been rated Well Qualified.  Unfortunately, he did not provide any information in response to our inquiry until after we completed our recommendations.  Our preliminary research did not uncover any information.  After further review, we will most likely work to help him in an election in 2008 if he is not already appointed.  Loomis has done almost no promotional work to become a judge and we believe that Daviann Mitchell is the best choice for 2006.

End Update

Office No. 28:  Judith L. Meyer:

Update 21 May 2006:

On 20 May 2006 we spoke with Daviann Mitchell and Judy concurrently and both stated that Daniel Lowenthal was definitely a good guy and deserved to be elected in race 122 against a totally unqualified and potentially unstable opponent.  Judys recommendations speak highly not only of Daniel Lowenthal, but of Judy herself.  We are never disappointed when we talk to Judy and we look forward to her successful Primary election.

End Update

In 2004, I wrote "I have met Judy several times and my wife has also met her.  Before I started "Government for the People", I found her to be very open, personable, and enthusiastic about doing a good job as Superior Court Judge.  Judy is rated "Well Qualified" by the Los Angeles County Bar Association.  In our opinion, she is by far the best qualified of the candidates running for Superior Court Judge."

Our 2004 recommendation still holds for 2006 and Judith has had an additional two years of experience.  With the additional work that Judith has done, we are looking forward to Judith being elected in the Primary.  The L.A. Times got it right with an endorsement this time and we anticipate an Exceptionally Well Qualified [confirmed] rating from the L.A. County Bar Association.

1. Please describe your qualifications to be a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge.  My education, life experiences, community contributions, and professionalism qualify me to hold such a position of responsibility.  I have always contributed something of myself that would benefit others.  Early in my professional career, I learned the core principles of: preparation, responsibility, dependability, and accountability.  I applied these core principles to my jobs as a lifeguard, a white water river rafting guide, an emergency medical technician on an ambulance, and as a professional ski patrolman.  In all of these jobs, I was trusted with life or death responsibility. 

These same principles apply to my professional legal career.  Early in my career, I established my continuing reputation for being fair and just.  I have experience in multiple legal arenas (Criminal Law, Family Law, Civil Law, Small Claims, and Juvenile Law) and in each arena I apply these core principles as well as my sense of fairness and justice when handling my cases. 

As a criminal prosecutor I am currently assigned to the Elder Abuse Section, where I prosecute physical and financial abuse of elder and dependent adults.  Prior to this I prosecuted sexual assault crimes, child abuse, domestic violence, stalking and hate crimes.  I have extensive experience prosecuting felonies as well as misdemeanors.  I also have civil and family law experience, and have lectured and published materials in this area.  I am a Law Professor at Pacific Coast University School of Law, where I teach Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Legal Writing, Torts, Contracts, and Trial Advocacy.  I have judicial experience as a Volunteer Temporary Judge and Arbitrator. 

Now, I hope to continue my legal career on the bench as a full time Superior Court Judge.  The skills I have learned in my youth, in my professional career, and in my teaching experience have prepared me for the rigors of a judicial officer position, and I will serve the citizens of Los Angeles County well as a Superior Court Judge.

2. Why do you want to be a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge? "Ambition and conquest, without contribution, is without significance.  How will history remember you?  What will your contribution be?"  As I heard Professor Hundert (portrayed by Kevin Kline) say these lines to his History class in the 2002 movie The Emperors Club, I understood how I wanted history to remember me, and how I wanted to contribute.  As a prosecutor I have experienced both very good and very bad judicial officers. I have seen the positive impact the good judicial officers can have on a courtroom and the truly negative impact a bad judicial officer can have on the court system.  I have the desire to be an exceptional member to the Superior Court.  I will be a judicial officer whom others will depend upon, respect, admire and remember. 

3. Do you consider the U.S. Constitution to be a living document?  History has proven this statement to be somewhat true.  I currently teach Constitutional Law and Pacific Coast University School of Law.  I have noticed that after more than 200 years of existence the U.S. Constitution has been generally modified and for the most part interpreted to keep up with modern issues and concerns.  Over the years, the justice system has been asked to face questions that the founding fathers could not have imagined.  That the document has sustained for more than two centuries is an extraordinary feat of democracy and legal stewardship.

_______________________________________________________

 Judiths website is: www.judy4judge.com/.

We would support S. Paul Bruguera in another judicial race, but unfortunately he filed for this race.  We fully expect to be endorsing Paul in 2008 if he is not already appointed to fill a vacancy.  His wife, Soussan Bruguera, is a 17 year veteran of the Superior Court.

Update 21 May 2006:

We are including a Resume that we recently received from Paul for your review.

RESUME

S. PAUL BRUGUERA

P.O. Box 5095

Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274

California State Bar, admitted 1981.

United States District Court, Central District of California, admitted 1982.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, admitted 1986.

United States Supreme court, admitted 2004.

EMPLOYMENT:

2003 - present: Tort and Condemnation Section, Attorney Generals Office, Los Angeles.  Trial attorney in tort and civil rights cases in Superior Court and Federal Court, representing the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Board of Equalization, Franchise Tax Board, Medical Board, Department of Mental Health, Department of Developmental Services, Highway Patrol, the Governor, the Attorney General, and state employees.  Responsible for all phases of litigation: pleadings, law and motion, discovery, arbitration, settlement, trial, and appeal.

1999 - 2003: Health, Education and Welfare Section, Litigation Team, Attorney Generals Office, Los Angeles.  Trial attorney in litigation pending in Superior Court, Federal Court, and in administrative proceedings pending in the Office of Administrative Hearings.  Represent four state agencies: Department of Health Services, Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System.  The litigation for the Department of Health Services involves defending Superior Court challenges to citations issued against health care facilities under the Long Term Care, Health and Safety Act of 1973.  This client also requires occasional representation in complying with subpoenas for agency records.  Representation of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing requires preparation for hearings and presentation of evidence at administrative hearings to revoke teaching credentials.  Representation of the Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System requires defending these agencies in a variety of superior and federal court matters filed to challenge administrative decisions and to seek damages.

Responses to Government for the People Questionnaire: