https://paladium.nfshost.com
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS' HOME ADDRESSES: MUNICIPAL AND SUPERIOR COURTS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY OF CALIFORNIA, USA
Municipal Court of Santa Clara County, Infantino
2008jan22
The facts below are not necessarily stated perfectly.
California statutory law (and, we guess, case law) specifies that it is preferred that cases be decided on the merits rather than on technicalities. Consider a traffic ticket trial in which no one shows up for the plaintiff (the government) but the defendant (the driver) shows up. The defendant has a constitutional right to a trial. The trial is a default trial (with the plaintiff in default). The trial will be extremely brief because no one will speak for the plaintiff. If the defendant-driver is there but does not speak when he has the right to, he will win. This is because, if neither side presents evidence, the one with the burden of persuasion (namely, the plaintiff-government in a traffic ticket trial) loses. If the driver speaks, he probably won't say much. Probably nothing he says will persuade the judge beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver's guilty. In any event, the trial probably will be brief (maybe a minute, maybe three minutes). Regardless of whether a trial's brief, a trial is the way to decide the case on the merits, which is preferred by California law.
What if neither side shows up? Can there be a trial anyway? A trial decides a case on the merits. A traffic ticket trial with neither plaintiff nor defendant present would be extremely brief (under a minute) and would result in the defendant's victory. We don't know if it's legal to have a traffic ticket trial if neither side shows up for it.
In California traffic courts, and perhaps in all California crimianl courts, if the defendant appears but not the plaintiff, the judge dismisses the case. This denies the defendant his right to a trial and results in the defendant winning by a technicality, not on the merits. In our opinion, dismissal is illegal for at least two reasons: the case is decided on a technicality rather than on the merits (thus violating California state law), and the defendant has been deprived of a trial (thus violating federal and Californai constituions, which give the defendant a right to a trial).
We are under the impression that, under Californai law, it is a felony for a judge to knowingly issue an illegal order; for example, an order intended to deny the defendant his right to a trial, or intended to prevent the case from being decided on the merits.
Once in Santa Clara county, there was a pro tempore judge (a temporary, unpaid, volunteer judge) working in traffic court. The defendant showed up but not the plaintiff, as a result of which there was a default trial (with the plaintiff in default). The defendant won the case on the merits. Someone (a court employee working in that courtroom who had never before seen a trial with the plaintiff in default?) told judge Jerald A. Infantino, who supervised pro tempore judges in traffic court and the rest of Municipal Court. Later, judge Infantino told the pro tempore judge that default trials (in which the plaintiff is in default) were bad because they could lead to false arrest suits. Although there seemed to be no risk of anyone overhearing, the judge spoke in a unusually quiet voice, as if it would be bad if someone somehow did overhear. We guess that Infantino's remark was a felony for two, independent reasons: Infantino was trying to get a judge to decide cases illegally, and Infantino was trying to get a judge not to be impartial. Recall that he supervised the pro tempore judges and spoke to the pro tempore judge in that capacity. His felonious policy is the policy of the court because he was part of management (management of pro tempore judges). This means that defendants cannot get a fair trial in Muncipal Court because the court feloniously decides cases to avoid harming police (in different cases which might arise in the future). A judge isn't fair if he intentionally acts ilelgally to avoid harmign police or anyone else. It's a felony to knowingly decide a case illegally (for example, to avoid deciding a case on the merits, or to deny a defendant a trial to put him a weaker position in the future should he sue a police officer). It's a felony to order or urge others to decide cases illegally.
As far as we know, Infantino's policy (of avoiding deciding criminal cases [in which the government's police officer witness does not appear in court] on the merits, to avoid harming police officers in different cases which might start in the future) is in effect in all criminal cases in California criminal courts, not just cases in Santa Clarta county traffic court (which is part of Santa Clara county Municipal Court). We guess that, but are not certain that, there are California courts which have a policy of intentionally illegally deciding other kinds of case to avoid harming police officers.
We are not expert in the law governing the disqualification of judges from particular cases. We are under the impression that, more or less, judges are supposed to be disqualified if a reasonable person would doubt that the judge will decide the case fairly. California judges (in Santa Clara county Municipal Court, as a matter of court policy enforced by a supervisor of pro tempore judges) intentionally deprive the defendant of a trial (which deprival is intrinsically illegal) to protect police from that defendant in a possible, subsequent, civil case (which is an illegal motive). California criminal judges are partial, not impartial. This is unfair. The unlawful practices described above (for example, illegally preventing default criminal trials to protect police from possible, subsequent, false arrest cases) are traits of California's crimianl judges generally and are not limited to the traffic court judges of Santa Clara county. Therefore, a reasonable person would doubt the fairness of California criminal judges.
The discussion above does not mention all intentionally illegal policies of California judges and courts.
Judge Infantino spoke as described above.
Born INFANTINO
JERALD
A
06/04/1940
MALE, mother
PALAZZOLO, county
SAN FRANCISCO. College and law school both at University of Santa Clara.
Superior Court 2004sep
The Superior Court handles felony trials, divorces, cases in which the plaintiff wants a lot of money, and other big cases. Information about some judges follows.
