Dedicated Marine Will Not Go To Jail.

Cpl. Trent Thomas will not be sent to prison for his role in killing an Iraqi civilian.
A military jury convicted him of conspiracy to committ murder for his role in the April 2006 killing of a retired Iraqi policeman in the village of Hamdania,
but they decided not to send him to prison.
He was sentenced to a BCD, a bad-conduct discharge, and a reduction to the lowest pay grade. He could have received life in prison.
Thomas had been in pre-trial confinement in the brig since May 2006.
Thomas, of Madison, Ill., was one of seven Marines and a Navy corpsman accused in connection with the killing.
"I believe we did what we needed to do to save Marines' lives," Thomas said outside court, while declining to discuss the details of what happened that night. "I think anybody who understands what war is or what combat is understands."
A military jury of three officers and six enlisted Marines deliberated Thomas' sentence for less than an hour before returning its decision.
On 18 July, the jury convicted Thomas, 25, of kidnapping and conspiracy but acquitted him of other charges, including the most serious, premeditated murder.
Prosecutors had recommended Thomas be sentenced to 15 years in prison with a dishonorable discharge, reduction in rank and a fine.
Thomas' attorneys argued that their client was only following orders from his squad leader and asked that he be credited for the 519 days he has already served in the brig and be returned to active duty.
"We failed him as a Marine Corps, because under good leadership, this Marine would not be here today," Maj. Haytham Faraj told the court. "Consider where the responsibility lies."
Thomas had agreed in January to plead guilty in the case, but withdrew the guilty pleas on the eve of sentencing in February. His attorney, Victor Kelley, said that pretrial agreement had called for 12 years in prison.
"I was going to take a deal for 12 years because my lawyer said it was in my best interest, but then my lawyers called me back and said, 'We're going to fight this,'" Thomas said Friday. "That was all I needed."
On Thursday, 19 July, Thomas told the court he wanted to continue serving.
"I've never been good at anything until I came to the Marine Corps," said Thomas, who served three combat tours in Iraq and was awarded a Purple Heart for the 2004 siege on Fallujah. "It's pretty obvious Michael Jordan was meant to play basketball. Tiger Woods was meant to play golf. The Marine Corps, it's me."
The final terms of Thomas' punishment are subject to review by Lt. Gen. James Mattis, the commanding general overseeing the case, but he can only reduce the sentence.
Four other Marines and the sailor charged pleaded guilty to reduced charges in exchange for testimony. A court-martial began Friday, 20 July, in a Camp Pendleton courtroom for Thomas' squadmate Cpl. Marshall L. Magincalda. Proceedings are scheduled to begin next week in the case of squad leader Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins III. Both are charged with murder, kidnapping, conspiracy and other offenses.
Tom Umberg, a former military prosecutor, called Thomas' punishment "pretty outrageous" and suggested the jurors might have been swayed by their own combat experiences.
"I have never heard of a court-martial that convicted someone of conspiracy to murder and kidnapping and not adjudicate some kind of (prison) sentence," Umberg said. "Obviously there was some sympathy, maybe even empathy, because all of the panel members had served in Iraq."

