Alleged Judicial Misconduct: Is Small Claims the right venue to settle HOA disputes?

Alleged Judicial Misconduct: Is Small Claims the right venue to settle  HOA disputes? The jury is still out in Orange County, CA 

CA Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue
Suite 14400
San Francisco CA. 94102

September 7, 2012

Gentlemen: 

I  would like to lodge a serious complaint of judicial misconduct against judge John L. Flynn III of the Laguna Hills CA. small claims court and certain members of his  court staff. On or about September 6th 2012 Judge Flynn and several members of his  court staff held one or more ex-parte meetings and discussions With plaintiffs of a case in his court without the defendant in the case being present.

I would like to lodge a serious complaint of judicial misconduct against judge John L. Flynn III of the Laguna Hills CA. small claims court and certain members of his  court staff. On or about September 6th 2012 Judge Flynn and several members of his  court staff held one or more ex-parte meetings and discussions With plaintiffs of a case in his court without the defendant in the case being present.  



The sum and substance of these illegal meetings were outlined in an email to me as follows from one of the plaintiff's management staff personnel.  In this email he said quote: 
" As I stated in our most recent phone conversation (of September 6th 2012) based on most recent feedback from the court (about our case to be heard on September 12, 2012) management will be moving the case to civil court. This is due to the high balance on the account. At one point we believed it was permissible to waive high balances in order to make the small claims filing amount limit. Since then we have been advised by Judge Flynn and the court that we cannot "ding" other homeowners for homeowner delinquencies 
and waive such large amounts such as in your case".

"The previous negotiations with you were done under the assumption that we, the
Association, were able to waive large amounts in order to make the small claims filing limit. Since then we have knowledge from the court and the judge that waving such amounts is not permissible and we will now dismiss the claim to later file in civil court in order to comply".

On your commission web page you state that quote: "One of the types of judicial misconduct investigated by the commission on judicial performance is when there is receipt of information about a case outside the presence of one party to the litigation." Well  Sir it seems to me that that is exactly what happened in my wife's case. These people all got together and discussed ways to get around all the small claims filing limits. My question is why was my wife not invited or allowed at these meetings to voice her objections over what they were doing in her case.

I should tell you also that this was not the first claim made against my wife in this small claims court by these plaintiffs for this very same amount within the small claims filing limit. The first case was heard several months ago by another judge who dismissed the case because the plaintiff home owner association violated the law by not providing my wife with a fair and reasonable internal dispute resolution program  required under CA civil code 1363.850 before they filed suit against her and as of this date this program has still not been provided to my wife. 

This, of course, was the defense my wife and I had prepared in this lawsuit once again..... before based on information from the court and judge Flynn they the association decided  to drop the case in favor of suing my wife once again illegally and in violation of civil code 1363.850 in civil court. I guess what all this means is that judge Flynn and his court play fast and loose with the law over there in his Laguna Hills small claims court and in so doing deprive people of their constitutional right of due process under the law. 

I rest my case. I hope You will investigate this complaint forthwith and apply whatever appropriate sanctions and punishment you deem necessary to prevent this type of judicial and court misconduct from happening again. 

Thank you.
Sincerely
William Kirkendale 

If you wish to restore America, send your letters to the CotoBuzz Journal’s Editor:
If you would like to make a comment about a specific news article, editorial or commentary and have it considered for publication in the CotoBuzz Journal as a Letter to the Editor, please send it to cotoblogzz@gmail.com 
Letters should be brief, and may be edited for clarity and length.. They become the property of CotoBuzz Journal  and may be republished in any format. 
Please include your full name, mailing address and daytime phone number (your number will not be published).

RELATED STORIES

Coto de Caza's HOA not under  jurisdiction of state and or  federal law:  honorable  John Flynn III  

Coto de Caza, CA – The verdict  is in, in the Small Claims Court trial  30-2012-00570806-SC-SC-HLH,  held July 23, 2012,  against the Coto de Caza Homeowners Association, otherwise known as CZ Master Association. In the case, it was alleged that the association not only failed to comply with Civil Code § 1365 but that  it continues to claim it is beyond local, state and federal jurisdiction,   The Honorable John L. Flynn III ruled that the HOA board of directors  indeed is not under  the jurisdiction of state and  federal law. Sort of

Coto de Caza Free Speech on Trial – Honorable John L. Flynn III presiding

Coto de Caza, CA – while most pundits speculated over what the Supreme Court would do about the individual mandate included in the ObamaCare legislation, most also warned not to read too much into the Justices’ line of questioning.  Most of the pundits were right on the latter, wrong on the fate of the individual mandate.