Tenants Seek Removal Of Superior Court Judge

Tenants Seek Removal Of Superior Court Judge
By Lynda Carson August 26, 2003

On Wednesday morning August 20 2003, a coalition of tenants, activists, and attorney's held a press conference in front of the Alameda County Courthouse to say that they want Alameda County Superior Court Judge James Richman transferred out of Department 31.

The coalition immediately turned in a petition containing more than 2,500 signatures from renters and activists that want the judge removed, and presented the petition/signatures to Presiding Judge Harry Sheppard of Department 1, in the County Courthouse. Judge Sheppard stated that he will review the matter.

Activists charge that Judge Richman is the only judge that generally hears north county law and motion, and that the tenants day in court is often denied them because Judge Richman is biased in favor of the landlords.

The coalition also charge that Judge Richman is so biased in favor of the landlords that he assists them with information to make it easier for them to evict the tenants. Landlords and their attorney's argue that Judge Richman has been very fair to them, that it's all just a matter of perception, and they claim that Richman is getting a bad rap.

Attorney Susan Luten who is the darling of the landlords with her own pro-landlord web site, has been paid to go after the renters for years, and stated; "I have been doing this for 20 years, and Judge Richman is the best."

Pro-landlord attorney Don Kirby says that he has handled 15,000 eviction cases during the past 30 years and believes that Richman calls the cases as he see's them.

Judge Richman himself was not reached for comment by the deadline of this story, and it's not the first time that Judge Richman has been confronted by a concerned public. On Tuesday May 21 2002, nearly 30 demonstrators appeared outside Department 31 to offer support to the family of Pedro Santay in their efforts to help retrieve the family possessions from a notorious Oakland slumlord that confiscated the childrens clothing, school papers and books, etc. Activists and community members then were very concerned that Judge Richman may make a bad ruling against the Santay family and they should up to witness the proceedings along with a full array of media in tow.

"The knowledge that Judge Richman is biased against tenants and tenant attorneys is widespread in the housing community," says Anne Tamiko Omura, director of the Eviction Defense Center. "I have received dozens of complaints from private and non-profit attorneys who are members of the East Bay Tenants Bar Association. They are shocked at his bias when it comes to housing cases," Omura said.

Omura further stated, "basically, any pre-trial motion in a landlord/tenant case you want to be heard goes before Judge Richman. Whether it's a demurrer, motion to strike, or to make a motion for a summary judgement or any type of pre-trial motion, it has to go before Richman. So, all landlord cases go before him from Oakland, Emeryville, Piedmont, Berkeley, or Albany, and he wields alot of power from his position to hear law and motion."

"Tenants are tired of feeling their not getting a fair shake in front of Richman," said Omura, "so, a group of tenants came together to create a petition to have him removed and reassigned some where else. If he was reassigned, he would not have so much power because he would not be in charge of law and motion."

Oakland renter Joan Cook has gone before Judge Richman in the past over issues that affected her, and stated, "I think that he's a rat and I believe that Judge Judith Ford is even worse. The judge (Richman) did'nt even come close to doing his job when I went before him and I'm convinced that Richman is a low-life that should retire from the bench," Cook said.

James Vann from the Oakland Tenants Union stated, "Judge Richman has been an enemy to tenants. His unconscionable rulings in the cases involving banking rents in Oakland cannot be justified on any grounds and would not have stood up if the tenants had had enough money to appeal his rulings. Judge Richman should not be a judge on tenant cases in Oakland," Vann said.

Rob Rooke from the campaign for Renters Rights added, "Judges wield enormous power to make families homeless. We believe the judicial system cannot claim impartiality while consistantly carrying out the landlords agenda," Rooke said.

Attorney John Murcko stated, "Judge Richman does not care. He does not care about tenants. All he cares about is doing the work of the landlords, as dirty as it may be. We hope that Judge Sheppard reviews our evidence and reassigns Judge Richman to another post where Richman can no longer do harm to the tenants."

Michael E. Bischoff from the Oakland Committee For Judicial Fairness stated; "In the past three years, thousands of people have been the object of the abusive, unlawful and improper actions of Judge Richman who has denied them their day in court."

The 2,500 people who signed the petition that was turned over to Judge Sheppard made their own statement which reads; PETITION TO PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT--We, the undersigned citizens of Alameda County request that you reassign Honerable Judge James Richman from deciding cases in Department 31 of the Alameda County Superior Court because he fails and refuses to follow law, consistently denies relief sought by tenants from default judgement, exercises his discretion against persons suing corporations, insurance companies and landlords. Numerous parties are challenging his jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal has reversed his rulings.

Judge James Richman was born on July 21 1941, got his law degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law, and he litigated insurance, probate, in-house and appellate issues for around 30 years for the law firm now known as Cooley Godward LLP. Still with Cooley Godward in 1996 and with no previous judicial experience, then Governor Pete Wilson appointed James Richman to a superior court post during that same year of 1996.

Coincidently, during early November of that same year of 1996 the records of http://www.calvoter.org/ report that Cooley Godward made at least two huge political campaign donations of $50,000 each (listed as LCR#3166 and LCR#3218) to the forces opposed against Proposition 211. In 1996 the Justice Department reported that Americans lose $40 billion a year from their investment funds, and if passed, the supporters of initiative Prop 211 claimed that it would have made it easier for stockholders to sue company officials for fraud.

During January of 1997, then Senator Bill Lockyer got into the fray and charged that Governor Pete Wilson has asked potential judicial appointees to change their political affiliation. "This governor is overly political in his judicial selections," said Lockyer, "many lawyers are told that they have to re-register as Republicans in order to win a judicial appointment," Lockyer said.

Presently all eyes are on Presiding Judge Harry Sheppard of Department 1, in the Alameda County Superior Court, in hopes that he takes the petitioners seriously enough to grant them their request to remove Judge James Richman from the position to hear law and motion.

Many tenants and activists that signed the petition requesting the transfer of Judge Richman are planning to appear at the next Oakland City Council Meeting on Tuesday September 16, to save rent control. Activists urge supporters of rent control to show up at Oakland City Hall by 5:30 pm on Sept 16, to sign up as speakers in support of rent control already existing in duplexes and triplexes which are now under attack by the pro-landlord forces attempting to kill rent control in Oakland.