China Executes Ex-Food and Drug Chief

China Executes Ex-Food and Drug Chief
China executed a former director of its food and drug agency July 10th for approving fake medicine in exchange for cash, illustrating how serious Beijing is about tackling product safety, while officials announced steps to safeguard food at next summer's Olympic Games.
During Zheng Xiaoyu's tenure as head of the State Food and Drug Administration from 1997 to 2006, the agency approved six untested drugs that turned out to be fake, and some drug-makers used falsified documents to apply for approvals, according to state media reports. One antibiotic caused the deaths of at least 10 people.
Zheng's death sentence was unusually severe even for China, which is believed to carry out more court-ordered executions than all other nations combined, and indicates the communist leadership's determination to confront the country's dire product safety record.
Zheng, 63, was convicted of taking cash and gifts worth $832,000 when he was in charge of the food and drug agency.
He was sentenced to death on May 29 and his appeal was rejected on June 12 by the Higher People's Court of Beijing. China's Supreme Court approved the sentence, saying Zheng "committed vile crimes and caused extreme harm to society."
"Although he confessed to some of the crimes of bribe-taking and returned some of the illegal income, it was not enough for leniency," the court said.
Zheng's execution July 10th was confirmed by state television and the official Xinhua News Agency.
Next year's Beijing Olympics, a great source of pride for China, also has been targeted in the crackdown on unsafe food. Sun Wenxu, an official with the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, told reporters that athletes, coaches, officials and others can be assured of safe meals.
Fears abroad over Chinese-made drugs were sparked last year by the deaths of dozens of people in Panama who took medicine contaminated with diethylene glycol - a thickening agent used in antifreeze - imported from China. It was passed off as harmless glycerin.
Chinese-made toothpaste containing diethylene glycol has been banned in North and South America and Asia, though there have been no reports of health problems stemming from the product. China has no guideline banning the chemical in toothpaste, and the government says it is harmless in small amounts.
In the United States and Canada, pet food containing Chinese wheat gluten tainted with the chemical melamine has been blamed for the deaths of dogs and cats. Since then, U.S. authorities have turned away or recalled toxic fish, juice containing unsafe color additives and popular toy trains decorated with lead paint.
The list of food scares within China over the past year includes drug-tainted fish, industrial dye used to color egg yolks red and pork tainted with a banned feed additive.
Cao Wenzhuang, a former director of the food and drug agency's drug registration department, was sentenced to death last week for accepting bribes and dereliction of duty. He was given a two-year reprieve, which usually means he can get life in prison if deemed to have reformed.
Yan said the food and drug agency was working to tighten its safety procedures and create a more transparent operating environment. The administration has announced a series of measures to tighten safety controls and closed factories where illegal chemicals or other problems were found.
The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine posted on its Web site Monday the names of 13 companies that have been banned from exporting after their products were found to be substandard.
, authorities promised to investigate water purity after a newspaper reported that more than half of the water coolers in Beijing use counterfeit branded water.
The Beijing Times reported that water jugs are filled with either tap water or purified water from small suppliers and sealed with bogus quality standard marks.
The report said the practice is widespread because water from major suppliers can cost twice as much as water from other sources.
Wu Jianping, an official with the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, noted that a May inspection of Beijing's drinking water products found more than 96 percent were safe.
"Problems found with some individual cases cannot be interpreted to mean that the entire water industry has problems," Wu said.
AP

ACLU Sues City over Jesus Painting.

The ACLU sued the city of Slidell, La., 3 July for displaying a painting of Jesus in a courthouse lobby, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
The ACLU sued after the Slidell City Court refused to voluntarily remove the picture and a message below it that reads: "To Know Peace, Obey These Laws." The ACLU says the portrait — an image of Jesus presenting the New Testament — is a religious icon of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity.

We did not file this lawsuit because the ACLU is anti-religion ... We did file this lawsuit because we believe this display is clearly in violation of the law," said Vincent Booth, president and acting executive director of the Louisiana ACLU chapter.
The suit was filed on behalf of an unidentified person who complained to the ACLU about the picture. Named as defendants were the city of Slidell, St. Tammany Parish and City Judge James Lamz. St. Tammany Parish is being sued because it partially funds the court, the ACLU said.
On Saturday, Lamz said the picture would stay up unless a federal judge ordered it removed. He said he didn't believe the portrait violates the Constitution, but the issue should be decided in federal court.
Before refusing to take the painting down, Lamz consulted Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School who has argued before the Supreme Court.
Laycock said he told Lamz that the legal issues in the case aren't clear-cut and could set legal precedent.
The painting has been on display at the courthouse for about 10 years and hadn't provoked any complaints prior to the ACLU's recent objections, said Michael Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group representing the city and parish.
Johnson, whose group is often at odds with the ACLU, said the painting sends an inclusive message of equal justice under the law. He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that similar displays in public forums are constitutional.
2007 AP

Scent of Cash, My Sin by Greed, Estee Lawsuit

Scent of Cash, My Sin by Greed, Estee Lawsuit, Eau de Lawsuit, Long Lean Green.


