On Friday, October 26, 2007, I appeared in Santa Monica in Department "O" before the Honorable Judge John Segal in pro per (that is representing myself without an attorney - definitely not recommended for anybody).
The purpose of my appearance, for the third time, was to try to get the Honorable Judge John Segal to clearly state one simple fact:
Was he ever duly assigned, as required by law, as Presiding Judge in Samaan v Zernik?
For the last 3 judges in this case:
1) Judge Allan Goodman
2) Judge Biderman
3) Judge John Segal
I cannot find the required assignment anywhere in the file. I believe that this aberration is the result of an attempt, rather crude, to hide the disqualification of judge #2, Connor, since if they issue a formal assignment, is must state the name of the judge who had been previously assigned to the case, and the section of the code by which that assignment was terminated. The code for Connor's termination is CCP 170.3, and it is not the best for judges to keep on their resume...
To make the pronouncement of such the desired statement easier for Judge Segal, I offered two proposed court orders for him to choose from:
a) that he was duly assigned as the presiding judge in samaan v zernik.
b) that he was not duly assigned as the presiding judge in samaan v zernik.
And... Judge Segal decided not to sign either...
He is rather consistent in his position of keeping it a secret. After all, if he is presiding over the case without the legal assignment, he is out of compliance with the law (what kids call he is breaking the law, but we don't talk like that...).However, in the first time I came to court to present him this question, he complained that I was not reasonable, since he said that I was suggesting that he had to confront the supervising judge (the president of the santa monica courthouse) and demand the correct legal assignment. I responded that I never expected anything like that from a judge, but he could always resign. In my writing, I also reminded him that the oath of judge in california does include a commitment to uphold and protect the constitution, but does not contain any language about upholding and protecting your supervisor...
in pro per
IN LA!
