District Attorney Vroman disqualifies judge from cases

The Press Democrat ^ | 12/2/04 | Glenda Anderson

[freebilly]

Mendocino County's district attorney is disqualifying a Fort Bragg judge from hearing criminal cases, claiming the jurist doesn't know the law and his courtroom is poorly managed.

Judge Jonathan Lehan said judicial ethics prevent him from responding to the allegations by District Attorney Norman Vroman.

Vroman's crusade against Lehan is forcing judicial officials to ship criminal cases to inland courts, leaving Lehan with mostly civil cases to oversee.

Vroman has been filing affidavits to disqualify Lehan from all of his department's cases since mid-October.

"Their calendar is dwindling rapidly," said Vroman. "By mid-December, there won't be any cases left in that court we haven't filed an affidavit on."

Although Vroman would not cite specific examples, he said he is disqualifying Lehan because, "He cannot manage his courtroom, and he doesn't have a firm grasp of the law."

He said poor scheduling has inconvenienced court clients and their lawyers.

Lehan has served most of his 14 years as a judge on the coast. He was reassigned to inland courts for 18 months while accusations that surfaced during his 2001 re-election campaign were investigated. He returned to the Fort Bragg court in December 2003 after the state Judicial Council concluded the investigation, the details of which were never made public.

While the affidavits are a nuisance, the caseload shift has been manageable, said Mendocino County Presiding Judge Eric Labowitz. "I don't see it as having a major impact at this point," he said.

In the last week, the affidavits have increased the Willits' court calendar by 11 cases, said Court Executive Officer Tania Ugrin-Capobianco. The coast court held only four jury trials between July 2003 and July 2004, and no more are scheduled until late December or early January, she said.

The total number of cases shifted from the Fort Bragg court to the inland courts since October was not available.

Labowitz said he has no intention at this time of shifting a new judge to the coast in response to pressure from Vroman.

This isn't the first time Vroman has used blanket disqualifications in a struggle with the court.

During his six years in office, Vroman has entirely excluded two other judges - Ron Brown and retired Judge Ronald Combest - from temporarily hearing cases generated by his office.

"It's a legal remedy that's provided to deal with judges you think are not creating a level playing field," Vroman said.

[freebilly]

There should be a few more judges disqualified from hearing criminal cases....

[get'emall]

Any relation to Abe Vroman... "The Sausage King of Chicago?"

[freebilly]

Don't know, but up in Mendocino they're smoking things other than sausages....

[glorgau]

The real question should be:

Which one is elected; the District Attorney, or the judge?

[freebilly]

Both. Vroman is a "Libertarian", supposedly.

[thegreatbeast]

Which one is elected; the District Attorney, or the judge?

Apparently both are. I've never heard of a DA who wasn't elected and the article reports that the judge has been "re-elected".
But I never knew that the DA had the power to do this to a judge. What a queer story. We need follow-ups on this with more information.

[Bob Mc]

Queer story indeed.

"Mendocino County's district attorney is disqualifying a Fort Bragg judge from hearing criminal cases, claiming the jurist doesn't know the law and his courtroom is poorly managed."

So are we talking about a judge or a jurist? Isn't a jurist a member of a jury?

[Bob Mc]

Never mind, looked it up. Jurist is a judge, juror is a member of the jury.

[gakrak]

YES, i can think of at least four on the supreme court.

[brazzaville]

Good evening.

"Which one is elected: the District Attorney, or the judge?"

The answer is both. Norm Vroman is on his second term as DA and Jonathan Lehan has been a judge on the coast for years.

Norm is a believer in the constitution and with him what you see is what you get. He is fair to all and won by a decent margin, with support from all parts of the political spectrum. He's a gruff, sometimes crotchety old man and you either really like him or really dislike him.

He, along with his buddy Ray Higbee put on a superb citizens firearms course and, though Norm is in his seventies and gimpy, he is a deadly pistolero that only a fool or a bushwhacking back shooter would mess with. We also have a Sheriff, Tony Craver, who holds similar views to Norm's. Tony is also well liked by his constituents. Norm and Tony make a good team.

Quasi well-informed pot haters here in FreeRepublic will probably not like Norm as he believes in upholding state law and therefore doesn't go after medical marijuana users as long as they hold a script.

Norm and the county bureaucrats tangle often and Norm is always on the citizens side. You can probably tell that I like Vroman.

