Sunday, December 15, 2013

"SHAME ON YOU" Judge Manoukian !

“SHAME ON YOU” Judge Manoukian!

December 15, 2013

San Jose, California: What recourse does one have when a Judge commits crimes, including elder abuse, violation of Americans With Disabilities Act [“ADA”], et al., on a recurring basis and hides under the protection/cloak of judicial immunity?
Judge Socrates Manoukian

On the morning of December 13, 2013 an elderly Ms. Annette Aiassa [“Aiassa”] and her power of attorney Ms. Gina McCall came before Judge Socrates Manoukian in Department #19, California Superior Court, Santa Clara County. Aiassa appeared to be in her 80s or 90s, looked frail, and had difficulty functioning independently, walked gingerly leaning on her walking stick. Aiassa was self represented and stacked up against an attorney represented opposing party. Despite visually obvious, Manoukian abusively stated that Aiassa looked to him to be just fine. Manoukian did not even offer Aiassa a chair to sit down. Instead, the Courtroom deputy felt bad and brought a chair. Aiassa explained her life difficulties, claiming death of her husband, numerous serious medical ailments and hospitalizations, being bankrupted by unscrupulous attorneys, losing her home, et al. Manoukian showed no empathy and repeatedly insulted her, cutting this poor elderly woman off from speaking and threw her out of the Court. Being frustrated, Aiassa on her way out said “Shame on You!” to Manoukian. Aiassa further added, “He doesn’t want to hear it”. Other parting remarks from Aiassa included words to the effect that they are not interested in justice, and that Manoukian should be ashamed of himself. The outcome in Aiassa’a case was terminating sanctions against Aiassa, an equivalent of a “sudden death” using NFL football terminology. This essentially means shutting the justice door on Aiassa and that the opposing side prevails on the case effectively by default. To add insult to injury the ruling came without allowing Aiassa an opportunity to be heard,

The same scenario repeated in the next case, which involved legal malpractice action against a San Jose Attorney William C. Dresser [“Dresser”], who has been previously punished by California State Bar (see The party here was yet another elderly 83 year old medically disabled woman [name withheld, referred to here as Jane Doe], on a wheelchair, and without an attorney. Manoukian expressed his prejudice against Jane Doe by stating that Jane Doe had not called in for contesting a tentative ruling. Both her care-giver son and Dresser confirmed that they had called before 4 pm the day before. Manoukian then falsified the Court record by stating there has been no medical support of Jane Doe’s disability despite the fact that on numerous occasions Jane Doe, had her son present a Request for Accommodation to Manoukian and the Court, which request was supported by medical support, including attending physician’s sworn affidavit. Manoukian then falsified the court record that Jane Doe claimed no knowledge of English language. That is false too. Jane Doe has poor command of English as a non-native English speaker which Manoukian equated to complete ignorance of English language. Manoukian then went on a tirade of numerous accusations/innuendos to falsify the record. Dishonesty from a Judge is misconduct of the worst kind, evidencing moral turpitude and dishonesty. Honesty is a minimum and indispensable qualification for a judge. In a number of cases the issue of dishonesty has been an important factor in determining the level of discipline “..[A] judge who is willing to fabricate justifications for a challenged ruling demonstrates ‘misconduct of the worst kind, evidencing moral turpitude and dishonesty’ (Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1988) 45 Cal.3d 518, 535 (Ryan). Lack of candor… is uniquely and exceptionally egregious (Adams v. Commission (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 866, at p. 914.

Jane Doe then complained that despite her medical physician’s orders Manoukian had singled her out and forced her, and her alone, of all the 20+ cases on the docket, to appear in person. Jane Doe met the same fate at the two prior hearings where denial of telephone appearance resulted in default rulings adverse to her. Numerous attorneys, who were not elderly or disabled are routinely allowed, and were allowed CourtCall telephone appearance, but Jane Doe was denied her medical request for accommodation, via Court Call. In fact Jane Doe stated that if anything were to happen to her, by forcing her to physically appear against her physician’s orders, Manoukian and Dresser would assume the risk. Manoukian then falsified the Court Record by making untrue statements about Jane Doe and her son. Manoukian refused to allow Jane Doe to speak, despite Jane Doe and her son pleading for reason and an opportunity to be heard. Manoukian stated we are done here and threw the 83 year old elderly woman out of the court. Manoukian then imposed the same “sudden death” punishment on Jane Doe as done to Aiassa in the case just heard before, namely terminating sanctions, which essentially means shutting the door on justice.