A female employee in the Planning Department for the City of Detroit, Michigan claims that because she is so sensitive to perfumes and other cosmetics she was forced to sue the City of Detroit when a co-worker's strong fragrance created such a hostile and intolerable work environment that it prohibited her from working. What she appears to be smelling is the scent of cash. Her only sin is not by Lanvin; it is from greed. Estee Lauder would blush at any suggestion that her fragrances are offensive to any other female of the specie. The lure of long lean green appears to have motivated this unusual law suit.
Susan McBride is not claiming sexual harassment or a violation of her civil rights. She alleges in her lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Detroit, that her work environment has become so polluted with environmental fragrances offensive to her sense of smell that it violates of the Americans with Disabilities Act. She is asking for permanent injunctive relief and money damages. She wants a ban on all perfumes, colognes and scents at work and unspecified money damages.
A spokesman for the City of Detroit, Matt Allen refused to comment on the law suit. He did indicated that the law suit is being taken seriously and is not being treated as a frivolous lawsuit. It appears that the City does not comment on pending litigation nor does it discuss personnel issues.
Ms. McBride, joined the City of Detroit Planning Department in 2000 She says the scent and odor problems started in 2006 when the Jane Doe, co-worker, transferred into her department. She is not identified in the lawsuit by her correct name.
"This Jane Doe, employee not only wore a strong scent, but also plugged in a scented room deodorizer," the lawsuit states. "Ms. McBride was overcome by the smell almost instantly, causing her to go home sick."
Defendant, Jane Doe, later agreed to stop using the room deodorizer, but kept using perfume, the lawsuit states.

STATES STEP IN WHERE FEDS FALTER.

STATES STEP IN WHERE FEDS FALTER.
All politics are local, but there are fewer political deals to be made at the State level. The problems associated with illegal immigrants are at the national level, but the states are being forced to step up to the plate and find solutions.
Federal efforts to tighten the borders and deport illegal immigrants are insufficient to satisfy the states. This has forced the states to take matters into their own hands. While states have no control over the flow of illegal immigrants, they are responsible for integrating immigrants into their communities. While a community may have plenty of jobs for the illegal workers, they do not have the classrooms and the other services to support these immigrants and their families. The costs of education, medical care, and other social services are creating financial burdens that are not being shared or reimbursed by the federal government.

In Yuma, Arizona hundreds of illegal immigrant Mexican school children walk across the border from Mexico every day to attend middle and high schools in Arizona. The Yuma Union High School District was forced to enforce its residency requirement after a bond measure to build a new school was defeated. Parents whose children live outside of the school district are required to pay $5,300.00 per year for their children to attend one of the six Yuma schools. Only one family was found who complied with the requirement. Parents choose to live in Mexico where median home prices are $30,000.00 and send their children across the border for school in Yuma and San Luis, where the median home price is $179,000.00.
A full-time Border Attendance Officer was hired to check the residency of students crossing the border each day. The Attendance Officer was quoted as saying "They want the American services, but they do not want to be a part of the American system".
In nearby Calexico, California taxpayers' complaints about building schools within walking distance of Mexico led the local district to also hire a full-time Border Crossing Watch Officer to check student addresses.
In 1986 when 12-20 million illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, only a few states were being forced to deal with serious immigration problems. Those states were California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New York and Illinois. Today, immigration issues affect all 50 states. Illegal immigrants are going Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania where the economies are doing much better.
An illegal immigrant is a walking felony in progress. Illegal immigrants are already in violation of federal law. To pardon the felons, even with sanctions, amounts to amnesty. Citizens know that the sanctions will never be enforced. The Federal Government cannot keep track of the aliens that were pardons in 1986 under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Employers were required to verify workers’ documents. Every day illegal immigrants who have overstayed their B1 or B2 visas are being “paroled” back into the society with dates to appear in court to answer the charges of violating the immigration laws. Hardly any ever appear in court on the date assigned. Many of these are among the 12-20 million awaiting the next big grant of amnesty. It is getting to be a once per generation phenomenon. Law breakers are being rewarded, while people who obey the laws are being punished with long waits for their petitions to be granted. It is not fair.
With the prospect of comprehensive immigration reform stalled in Congress, states and local governments are passing laws to deal with the economic and social costs of illegal immigrants. More than 1,200 bills have been passed in all 50 states to deal with this problem on a local level. These laws prohibit landlords from renting or leasing to illegal immigrants, penalize businesses for hiring undocumented workers, and require local law enforcement officials to enforce national immigration laws.

