From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Illegal Incomes/Conflicts of Interests?
My expose article surrounding the questionable financial misdeeds of two prominent San Francisco Superior Courthouse Judges, and their vendetta against an anonymous "Silenced Mama."
"Are you accepting compensation from any other sources besides the court---as proscribed either by the legislature---" A mid- verbatim exchange between a "Silenced Mama" and Judge Lillian K. Sing at a hearing at the San Francisco Superior Courthouse, on 2/17/2011.
This past year, S.F. Family Law Commissioner Marjorie A. Slabach “retired” (much to the relief of every “Silenced Mama) due to California budget cuts and courtroom closures. Currently, and consequently Slabach continues her career in presiding as a “private judge.”
http://www.mslabach.com/
Being and victimized as a "Silenced Mama" at every turn at the San Francisco Superior Courthouse is not even the half of it. Possible "conflict of interest" seems to be circulating in the interests of incomes of two prominent San Francisco Superior Court Judges.
One as such appears to be Lillian K. Sing, a very prominent judge for the San Francisco Superior Courthouse. Sing has had an extremely extensive career in the field of law. Among her many accreditations throughout her illustrious legal career dedications and accomplishments, Sing’s received numerous honors including one from Congresswoman Barbara Boxer.
http://cicdatabank.library.ohiou.edu/opac/scholar_view.php?bibid[]=88&num=1&pagenum=10
However, how can a litigant or a party to a court case refer to Sing as “your honor” when dishonorable financial assets activities occur outside their employment, as a judicial officer of the court?
On September 1st, 2011 a letter was sent by a “Silenced Mama” (who’s identity is withheld at this time) to Bernadette Torivio, of the California Commission on Judicial Performance. The letter stated to the effect that Sing’s salary was "over $6,000" so far, but usually kept around $10,000 annually. The payments were made illegal by SBX211 in 2009.
The “Silenced Mama” letter also indicated that Sing’s 2010 700 Statement of Disclosure form was “incomplete” and failed to mention her county employment. Under the California Constitution, a judge/ judicial officer's salary is only supposed to be $179,000 a year. It is also illegal to accept extra incomes from the county that they work in.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/stur101408.htm
Notwithstanding, conflicts of interests have come to play whereas Sing sits on the board of many local health clinics, as was stated in an October 18th, 2011 Facsimile Transmittal Sheet.
As it clearly states in the opening letter, “Here we have Superior Court Judge Lillian K. Sing sitting on the board of many local health clinics, many of whom are not properly reporting taxes and have their non-profit status in question.”
(See page 1 of 2 in the “RAMS Board of Directors” doc where Sing’s name is listed among numerous members)
Among other conflicts of interest it appears is with Judge Patrick Mahoney who oversees Sing. As was indicated previously to me by the Silenced Mama, the party to the case, whom from which is the father of her child, happens to run a company called “Caterpillar.” Mahoney appears to have an invested interest and stake at this very company owned by her ex.
An institution of the “interest of justice?”
This past year, S.F. Family Law Commissioner Marjorie A. Slabach “retired” (much to the relief of every “Silenced Mama) due to California budget cuts and courtroom closures. Currently, and consequently Slabach continues her career in presiding as a “private judge.”
http://www.mslabach.com/
Being and victimized as a "Silenced Mama" at every turn at the San Francisco Superior Courthouse is not even the half of it. Possible "conflict of interest" seems to be circulating in the interests of incomes of two prominent San Francisco Superior Court Judges.
One as such appears to be Lillian K. Sing, a very prominent judge for the San Francisco Superior Courthouse. Sing has had an extremely extensive career in the field of law. Among her many accreditations throughout her illustrious legal career dedications and accomplishments, Sing’s received numerous honors including one from Congresswoman Barbara Boxer.
http://cicdatabank.library.ohiou.edu/opac/scholar_view.php?bibid[]=88&num=1&pagenum=10
However, how can a litigant or a party to a court case refer to Sing as “your honor” when dishonorable financial assets activities occur outside their employment, as a judicial officer of the court?