Jonathan Lehan has his own fiefdom on the coast and he is reelected each time he runs. He is a nice enough guy but I don't know much more about him.

Michael Frazier

[jtk]

Well, let me put in my two cents worth. Vroman is not the "fair to all" crusader that Michael would make him out to be. Let us remember that this is a "man" who served time in federal prison for tax evasion. This is a "man" who led the unsuccessful smear campaign against Judge Lehan during the last campaign. This is a "man" who paralyzed the court system by using the same tactics against two other judges. He never presented any substantive evidence of bias, yet pursues his personal vendettas at the expense of the taxpayers. His own incompetence at missing a deadline in a continuance during a certain trial (I can't go into any more detail) probably led to this strategy: blame everyone else and go venue shopping. He is supposed to represent the people, and yet is forcing them (plaintiffs, defendants, jurors, families) to trek hours out of their way to go to other courts, because he has a personal feud with Lehan. That is being on the citizens side?? Michael, you can probably tell that I don't like Vroman. Did you happen to mention that Lehan won reelection by an 80% landslide?

Jason T Koo, MD

[af_vet_1981]

There should be a few more judges disqualified from hearing criminal cases....

Judicial tyranny is a great threat to our liberty.

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.

Isn't America great? We can both express our opinion of an elected official without fear of retribution from that person.

jtk, I'm curious about the message you were sending when you wrote "man" in parenthesis. Is it like when I spell bill clinton with no caps to express my disdain for him?

I understand Norm is being sued. Perhaps we will get to see what a jury of his peers think of him. If it ever makes it to trial it will certainly be a media event.

Michael Frazier

[jtk]

Michael,

I agree that America IS great in that we can both express our opinions in an impartial forum. However, I am greatly frustrated when that freedom is abused, and someone abuses their power to forward their own political agendas. I find myself in the curious position as a conservative Republican defending a liberal Democrat. However, as you said, Judge Lehan is a nice man. I know him personally and find him kind and decent. I do, however, fault him for his current predicament. When Vroman launched his attack on him in the press, he was too passive in his response. Outright lies and misleading "facts" were printed in the papers with virtually no response from Judge Lehan. Sometimes I wonder if that passivity is common amongst liberals? In any case,let me enlighten you a bit about this, shall we say, individual that you admire.

You are correct in your supposition that my use of "man" was a reflection of my contempt for Vroman. To start, let us go back into his history. He is from Southern California, and according to reliable sources, made his fortune by selling drugs. At the same time, he did not pay his income taxes for 17 years. This was not for some deeply held conviction as a Libertarian that taxes were wrong (he was, after all, appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan), but rather all about the illegal source of his income. He served time in federal prison on a plea bargain, and the drug portion never made it into the public record. He subsequently declared bankruptcy twice and never repaid the federal government.

In the meantime, the wackos in Mendocino county elected him as District Attorney (making him the Marion Barry of the North Coast). From this position, he previously launched a slime campaign against Judge Lehan during the last election, when his puppet leveled unsubstantiated charges against him. Out of nowhere, four charges were leveled against Judge Lehan and were found not to be true. Is it coincidence that all four charges were filed by the same person, someone with close personal ties to Vroman? You be the judge. Magically, in this week's papers, an article appeared dredging up the same things, except that it was written to bias the reader against Lehan. It is so transparent that Vroman is doing these things in an early effort to gear up his own campaign for judge, that to even question the motive behind his blanket recusals is naive to say the least.

My problem with Vroman does not solely lie in his personal attacks against Judge Lehan. This is a "man" who refused to prosecute a man for his 12th drunk driving offense, believing that counseling is the better option. He also does not believe in separating domestic violence victims from their batterers preferring again to send them to counseling. For a man whose stated position is the legalization of marijuana, he is still prosecuting offenders. Recently, he even did this by charging the man with tax evasion!! Oh well, who would know better than him.

Am I frustrated by this whole mess? Absolutely. Someone should have given Judge Lehan a swift kick in the ass when this affair first started. However, it looks like someone is finally doing something about it (I understand another recall drive is being started against Vroman). What the Democrats really needed in this instance was a Karl Rove.

Jason T Koo, MD

[brazzaville]

I haven't decided yet whether you are guilty of slander or libel but it's possible you've committed both crimes in one post

Your "according to reliable sources" drug charge is ridiculous but I would be willing to look at any evidence you can produce.