BORDER AGENTS JAILED FOR 12 YEARS FOR SHOOTING SMUGGLER.

BORDER AGENTS JAILED FOR 12 YEARS IN ILLEGAL ALIEN SHOOTING.

Two US Border Patrol agents began serving 12 and 11 year sentences in February 2007 for the shooting of a Mexican national. Border Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were charged with first degree murder by US Attorney Johnny Sutton. The President of the US Border Patrol Union, T. J. Bonner said the 11,000 member union has given a “no confidence” vote to border patrol chief David Aguilar.

Two U.S. Border Patrol agents were sentenced to prison terms of 11 years and 12 years for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect in the buttocks as he fled across the U.S.-Mexico border. . Border Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were charged with first degree murder by US Attorney Johnny Sutton. The President of the US Border Patrol Union, T. J. Bonner said the 11,000 member union has given a “no confidence” vote to border patrol chief David Aguilar.

U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, sentenced Jose Alonso Compean to 12 years in prison and Ignacio Ramos to 11 years and one day despite a plea by their attorney for a new trial after three jurors said they were coerced into voting guilty in the case, the Washington Times reported.
A federal jury convicted Compean, 28, and Ramos, 37, in March after a two-week trial on charges of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and a civil rights violation.
Ramos is an eight-year veteran of the U.S. Naval Reserve and a former nominee for Border Patrol Agent of the Year.
On Feb. 17, 2005, he responded to a request for back up from Compean, who noticed a suspicious van near the levee road along the Rio Grande River near the Texas town of Fabens, about 40 miles east of El Paso.
Ramos, who headed toward Fabens hoping to cut off the van, soon joined a third agent already in pursuit.
Behind the wheel of the van was an illegal alien, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila of Mexico. Unknown to the growing number of Border Patrol agents converging on Fabens, Aldrete-Davila's van was carrying 800 pounds of marijuana.
Unable to outrun Ramos and the third agent, Aldrete-Davila stopped the van on the levee, jumped out and started running toward the river. When he reached the other side of the levee, he was met by Compean who had anticipated the smuggler's attempt to get back to Mexico.
"At some point during the time where I'm crossing the canal, I hear shots being fired," Ramos said. "Later, I see Compean on the ground, but I keep running after the smuggler."
At that point, Ramos said, Aldrete-Davila turned toward him, pointing what looked like a gun.
"I shot," Ramos said. "But I didn't think he was hit, because he kept running into the brush and then disappeared into it. Later, we all watched as he jumped into a van waiting for him. He seemed fine. It didn't look like he had been hit at all."
More than two weeks after the incident, Christopher Sanchez, an investigator with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General, received a call from a Border Patrol agent in Wilcox, Ariz. The agent's mother-in-law had received a call from Aldrete-Davila's mother in Mexico telling her that her son had been wounded in the buttocks in the shooting.
Sanchez followed up with a call of his own to the smuggler in Mexico.
In a move that still confuses Ramos and Compean, the U.S. government filed charges against them after giving full immunity to Aldrete-Davila and paying for his medical treatment at an El Paso hospital.
At trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof told the court that the agents had violated an unarmed Aldrete-Davila's civil rights.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is a violation of someone's Fourth Amendment rights to shoot them in the back while fleeing if you don't know who they are and/or if you don't know they have a weapon," said Kanof.
Kanof dismissed Ramos' testimony that he had seen something shiny in the smuggler's hand, saying that the agent couldn't be sure it was a gun he had seen.
Further, Kanof argued, it was a violation of Border Patrol policy for agents to pursue fleeing suspects.
"Agents are not allowed to pursue. In order to exceed the speed limit, you have to get supervisor approval, and they did not," she told the Daily Bulletin.
The Texas jury came back with a guilty verdict. Conviction for discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence has an automatic 10-year sentence. The other counts have varying punishments.
"How are we supposed to follow the Border Patrol strategy of apprehending terrorists or drug smugglers if we are not supposed to pursue fleeing people?" said Ramos, who noted that he only did on that day what he had done for the previous 10 years. "Everybody who's breaking the law flees from us. What are we supposed to do? Do they want us to catch them or not?"
"This is the greatest miscarriage of justice I have ever seen," said Andy Ramirez of the nonprofit group Friends of the Border Patrol. "This drug smuggler has fully contributed to the destruction of two brave agents and their families and has sent a very loud message to the other Border Patrol agents: If you confront a smuggler, this is what will happen to you."
The El Paso Sheriff's Department increased its patrols around the Ramos home when the family received threats from people they believed were associated with Aldrete-Davila.
Agent Ramos was assaulted one week after entering prison by about five illegal immigrants who were yelling at him in Spanish, 'Maten a la migra' — which means 'kill the Border Patrol agent,'" one family member said, according to Grassfire.org, a group that has petitioned President Bush to pardon the two agents and has been working with the agents' families.
