A Case Of Poor Judgement

A Case Of Poor Judgement

By Lynda Carson 11/24/03

The fact that 2,500 people recently signed a petition in opposition to a local judge, it clearly appears to demonstrate that free speech is alive and well in Oakland. No matter how hard the so-called ruling class tries to frighten people into silence or ignore their demands, the people figure out another way to resist the corrupting influences of the corporate empire which is dominating the political process against the the best wishes of the will of the people in this great nation.

On October 15 2003, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Harry R. Sheppard wrapped up a five page letter proclaiming that Judge James Richman is not biased against tenants, and soon had copies rushed off to Judge Richman, Assistant Presiding Judge Barbara Miller, Oakland Committee For Judicial Fairness, Eviction Defense Center, Oakland Tenants Union, and pro-tenant attorney John Murcko.

The letter was in response to a petition signed by 2,500 people requesting the transfer of Judge Richman out of law and motion because they believed that the Judge has been biased in favor of landlords during landlord/tenant cases. The petition was delivered to Judge Sheppard on August 20, 2003 after a coalition of tenants, activists, and attorneys held a press conference in front of the Alameda County Courthouse.

The petition signed by 2,500 people reads: We, the undersigned of Alameda County request that you reassign Honorable Judge James Richman from deciding cases in Department 31 of the Alameda County Court because he fails and refuses to follow law, consistantly denies relief sought by tenants from default judgement, exercises his discretion against persons suing corporations, insurance companies and landlords.

In an effort to dismiss the 2,500 people that signed the petition as being irrelevant to the facts, Judge Harry R. Sheppard wasted no time in judging the petitioners, their evidence and their complaints as he reached the following conclusion and put it in writing for the record.

Conclusion

According to Judge Sheppard in his letter, it reads: "Judge Richman is a scholarly and extremely hardworking jurist who expects counsel to be prepared on law and the facts when they appear in his courtroom. Self-represented people should have a modicum of understanding of at least the facts. Many letters have been received in support of Judge Richman and argue that even when he rules against them his decisions are clear, articulate and well reasoned. As Presiding Judge I do not have authority to overrule or reconsider decisions made by any other judge, commissioner or judge pro-term of the court".

"They are independant judicial officers and as such, unless the complaint involves misconduct it is not appropriate for the Presiding Judge to pursue the matter. The evidence does not support the complaints in this matter and in fact are contrary to the evidence. Accordingly, the request to reassign Judge Richman to another department is denied".

As Judge Sheppards rush to judgement against the 2,500 petitioners claims that Judge Richman was biased against the people in favor of corporations, insurance companies and landlords, his decision made news. However, on the very same day that the story publicly reached the light of day in The Recorder on October 28 2003, a different story was also just breaking news about Judge Richman in that very same same issue.

An Alternative Conclusion

Call it bad timing, divine providence, cosmic karma, or a case of poor judgement, Judge Richmans activities on the bench remains visible for all to see, and continues to make news.

Like it or not, Judge Harry R. Sheppards public support of Judge Richman against the 2,500 petitioners was being publicly juxtaposed alongside another story in The Recorder about the decision of 3 other Judges that had come up with their own opinion of Judge Richman in a case involving some developers in Old Oakland.

On October 28 2003, the story was reported in The Recorder that a trial court judge was disqualified from the case by the state appeal court and that the rug was just pulled out from beneath Citicorp in a high stakes battle with developers of Old Oakland.

As it turned out and the documents reveal, non other than Judge James Richman was disqualified from the case in a ruling by the First District Court of Appeal. It was their judgement (3 judges) that Judge Richman should have recused himself from the case involving a $41.8 million jury award to Storek and Storek, in a case against Citicorp, because he (Richman) owned between $10,001 and $100,000 in stock in Citigroup Inc, the parent company of Citicorp Real Estate which happened to be a defendant in the case.

The case is known as "Storek and Storek, Inc., versus The Superior Court Of Alameda County".

In the opinion filed on October 24, 2003, Justice Lawrence Stevens wrote: "We conclude from the record that an ordinary person aware of Judge Richman's stock ownership might reasonably question the judges impartiality". The ruling was concured by Justices Barbara Jones and Mark Simons, with the signatures of all 3 on the last page of the nine page ruling in favor of Storek and Storek.

The lawsuit involving some property in Old Oakland that was to be redeveloped by Storek and Storek includes two blocks of land encompassing 8th to 10th, and Broadway to Washington Streets. Two Marin County brothers named Richard and Glenn Storek, had accused Citibank of fraud and a breach of good faith in a law suit and a jury ended up awarding payment of $41.8 million to the brothers in damages.

On appeal by Citicorp against the $41.8 million jury award to Storek and Storek, Judge Richman overruled the jury verdict and instead ruled in favor of judgement for Citicorp while he was secretly loaded with a fortune in stock from Citicorp.

According to public documents filed with the court, they read; A Statement of Economic Interests for Judge James Richman, filed March 4, 2003, with the Fair Political Practices Commission, which reveals that during the calender year of 2002 Judge Richman owned stock in "Citigroup, Inc.," valued between $10,001 and $100,000. Prior statements show from 1999 through 2001 similarly show that Judge Richman has owned stock in Citigroup, Inc., since 1999.

After becoming aware that Judge Richman was loaded with stock from Citicorp while ruling against the people (jury) that ruled in favor of the Storeks, the Storeks attorneys moved for a writ of error (coram vobis) in the state appeal court.

The First District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of their (Storeks) writ of error which may pull Citicorp back into this fiercely contested case over the $41.8 million jury award.

Judge Richman ruled against the peoples jury award of $41.8 million to Storek and Storek while secretly hoarding a fortune in Citicorp stock, resulting in the opinion of the 3 judges casting their own judgement against Judge Richmans activities on the bench. It reads: "We are convinced that Judge Richmans interest in the non-party holding company in excess of $10,000 is significant enough to raise a doubt about his impartiality", Judge Stevens wrote in his opinion concured by the other two judges.

In Final Conclucion

No matter what Judge Harry R. Sheppard may say to white-wash Judge Richmans poor behavior or judgement on the bench, it appears that the 2,500 people that signed the petition raising doubts about Judge Richmans impartiality has just been supported and concured by Justice Stevens, Justice Jones, and Justice Simons.

In reply to the latest developments regarding the activities of Judge Richman, during a November 21, 2003, interview with Anne Tamiko Omura of the Eviction Defense Center, she said; "I fully support the rights of the 2,500 people that signed the petition seeking the transfer of Judge James Richman out of law and motion, and that no matter what Judge Harry Sheppard believes, the fact still remains that 2,500 others tend to disagree with his opinion".