On September 1st, 2011 a letter was sent by a “Silenced Mama” (who’s identity is withheld at this time) to Bernadette Torivio, of the California Commission on Judicial Performance. The letter stated to the effect that Sing’s salary was "over $6,000" so far, but usually kept around $10,000 annually. The payments were made illegal by SBX211 in 2009.
The “Silenced Mama” letter also indicated that Sing’s 2010 700 Statement of Disclosure form was “incomplete” and failed to mention her county employment. Under the California Constitution, a judge/ judicial officer's salary is only supposed to be $179,000 a year. It is also illegal to accept extra incomes from the county that they work in.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/stur101408.htm
Notwithstanding, conflicts of interests have come to play whereas Sing sits on the board of many local health clinics, as was stated in an October 18th, 2011 Facsimile Transmittal Sheet.
As it clearly states in the opening letter, “Here we have Superior Court Judge Lillian K. Sing sitting on the board of many local health clinics, many of whom are not properly reporting taxes and have their non-profit status in question.”
(See page 1 of 2 in the “RAMS Board of Directors” doc where Sing’s name is listed among numerous members)
Among other conflicts of interest it appears is with Judge Patrick Mahoney who oversees Sing. As was indicated previously to me by the Silenced Mama, the party to the case, whom from which is the father of her child, happens to run a company called “Caterpillar.” Mahoney appears to have an invested interest and stake at this very company owned by her ex.
An institution of the “interest of justice?”
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Enclosed to this section are uploaded docs in support of my story, everyone.
The problem is that Judges Sing and Mahoney are county employees, and this gives them a vested stake in the outcome of any case where the county is a party. Why would they issue orders against their own employer? So anytime you have DCSS or CPS involved, Judge Sing and Judge Mahoney need to immediately disclose it and remove themselves from the case. But what happened here is that Judge Sing and Judge Mahoney did not disclose their county employment and do not claim county employment on their Form 700, yet the county was a party to this case [DCSS.] And the litigant directly asked judge sing to admit her conflict of interest and the fact that she worked for the county, and judge sing refused. She just stayed on the case and kept finding in her own favor because she was on the county payroll the whole time.
Now judge sing has been moved to a "hollistic" setting where every case has the county as a party, the children are wards of the state and have no parents, and she can sentance juveniles to all her pet publicly funded projects with no oversight? Does the clinic get more funds if Judges Sing and Mahoney up enrollment there? These clinics dole out medications and get medicaid incentives. Is this situation a dangerous one?
Will Judge Sing ever do right by the Silenced Mother's child and just make sure the kid is provided for, and let everyone move on with their lives? Or will the harrassment and retaliation continue? Doesn't it sound like that mom is giving up, and clearly Mom is willing to take it to any legal or press authority who needs to hear about it to put sunlight on the corruption of particular judicial officers and any crooked attorneys involved if they continue poaching her child's case? I don't know this person, but these judges should be sanctioned professionally for their extra judicial unethical conduct on her case.
Now judge sing has been moved to a "hollistic" setting where every case has the county as a party, the children are wards of the state and have no parents, and she can sentance juveniles to all her pet publicly funded projects with no oversight? Does the clinic get more funds if Judges Sing and Mahoney up enrollment there? These clinics dole out medications and get medicaid incentives. Is this situation a dangerous one?
Will Judge Sing ever do right by the Silenced Mother's child and just make sure the kid is provided for, and let everyone move on with their lives? Or will the harrassment and retaliation continue? Doesn't it sound like that mom is giving up, and clearly Mom is willing to take it to any legal or press authority who needs to hear about it to put sunlight on the corruption of particular judicial officers and any crooked attorneys involved if they continue poaching her child's case? I don't know this person, but these judges should be sanctioned professionally for their extra judicial unethical conduct on her case.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network