Grassfire.org and Ramos' family dispute the prison report saying he suffered minor injuries. Grassfire.org in a press release says Ramos suffered "multiple and severe injuries." The release also said that a family member claims Ramos' attackers beat him with repeated blows and kicks and that he suffered wounds to his back, shoulder, arms and head.
"Our government has betrayed these agents," said Grassfire president Steve Elliott. "And now they have put these men in mortal danger. I am frightened for the lives of these two family men. This is beyond outrage, and I am calling on grassroots Americans to express their outrage directly to the White House — demanding the president pardon agents Ramos and Compean before it's too late."
Bonner said Ramos believes that he was assaulted by four or five people and that his injuries are more than 'minor."
"I believe him more than I believe the Department of Justice and its attempt to minimize this," Bonner said. "After all, this is the same Department of Justice that's tried to cover up the facts surrounding the" case, he added.
The two agents' supporters — which include a slew of lawmakers on Capital Hill — claim the Justice Department and prosecutor Johnny Sutton did not appropriately handle the case.
Ramos and Compean were found guilty by a jury of not only shooting Aldrete-Davila, but also of trying to cover up the incident. Supporters say it was wrong for Sutton to go after the border agents and not the drug dealer who was given immunity for testifying against them, and that the Justice Department has been less than forthcoming about certain facts surrounding the case.
In response to the reports of the prison assault, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., wrote to President Bush requesting an investigation into the incident. The letter also requested that Bureau of Prisons Director Harley Lappin be discharged from his position if it's discovered that the proper precautions were not taken to protect Ramos.
"Placing these two agents in general population, especially when assuring Congress it would not happen, constitutes an enormous dereliction of duty by the Administration and the Bureau of Prisons," said the letter to Bush. "The families of agents Compean and Ramos deserve an immediate response. Further, please ensure that segregation from general population occurs immediately."
Hunter requested that both agents be put in isolation for their own safety. He and others were concerned that if jailed with many of the illegal immigrants and drug runners they helped put away, the safety and well-being of Ramos and Compean would be threatened.
"The assault against agent Ramos clearly demonstrates the severe risk involved with incorporating Border Patrol agents into general prison populations," Hunter said. "An overwhelming number of federal inmates are non U.S. citizens who have been apprehended by the Border Patrol. The danger to agents Compean and Ramos was immediately apparent and the attack against agent Ramos could have been prevented."
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said he spoke to several of Ramos' family members. The Ramos family wasn't aware of the situation, when they called him to wish him well on his 38th birthday. Ramos told his family that he was attacked by five men who beat him severely for being a former law enforcement agent.
Tancredo said one of the assailants has been identified by Ramos and is now being charged with assault.
"The administration has for too long turned their back on law enforcement and left them to fend for themselves," Tancredo said. "These men have been the victims of what the Bush administration’s border enforcement policy has always been. Mr. President, pardon these men now."
Bonner said Ramos likely asked to be put in general population because when in isolation, inmates are only allowed one phone call a month. Isolated prisoners also normally are in lockdown for 23 hours a day and only allowed out for one hour.
"Why they couldn't bend that rule given the fact they have law enforcement agent in custody … you kind of go stir crazy" in isolation, Bonner said.
"I don't blame him [Ramos], I blame the folks in charge for not being reasonable about that. One phone call a month sounds like punishment to me for someone who's been acting up. But here's a guy you're putting in isolation because you need to protect him."
Poe agreed, saying that it's Ramos' choice whether he wants to be put in isolation or general population, but wherever he is, it's the job of the federal government and the prison to ensure his safety.
"It's just another example that the federal government doesn't protect Border Patrol agents on the border and doesn't protect them in prison," Poe said.
"The prison authorities, especially the federal prison system, are experts at protecting inmates from harm from other inmates ... they've been doing this for years. Why aren't they protecting Ramos?"
"We just want him to be safe — that's our main concern right now," Loya said. "Hopefully they'll move him out of there and put him in minimum security."
The Compean family released a statement saying he is in isolation by choice. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Compean is serving his sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Elkton, Ohio, a low-security facility housing male offenders. He was offered a chance to join general population, but he rejected that idea because he feared for his safety, the family said.
"This attack only reinforces why they must be kept isolated from a prison's general population," the family said in the statement.
"Being a law enforcement officer, especially knowing they are Border Patrol agents, only adds to the threat and danger they face while in prison. This is why they cannot be out of isolation. We must all take this threat seriously if we hope to see them leave prison alive."