The tax evasion charges are incorrect. Norm was prosecuted but not for failure to pay taxes The IRS does not look kindly on tax protesters and they sent that message to him.

While Mendocino County has more than it's fair share of "wackos" I have to ask who you are to malign the voters who elected the DA. I have to assume there is some prosecution you agree or disagree with that set you off. Whatever the situation, you should try to present your case in a less inflammatory way. If you can't do that then at least present something that could pass as proof that you are more than just a guy with a grudge.

Michael Frazier

[jtk]

Michael,

Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to oral statements and gestures. The term defamation is often used to encompass both libel and slander.

The key here is false statements. Everything I mentioned was FACT. Do an internet search under "Supreme Law Library USA vs. Vroman" for the facts. "Petitioner Norman Leon Vroman has been charged by indictment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California with one felony count of tax evasion(Title 26 U.S.C. §7201), and four misdemeanor counts of failing
to file a tax return (Title 26 U.S.C. §7203). The indictment was filed on May 8, 1991, and Petitioner first appeared before the District Court on June 14, 1991." Hopefully, this presentation of facts passes your standards of proof. Also, do a search of various coastal papers for Vroman's tax evasion and time served in federal prison.

Who am I to post my views on this guy? Why just an American exercising his Constitutional right to free speech. I believe you are the one who wrote that that is why America is great. May I ask who you consider to be the "wackos" of which Mendocino has its fair share? By the way, to have a case for defamation, the burden of proof is on you to prove that my statements are false. Do YOU have any proof of any sort?

Jason T Koo, MD

[brazzaville]

Good morning, Jason.

Thanks for doing the research for me. So your statement that Vroman made his fortune(?) dealing drugs would be be libel rather than slander. If you were screaming those charges on the courthouse steps it would be slander. That's good to know.

I'm not too concerned with Norm going to prison for failing to file. If I remember correctly, that was what he was sentenced for, not failure to pay. That is a common IRS response to tax protests. Failing to file is a misdemeanor, I believe. Perhaps you can look it up for me. I believe the woman who launched the jihad against Vroman on the tax issue went to prison herself, for something like filing false returns. Funny how things like that happen sometimes. "Who am I to post my views on this guy?" I think I asked who you were to malign the voters. We both seem to be on the same page when it comes to our right to express our opinion of the DA or of anyone else. You say the voters of the county who elected Norm are wackos then get huffy when I say that we have plenty of those here in Mendoland. You ask who I consider to be wacko. My wife thinks you and I are wackos for engaging in this little debate but she just doesn't find this entertaining like I do. A quick perusal of the coastal papers, as you suggested, confirmed my view that eccentricity is not uncommon here. Isn't eccentric a more civil label than wacko? Yes, I think I like it better.

You addressed the question of Vroman's disagreement with the IRS some what, trying to prove a point with partial information while ignoring other facts. For me the accusations of drug dealing and abuse of authority are far more serious and you don't even try to prove them.

You are correct that the burden of proof would be on me if I were charging you with defamation in a court of law. Fortunately, I avoid courts and lawyers when ever possible and am just expressing my opinion. As far as I know you have neither libeled nor slandered me personally. If you feel the need to do so you could Freepmail me. Until then I ask you again to prove that Norm Vroman is a drug dealer or that he uses his office to engage in personal political vendettas.

I probably won't respond to you in the open forum again but you never know. You go ahead if you feel the need.

Michael Frazier

[jtk]

Michael,

I detect a hint of condescension in your posts. I actually envy that you have enough time to post so often to this forum (40+ posts since we started this debate last week!). I for one actually have to work for a living.

Once again, and I'll type SLOWLY, it would only be defamation if my accusations were proven false! My sources are in law enforcement, and I am confident of their reliability. You keep saying that I give "partial information while ignoring other facts"...well, have you once given even a single fact?? I'm sorry, I don't believe I can recall any. Yes, facts would be nice. I think I would like that.

Abuse of authority is readily apparent...just look through the papers. But rather than bore you with the facts, might I suggest we wait for the results of the most recent lawsuit filed against Vroman? Yes, it is true...I miss the old "Vromanmustgo" website.

I am sorry to hear you won't answer me. I will surely miss you. But hope is eternal. Might I ask just why you think Vroman is so great? Because he is a crusty old man you don't mess with? Because he gives a good gun course? Do you think those are necessary qualifications for a District Attorney? Just the facts, please.

Jason Koo