-
Judge Breen, was appointed from another county to sit in Santa Clara, over the plaintiffs’ objections, and he has now recused himself, too, after a showing of prima facie bias and challenge for cause. As things stand, the parents are trying desperately to get the case transferred back out of Santa Clara County, because they are being denied due process there; there is no judge of the court to grant discovery motions, no judge to appoint a guardian ad litem, no judge for emergency ex parte motions, and the Court has closed ranks against the Golins. Theoretically, Judge Breen was supposed to be able to grant any motions himself, but he has not been available to do so and would only come to court on scheduled motions days, and refused to go through with the appointment of a guardian ad litem for Nancy. http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:6v2Hp3J7lIkJ:mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2007/11/golin-v-allensby-judge-j-michael-byrnes.html+california+state+courts+tort+cases+on+elder+laws+and+due+process+denial+from+county&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=usattorney for 25 years, the decision represents a gross miscarriage of justice, because no one can now represent Nancy Golin except the state, which has abused her. The Golins are complaining of total denial of their Constitutional due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments for themselves but especially for Nancy. They argue that the state’s method for choosing appointed judges when no other judge in the court is available to act invites abuse by allowing the attorney general to very easily judge-shop for a compliant or corrupt judicial officer, dangerously thinning the firewall between the judicial and executive branches.
- they filed their objections to the lawsuit’s legal bases, the Golins filed oppositions that should under any standard defeat their objections and allow them to try their case, reaching discovery and trial.
- attorney for 25 years, the decision represents a gross miscarriage of justice, because no one can now represent Nancy Golin except the state, which has abused her. The Golins are complaining of total denial of their Constitutional due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments for themselves but especially for Nancy. They argue that the state’s method for choosing appointed judges when no other judge in the court is available to act invites abuse by allowing the attorney general to very easily judge-shop for a compliant or corrupt judicial officer, dangerously thinning the firewall between the judicial and executive branches.
- Jeff and Elsie filed timely tort claims and a §1983 civil lawsuit for damages in Federal District Court in 2003 . They were unable to overcome the lack of counsel for next friend standing. Federal law mandates that parents need an attorney of record in order to have legal standing as “next friend” of the adult child. The case then wound its way through the federal courts from refilling of their state claims in Sacramento into their present state court proceeding in Santa Clara County, where they have been interim representation provided pro bono by New York attorney Gerard W. Wallace of Albany Law School, just recently joined by Oakland civil rights attorney David J. Beauvais.
-
Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.