There is great discontent among Border Patrol agents. Nationwide, attacks against agents since October 2006 have risen 3 percent over the same period a year earlier. In the Yuma Sector of western Arizona attacks have jumped 56 percent. This area is a hot bed of smuggling activity.

Complaints Against Judges Rising In California.

A California state commission that reviews the performance of judges has received an increasing number of complaints about California judges in each of the last three years, the commission's annual report states.

The recently released report also showed that the panel, known as the Commission on Judicial Performance, has closed more complaint cases without taking disciplinary action against judges.

Victoria Henley, the commission's director-chief counsel, said the majority of complaints were closed without disciplinary action because they raised challenges to a judge's legal rulings ---- which are outside of the commission's purview ---- instead of allegations of judicial misconduct.


Misconduct by a judge includes yelling, rudeness, profanity, communicating with only one party in a case, making public comments about a case, and out-of-court behavior such as drunken driving or using court stationery for personal reasons, the commission's report stated.

The increase in the number of complaints comes after six straight years in which the commission received fewer complaints about judges, the report stated.

The commission does not track how many complaints come from each county, Henley said. No San Diego County Superior Court judge has been publicly disciplined since 2000, according to the commission's Web site.

San Diego Superior Court Presiding Judge John Einhorn said an increase in the number of complaints should not raise concerns about the judiciary.

