Divorce Case raises Constitutional Question on Judicial Disqualification to California Supreme Court
November 20, 2007
|
Posted by ANCPR
ORANGE COUNTY, CA
In an unusual twist an Orange County divorce case, which has already made its’ way through the Ohio Supreme Court, is now before the California Supreme Court. This time the issue is a constitutional one that may have more implications for criminal defendants and self-represented litigants than couples in divorce court.
The California Supreme Court Justices will be facing a decision about whether to hear a Petition for Review from Jeffrey Barth, an Orange County resident, who sought the disqualification of Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Thomas H. Schulte. However, the issue before the Supreme Court is much broader than whether or not Commissioner Schulte should be disqualified.
Initially, Commissioner Schulte declined to assert California jurisdiction and sent the case to Ohio. Mrs. Barth had taken the couples children to Las Vegas, Nevada and then flew to Florida and ultimately Ohio in an effort to keep custody of her children and avoid California jurisdiction. Last May the Ohio Supreme Court decided that Ohio did not have jurisdiction and the matter really belonged in California.
Commissioner Schulte continued to question his own jurisdiction and authority over the case. He openly criticized and questioned the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision and made a number of other unusual and bazaar comments in open court. A number of observers advised Mr. Barth that Commissioner Schulte’s attitude and rulings appeared to be biased.
Therefore Mr. Barth, who represents himself, attempted to have the Judge disqualified and a new Judge assigned to the case. A “Statement of Disqualification” outlining the reasons that Commissioner Schulte should be disqualified was filed. The disqualification statement included evidence from various court transcripts and an affidavit asserting specific facts which warrant disqualification.
Normally when a statement of disqualification is filed the matter is referred to an independent judge who determines whether or not the judge should in fact be disqualified. However that did not happen in this case. Commissioner Schulte utilized a unique provision in California law to decide for himself whether or not the complaint against him had merit. He decided it did not requiring the case to proceed.
This forced Mr. Barth into a tough position, continue a case with a Judge who appears biased against you and against whom you’ve made your opinion known or seek a lengthy and costly appeal. Mr. Barth researched the law, case histories, and the legislative history of the provision in the statute which the Commissioner used against him and discovered an interesting twist.
Mr. Barth discovered that the law which Commissioner Schulte used against him, California Code of Civil Procedure 170.4(b), was not in the original bill which the State Bar Committee on the Administration of Justice proposed. During the legislative process the California Judges Association requested the provision be put in because “criminal defendants often raised frivolous and untimely disqualification challenges which slowed down the administration of justice”.
Mr. Barth uncovered a letter in the Legislative Archives from Senator Keene to then Governor Deukmejiah which clearly states the reason this provision was put into the law was to stop criminal defendants who represent themselves from raising these disqualification challenges. He also uncovered other memorandums from the legislative archives indicating the motive behind the law.
If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case they will not only determine whether or not Commissioner Schulte is impartial and can conduct a fair and impartial trial – but they will also likely determine whether or not the Legislature can write laws that make it more difficult for criminal defendants, and self-represented litigants, to disqualify a judge.
———–
For More Information Contact: Paul Pfeifer, Research Director at The Justice Press.
The Justice Press is an independent network of legal scholars, researchers, and advisors that works with attorneys throughout the State of California in complex litigation matters. The goal of The Justice Press is to provide attorneys with access to expert research and experts for complex litigation.
For more information regarding this case, including background documents, please contact Paul Pfeifer via email at Paul@judicialpress.com.
The Judicial Press
870 Market Street, # 571
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 578-4610
www.judicialpress.com
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Categories: Courts and Legislatures, Judicial Misconduct
|
Leave a reply
[“criminal defendants often raised frivolous and untimely disqualification challenges which slowed down the administration of justice”.]
This shows how corrupt the system has become. Since when are people attempting to represent themselves automatically referred to as criminals? I thought the idea was innocent until proven guilt.
This is a law to prohibit people representing themselves the opportunity to effectively achieve that end, while protecting the Judge from someone who is not a member of the bar, and doesn’t have to play by their corrupt rules.
This is a perfect example of why you don’t want an “attorney” representing you, because this law would not have been necessary, except to protect a corrupt judge from an informed citizen.
I had an international move away case with Schulte. Odd how it states be made bizarre comments and appeared to be biased. I experienced the same thing with this commissioner. Amazing he is still employed. He has blood on his hands and an ego to go with it.
I experienced the same conduct with Thomas Schulte, commissioner. After I filed documents in 2002, to have him removed, he did recuse himself. However, in court he stated that he had a personal relationship with the other attorney, that he believed and trusted the other attorney implicedly, that he never read my motions and ruled against me, and that the $40,000 in the other side’s attorney fees, that he never even looked at the fees and ordered I pay them. He further berated me as abusing the system to keep a 6 month marriage without children and no community property in the courts for 8 years. When the presiding judge took over the case she found that it was the other attorney and my husband who took advantage of the court, that they kept the case in court all that time, and that I was blameless. What I noted with Thomas Schulte, commissioner of the OCSC family law court, was he often tried cases in his chambers. This is what happened to me and I was in pro per and denied access. While there was no evidence of misconduct by me, what was said in Schulte’s chambers among his buddies is unknown but probably supports the misunderstanding that I was at fault and a “horrible person”. Hitler said something to the effect…tell someone something enought times and they will believe it…whether it is the truth or not.
Further Thomas Schulte admitted on the record he never looked at my motions and ruled on them. He was a employee of the State of Calif, OCSC and was a judge. He failed to be fair and impartial (according to his statements on the record) and just rubber stamped everything the other side presented….and for this he was paid a good salary. This sounds like coruption in the very area that we need fair and impartiality. Schulte has continued to practice however he is now retiring. Today the County Bar Assoc is honoring him at a luncheon. Clearly, the old boy’s club still exist in OCSC.
Steve, I agree that Thomas Schulte, Commission has blood on his hands. He was the commissioner on the case in which my friend shot her daughter and grandchildren andd then herself. This was a tragedy, however, I believe that it was Thomas Schulte that made these women so desperate that they lost all hope. Sadly, the must have felt that ending everything with a murder suicide would be the best answer. I can state that my friend, the grandmother, always appeared stable and no indication of mentnal illness. However, great stress changes people. Why she did what she did to the people she felt such love for is unknown. However, what I do know is this: Thomas Schulte was a corupt biased prejudiced judge in my case; what type of judge was he in their case? He truly has blood on his hands.