It is apparent to a casual observer that Manoukian exhibits hatred for elderly and self represented parties, or lack of empathy to say the least, and especially retaliation against Jane Doe who has a pending Federal lawsuit against the Santa Clara Superior Court for ADA violations. This retaliation against Jane Doe commenced after Manoukian was made aware of the pending Federal Lawsuit. This flies in the face of California legislature’s tiring efforts in enacting statutes protecting elderly, like Division 8.5. Mello-Granlund Older Californians Act [§9000 - §9757.5] and the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act [§15600 - §15675], whose purpose is essentially to protect a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and neglect.

Jane Doe’s son had lodged verbally and in writing, a disqualification for cause, against Manoukian. Despite being disqualified as a matter of law and having no jurisdiction over the case, Manoukian undertook the above seemingly obvious illegal, criminal, and unethical acts.

Federal and State laws, for e.g. California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16 [“SLAPP” statute] prohibits cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution. The word “Act” includes any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, including Jane Doe’s Federal Lawsuit or a Disqualification for Cause against a judge.

A quick google search on Manoukian results in numerous hits adverse to Manoukian, including one that states “Investigate this Judge”. Numerous other parties have sued, or complained against Manoukian and Santa Clara Superior Court, for instance See
Judge Erica Yew
Manoukian is currently a Discovery Judge at Santa Clara County California Superior Court. Manoukian is married to Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian and the family lives in Los Altos Hills. Numerous complaints have been lodged with the California Commission on Judicial Performance [“CJP”] regarding Manoukian. Ironically CJP is headed by a Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Erica Yew which raises a serious conflict of interest. Further, CJP meets once a quarter, for a few hours and disposes off about 200+ complaints against California judges, which questions the effectiveness and dummy role played by CJP. Currently CJP consists of the following Erica Yew (Judge and chairperson), Lawrence Simi, Mary Lou Aranguren, Anthony Capozzi, Frederick Horn (Judge), Judith McDonnell (Judge), Nanci Nishimura, Maya Dillard Smith, Sandra Talcott, Adam Torres, Nathaniel Trives. None of these members are devoted full time at CJP.  

Attorney William C. Dresser
William C. Dresser was previously married to Anne Dresser, with a son Michael Dresser. William C. Dresser of Saratoga, California, has been repeatedly sued by numerous parties including Mr. Vasu D. Arora, Jane Doe, and her son, for legal malpractice, et al., and by Attorney Delman Smith for malicious prosecution, et al.  In a November 5, 2012, in a declaration, that was publicly filed with the Santa Clara County California Superior Court, an ex employee of Dresser declares under penalty of perjury that “During the period of my employment with Mr. Dresser, I observed Mr. Dresser order his staff, over objection, to sign declarations and proofs of service that he knew to be untruthful. When doing so, he would overwhelm his staff with intimidation to cause compliance with his demands. I also had occasion to observe Mr. Dresser himself sign declarations that he knew to be untruthful. This included matters regarding documents that ostensibly were sent by his office, but in truth were not; and documents that he claimed were not received by his office, but in truth were received. It included his declarations of accounting of time spent and hourly rates billed to clients in his attorney fee motions filed with the Court”. There have been numerous complaints by attorneys and non-attorneys alike, to the California State Bar, against Dresser.

The tragedy here is that the rest of the world has to follow the law, but the doctrine of judicial immunity, which is a self judge-made doctrine, precludes a private lawsuit against a judge, especially Judge Manoukian who appears to have distanced himself from the public by mistreating and abusing the public and giving preferential treatment to attorneys. Even if the judge commits a crime against party in his courtroom, judicial immunity prevents civil lawsuit. Every job occupation is open to civil action for malicious acts, for e.g. physicians, but judges are completely immune from civil liability even if they commit a crime. The District Attorney Jeffrey Rosen, or the California Attorney General Kamala Harris will never press charges for crimes committed by a judge due to a conflict of interest, being that the case has still to be heard by a judge. Only a revolution will bring a change in removing judicial immunity for intentional, willful and malicious crimes committed by individuals cloaked in Judicial gown.

To a casual observer and mass public, Judges like Manoukian should be punished for misconduct, or at the minimum, trained to follow the California Canon of Judicial Ethics. The current Presiding Judge of Santa Clara County is Judge Brian Walsh. Is California Supreme Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, or the California Judicial Council listening? 

Please address your comments to