Perjury By California Superior Court, Santa Clara County Judge L. Michael Clark?

Perjury By California Superior Court, Santa Clara County Judge L. Michael Clark?

 

San Jose, California: California Constitution, Article 6, section 19, prohibits a judge of a court of record from receiving “salary for judicial office while any cause before the judge remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision”.  Judges are required to execute an affidavit stating that no cause remains pending and undetermined for 90 days before accepting a salary check (California Government Code §68210).

The February 14, 2011 Order (attached-non-pertinent private information redacted) supports that the matter taken under submission on November 29, 2010 was not determined and ruled on, until February 14, 2011. See also below, a verbatim copy reprint from Court’s docket

 

Number-Sequence	Document Description	Document Text	Filed
0725-000	Order On Submitted Matter	Click for text	02/14/2011

 

Yet in sharp contrast, Judge L. Michael Clark’s Salary Affidavit (attached), under penalty of perjury, executed on January 2011 (no date, presumably on January 31, 2011), “declare that no cause remains pending and undetermined that has been submitted to me in said Court for decision for the period of ninety days to the first of MARCH 2011”. But that is willfully untrue as in January 2011, the November 29, 2010 matter was pending and undetermined.

Exhibits evidences Judge L Michael Clark’s weakness on a fundamental quality expected from a judicial officer, namely honesty. This 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.

Leaving cases undecided for periods in excess of the statutory and constitutional time notwithstanding recurring communications to rule on it, is grounds for judicial misconduct, see  Mardikian v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 709 P.2d 852, 40 Cal. 3d 473, at p. 477-478, 220 Cal. Rptr. 833 (1985). Also, in Hassanally v. Firestone, 51 Cal.App.4th 1241 (1996), at p.1245.

“Failure to render a decision within 90 days, and execution of a false affidavit declaring that no matter has been under submission beyond that time, are bases for judicial discipline. (See Mardikian v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 40 Cal.3d 473; McCullough v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal.3d 186 [260 Cal. Rptr. 557, 776 P.2d 259] .)

Having established clear-cut perjury will the local, state, or federal law enforcement authorities prosecute L. Michael Clark? Note: Judges do not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution (crime of perjury). United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 267, 117 S. Ct. 1219, 137 L. Ed. 2d 432 (1997), Screws v. U.S., 325 U.S. 91, 107-110.,. See 18 U.S.C. § 241-242.

Please address comments and inquiries to judicialirregularities@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 Judge L. Michael Clark