Department 34, Honorable Joyce Allegro: JOYCE E ALLEGRO, age 62, 1804 FROBISHER WAY, SAN JOSE CA 95124, (408)
Judge Thang Barrett, Dept 21: THANG N BARRETT, age 44, 1545 (1546?) FOUR OAKS CIR, SAN JOSE CA 95131, (408) 258-0245.
THANG N BARRETT 1960-09-08 San Francisco CA 94102 THANG N BARRETT 1960-09-08 San Jose CA 95131
Bernal, Paul Richard. Superior Court Judge, office 14, 133924, San Jose, June 1988, 2007may9
He was elected judge in 2006. We don't know if he's related to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Margaret Miller Bernal. PAUL D (not R) BERNAL has lived in San Jose.
Born BERNAL PAUL R. 11/19/1961 MALE, mother COSTELLO, county SANTA CLARA
NCFJC (National Coalition For Family Justice of California, Inc.) wrote that Bernal blundered in 2001. The following comment assumes that NCFJC reported corectly. If Bernal's supposed behavior was intentional rather than a blunder, he possibly may be arrested, prosecuted, and sued for it. It's a crime for a judge to issue an order he knows is illegal, a crime which brings the judiciary into disrepute. As a practical matter, it is inconceivable that Bernal would be arrested and prosecuted, or even given a ticket. In civil court cases, judges are personally liable for their intentional torts done as judges on the bench. Bernal's supposed, ex parte conduct might offend jurors' sense of fair play and is relevant to his state of mind. A judge may sometimes have a duty to seem legal in addition to being legal. The ex parte conduct may not seem legal. By the way, if the judge merely blundered, the blunder foreseeably (although the plaintiff does not necessarily have a duty to prove that an intentioanl tort's harm was foreseeable) resulted from assigning a former prosecutor to be a divorce judge rather than a criminal judge. Why wasn't Bernal, who used to be a prosecutor, working as a criminal judge that day? His divorce court assignment may be an intentional tort by judges acting in disregard of the public's need and the litigants' need (as well as the child's need in the instant case) for a fair trial presided over by a judge who's expert in the applicable law. As far as we know, Bernal was made a divorce judge to be nice to other judges (who didn't to be divocrce judges) despite resulting unfairness to the public, litigants, and the child in the instant case. California judges do not ordinarily decide whether a judgment creditor should use wage assignment (levy on wages). It often is easier for a California employer to fire an employee than to comply with a levy on wages. The judge's order about wage assignment, which we emphasize is rare for California judges to issue, may be evidence of the Bernal's malice or vindictiveness. When the child becomes eighteen, he may have the right to sue judge Bernal, the Bernal-appointed lawyer in the instant case, and others.
Department 90: Honorable Susan Bernardini, SUSAN R BERNARDINI, age 55, 14545 SUNNYBROOK CT, MORGAN HILL CA 95037, (408). Birth SUSAN R BERNARDINI 1948-11-23, possibly has lived in Morgan Hill CA 95037.
Department 44, Honorable Arthur Bocanegra: ARTHUR BOCANEGRA, age 51, 715 NICHOLSON AVE, SANTA CLARA CA 95051, (408).
ARTHUR BOCANEGRA 1953-06-10 San Bernardino CA 92405 ARTHUR BOCANEGRA 1953-06-10 Santa Clara CA 95051Honorable Jerome E. Brock: JEROME E BROCK, age 52, 40 HERNANDEZ AVE, LOS GATOS CA 95030, (408) 354-2604
Department 27, Honorable Gilbert T. Brown: GILBERT T BROWN, 2855 DAY RD GILROY CA 95020, (408)
Department 88: Honorable Andrea Bryan, ANDREA B BRYAN, 18925 SARA PARK CIR, SARATOGACA 95070, (408)
Department 10: Honorable Neal A. Cabrinha, NEAL A CABRINHA, age 61, 19220 GUNTHER CT, SARATOGA CA 95070, (408) 252-4300
Judge Thomas Cain, Dept 3: THOMAS W CAIN, age 56, 435 SNYDER AVE, SAN JOSE CA 95125, (408) 233-9717
Department 38, Honorable David A. Cena: DAVID A CENA, age 51, 6863 TUNBRIDGE WAY, SAN JOSE CA 95120, (408).
DAVID A CENA 1953-01-28 San Jose CA 95136 DAVID A CENA 1953-01-28 San Jose CA 95120Department 46, Honorable Sharon Chatman: SHARON CHATMAN, 1225 VIENNA DR, SUNNYVALE CA 94089, (408)
Department 87: Honorable Vincent J. Chiarello, VINCENT CHIARELLO, 3055 STELLING DR, PALO ALTO CA 94303.
