26 November 2009

A Look at Judicial Corruption

Here we have a judge who received a gift of a time share, then ruled in the favor of the party who gave him the time share.  The gift was given to JUDGE JAMES ALLEN from a friend, who had received it from S. MICHAEL LOVE.

LOVE is the attorney representing Mr. Rogozienski's ex-wife in the divorce case.  The judge voided a prenuptial agreement that cost Rogozienski $20 million, among other things.

Apparently this judge is not going to be held accountable for his actions because judicial immunity protects him from a personal lawsuit. 

We all need to be aware that judges can be corrupt and will do take bribes all the time.  So, if you feel that you are constantly being given the short end of the stick in family court, then look into the lawyers and the judge.  Find out if someone is greasing the skids of justice for the other party.

For information on Fighting Judicial Corruption.

Lawyer's Gift To Judge Turns Tide In Divorce Case


SAN DIEGO -- In the middle of an ugly, high-stakes divorce, Frank Rogozienski lost his chance at a fair day in court, according to a verdict from a civil jury. Jurors ruled that a San Diego lawyer was negligent when he gave a presiding judge a stake in a timeshare.

In 2003, Rogozienski was in the middle of divorcing his wife, Shirley, and attorney James Allen became the temporary judge presiding over the case.

Rogozienski was bothered by a string of rulings, including a voided prenuptial agreement that cost him more than $20 million in stocks.

When Allen refused to disclose any conflicts of interest, Rogozienski started digging and discovered Allen had received a timeshare at Warner Springs Ranch -- in the middle of the divorce proceedings.

Rogozienski learned Allen received the timeshare from a friend, who had received it from S. Michael Love. Love is the attorney representing Rogozienski's ex-wife in the divorce case.

Allen disqualified himself, but it was too late, according to a civil jury. Last week, jurors said Love was "negligent" and awarded Rogozienski nearly $800,000 in attorney fees.

Legal experts said it is a clear victory for Rogozienski. "He was vindicated by this verdict. The jury said, 'You're right, sir, your case wasn't decided fairly,'" said defense attorney Gretchen von Helms.

Rogozienski, who is out of the country, told 10News, "I’m pleased the jury's message is: you can't undermine the faith in the legal system."

"You can't have the public saying, 'These judges are getting gifts and being bought off by their friends, this can't happen.' Not only does the justice system have to be fair, it has to appear fair to all parties," said von Helms.

Steve Amundson, Love's attorney, said, "Despite the amount of the verdict, Frank Rogozienski was not sympathetic to the jury, who only awarded $1 for emotional distress. The jury further determined by unanimous verdict that Mr. Love acted without malice." Amundson said they're still trying to decide if they will appeal.

A judge ruled judicial immunity protected Allen from the lawsuit, but the verdict could hurt both him and Love as both face possible sanctions in a State Bar investigation.

So far, criminal charges have not been filed in the case.

A re-trial to determine the division of assets is expected in the divorce case after Rogozienski's victory in court. Rogozienski didn't want to disclose the financial details of the first trial, other than to mention the $20 million in stocks his ex-wife was awarded in a ruling he didn't agree with for a voided prenuptial agreement.

1 comment:

ilona@israel said...

The report takes a close look at the two main judicial corruption problems: political interference and petty bribery by court personnel.