"It has no significance because the complaints can be about someone dissatisfied with the results who thinks that by contacting me or the commission, they can change the results," Einhorn said.

The commission is not an "appellate body" and cannot reverse rulings, Henley said.

State and local officials said they did not know of any reason why the number of new complaints statewide had begun to rise.

"It's not apparent to me," Henley said.

Bonnie Russell, a Del Mar resident who runs two Web sites that are highly critical of judges in San Diego County and elsewhere, said she was surprised that people were filing more complaints with the commission because so few result in disciplinary action.
Russell said she had filed two or three complaints with the commission to no avail in connection with a custody battle with her ex-husband.

"I have based my complaints on rulings and an abuse of discretion or power, which I thought was clear," Russell said.

For example, in a 2002 letter to the commission, Russell leveled several allegations, including that a judge had been biased against her, kept her from seeing her daughter for two years, and had owned a building that leased office space to attorneys who appeared before him.Russell said she received responses from the commission indicating that it closed its investigations of her complaints because she had not provided additional information.

Henley said the commission cannot address a judge's legal decisions.

"A lot of people don't really understand what the commission is here for," Henley said. "When a litigant shows nothing more than dissatisfaction with a legal ruling, the case is closed."

The 11-member commission, which has a $3.9 million budget, was formed in 1960 "to receive and investigate complaints of judicial misconduct," its annual report stated.

The California state constitution specifies that the commission shall be made up of an appeals court justice and two Superior Court judges appointed by the state Supreme Court; two attorneys with more than 10 years' experience in California appointed by the governor; and six citizens who are not judges or attorneys. The governor, state Senate rules committee and state Assembly speaker each appoint two of the private citizen commissioners.

The commission's actions include an initial review of a complaint, which can be closed without disciplining a judge. The commission also can conduct formal hearings and decide to send a judge an advisory letter disapproving of certain conduct, admonish a judge privately or publicly, censure a judge publicly, or remove a judge from office.

In 2001 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patrick Couwenberg is removed from the bench for falsely claiming to have fought in Vietnam and worked for the CIA. He also made intentionally false statements to an attorneys group that he attended college on the GI Bill and had a shrapnel wound in his groin. Couwenberg blamed the lies on a mental condition called "pseudologia fantastica.''


Superior Court Judge Joan Weber, the supervising judge of the Superior Court's North County branch, said she has read about the commission's formal hearings in newspapers like others do and that the hearings "seem to be very thoroughly presented."

Complaints against judges are not always resolved within the same year that they are received.

In 2004, the commission received 1,114 new complaints, an increase of 10.2 percent from the number it received in 2003 and the third straight annual increase of more than 9.9 percent.

The number of complaints closed without disciplinary action after an initial review has risen more than 9 percent each of the last three years. The number of complaints closed in 2004 after an initial review rose to 993, an increase of 9.6 percent from 2003. Another 60 complaints were closed without any disciplinary action after a preliminary investigation, down from 62 in 2003.

The commission sent 13 advisory letters to judges, privately admonished eight judges, publicly admonished three and completed the removal of one judge from office in 2004. None of the public discipline involved San Diego County judges.

Russell said she believes no private disciplinary measures should be allowed.

"For a body that was formed to protect the public from bad judges, they have way too many private reprovals," she said.

Weber said she has never received private discipline from the commission and could not say how other judges react to it. Weber said she hoped judges would take note of a private admonishment like any other criticism, but that judges are human and react differently.

The commission's report stated that in 2004, the highest percentage of complaints, 44 percent, involved criminal cases, followed by general civil cases at 19 percent, and family law cases at 16 percent. Those percentages have remained generally consistent since 2001, according to commission reports.

Henley said that criminal cases may account for the highest percentage, in part, because prison inmates sometimes send copies of their petitions for a writ of habeas corpus seeking a new trial to the commission. Henley said the commission treats those petitions as complaints to review.

Where to file a complaint against a California judge, see: http://www.cjp.ca.gov/