VINCENT J CHIARELLO 1957-02-18 San Francisco CA 94104 VINCENT J CHIARELLO 1957-02-18 San Francisco CA 94109Department 25, Honorable Linda Condron: LINDA RUTH CONDRON, age 50, 4626 PARK NORTON PL, SAN JOSE CA 95136, (408)
Department 85: Honorable Charles J. Cory, CHARLES J CORY, age 63, 540 PATRICK WAY, LOS ALTOS CA 94022, (650)
Department 92: Honorable Ray E. Cunningham, RAY E CUNNINGHAM, age 55, 5270 RIO GRANDE DR, SAN JOSE C A95136, (408)
Department 2: Honorable William J. Elfving, WILLIAM J ELFVING, age 63, 15451 PEACH HILL RD, SARATOGA CA 95070, (408) 867-5485
Department 28, Honorable Charles W. Hayden: CHARLES W. HAYDEN, 1841 DOANE AVE, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94043, (650)
2004 December 24, HYMAN EUGENE, SANTA CLARA, JUDGE, SAN JOSE, CA 95113.
Judge Hyman was a judge of the Santa Clara County Municipal Court, then the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Also, he seems to have taught in a police academy of sheriff's academy in Santa Clara county.
EUGENE MICHAEL "Gene" HYMAN, age 54, 142 MOUNT HAMILTON AVE, LOS ALTOS CA 94022, (650).
Margaret Johnson, born about 1945, now Superior Court judge office 11, lawyer number: 83417, Margaret Shephard Johnson, Judge, San Jose, became a lawyer November 1978. Degree from University of London, worked in Nevada.
MARGARET S JOHNSON Born 1944, 995 LUNDY LN, 11/18/2003, LOS ALTOS, CA 94024
Santa Clara County Superior Court judge James P. Kleinberg: JAMES P KLEINBERG, age 61, 722 ASHBY Drive, PALO ALTO CA 94301, (650) 328-82n2.
Judge Mary Jo Levinger, Dept 5: MARY J LEVINGER, age 58, 201 WILDER AVE, LOS GATOS CA 95030, (408) 354-2819.
Department 35, Honorable Ronald Lisk: RONALD T LISK, age 66, 1113 CLYDEBANK CT, SUNNYVALE CA 94087, (408)
Department 7: Honorable Socrates Manoukian, SOCRATES P MANOUKIAN, age 54, LOS ALTOS CA 94022, (408)
Department 16: Honorable Kevin E. McKenney, KEVIN E MCKENNEY, age 62, 1689 BEL AIR AVE, SAN JOSE CA 95126, (408)
Department 32, Honorable Hugh Mullin III: HUGH F MULLIN, age 60, 1546 MONTALBAN DR, SAN JOSE CA 95120, (408)
Department 23, Honorable Jerome Nadler: JEROME S NADLER, age 52, 362 LESTER CT, SANTA CLARA CA 95051, (408) 246-6295.
Department 39, Honorable Rene Navarro: RENE NAVARRO, age 58, 19500 PRUNERIDGE AVE, CUPERTINO CA 95014, (408)
Department 6: Honorable Leslie C. Nichols, highly incompetent. LESLIE C NICHOLS, age 62, 1539 BEGEN AVE, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040, phone (650) 96*-****.
Department 89: Honorable Diane Northway, DIANE M NORTHWAY, age 60, PALO ALTO CA 94301, (650) 327-7070
Department 47, Honorable Aaron Persky may possibly be: Aaron PERSKY, 650 PARK CT, SANTA CLARA CA 95050, (408) 296-7726. Formerly a prosecutor for the Santa Clara county district attorney.
Department 29a, Honorable Randolf Rice: RANDOLF J RICE, age 57, may have lived at 3886 BALCOM RD, SAN JOSE CA 95148, (408) 274-****.
Department 93: Commissioner Gregory Saldivar, GREGORY E SALDIVAR, 1657 GLENROY DR, SAN JOSE CA 95124, (408)
Department 91: Honorable Kenneth L. Shapero, KENNETH L SHAPERO, age 52, 2725 CASA GRANDE CT, MORGAN HILL CA 95037, (408)
Department 84: Honorable Douglas K. Southard, DOUGLAS K SOUTHARD, age 55, 1105 FREMONT AVE, LOS ALTOS CA 94024, (650)
Department 50, Honorable Rodney J. Stafford: RODNEY J STAFFORD, 5155 SHADOW EST, SAN JOSE CA 95135, (408)
Department 42, Honorable Paul Teilh: PAUL R TEILH, 14839 E HILLS DR, SAN JOSE CA 95127, (408) 251-7259
Department 9: Honorable Gregory H. Ward, GREGORY H WARD, age 56, 1065 RAMON CMNO (CAMINO RAMON), SAN JOSE CA95125, (408)
Department 45, Honorable Carrie Zepeda: CARRIE A ZEPEDA, 1053 BENDMILL WAY, SAN JOSE CA 95121, (408).
Born ZEPEDA
CARRIE
A
04
01
1963, mother
AJIMURA
FEMALE, county
ALAMEDA.
CARRIE A ZEPEDA born 1963-04-01 may have lived in San Jose CA 95122.
CARRIE A ZEPEDA born 1963-04-01 may have lived in Stanford CA 94305.
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 NY Pistol Permits | Impropriety in USA Gov't | Home Page | ||
| Main California Page | Previous Page | Next Page | ||
