2020 Recalls

image19

Judge PAUL BACIGALUPO

  

Hired by the court’s judges as a commissioner, Judge Paul Bacigalupo ran in 2002, able to claim he was an “LA Superior Court Judge” on the ballot. He has run unopposed since never appearing on a general election ballot again.

  

Bacigalupo is accused of arrogance and having significant disdain toward litigants, proven in this video of his speech at the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) audit hearing on June 12, 2019, in which he implies all complaints come from disgruntled family law litigants.  This is extremely inappropriate coming from a judge in charge of hearing every side of an argument in the court of law. 

  

Bacigalupo is openly anti-CJP reform, which should concern everyone who walks into his courtroom, especially since the mission of the CJP is “to protect the public, enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintain public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system.” The CJP, which jurisdiction is only the state of California, have received over 6,000 complaints - showing there are obviously substantial issues that need to be addressed.

  

Transcripts from his courtroom have shown Bacigalupo antagonizing and mocking litigants.  Many have witnessed him yelling at self-represented litigants for no reason. Though he claims judges are “thoughtful,” as stated in his speech in the above video, he is not.

  

In one startling example of his bias and hostility, in June 2018, Bacigalupo sanctioned (charged) a plaintiff $2500 over a Protective Order on a subpoena for work emails relating to the management of a rental property. The subpoena sought specific emails sitting on the defendants work server relating to the plaintiff and her tenancy. The problem though is that the motion he referenced (on the record) he was sanctioning the plaintiff on, had been taken off calendar in December 2017, and the legal fees/costs requested, were for work that could never have taken place (oppositions and appearances), and didn’t.  


It was evident that Judge Bacigalupo did not even read the given subpoena and stated all the records were “employment records,”  when only one of the 18 requests in the subpoena was for an employment record - an employment application. Based on these facts, code of civil procedure and precedent, he was not permitted to deny the production of the emails let alone sanction the plaintiff at all.  


Just weeks after sanctioning this litigant for no reason, Bacigalupo began his new position as the President of the California Judges Association (CJA). According to employees at the CJA, he was appointed by the board of 26, not “elected” as he claims in the above video. 


Bacigalupo‘s conduct is more than questionable - it’s vindictive and alarming and devoid of any legal authority. He should not be permitted to sit on any bench, let alone be president of CJA judging other judges. 

  

A report of his conduct was made directly to the CJP on July 9, 2018.  One year later - still no response. This should come as no surprise considering months earlier, in March 2018, Greg Dresser, the head of the CJP, attended an event (The Evolution of Judging - hosted by the CJA) with Bacigalupo - not to mention Bacigalupo was a Special Master for the CJP in 2018. We presume he couldn't judge himself. 


Please join our efforts to remove him from the bench. 

image20

Judge Timothy Dillon

Judge Timothy Dillon was appointed by Governor Brown in 2015. His term is set to end in 2022. We must remove him from the bench now, not let him sit for another three years.


Judge Dillon is a member of the Executive Board of the California Judge’s Association (CJA). There have been a number of potentially corrupt and indecent judges associated with the CJA.

 

In a recent case of retaliatory eviction as reported by KNOCK-LA, Judge Dillon overturned a jury’s decision in favor of the tenant causing the tenant to be evicted despite evidence that the tenant was being targeted. 

  

Judge Dillon has been accused of ex-parte communications, which is defined as “any communication between a judge or juror and a party to a legal proceeding or any other person about the case, outside of the presence of the opposing party or the opposing party's attorney.”  In one specific instance, a parent informed us that Dillon admitted on the record to doing so. Dillon is also accused of not reading motions or declarations and making judgments without being fully informed.


In another case, Judge Dillon stated on the record at least three times that he was aware of, and or in awe of, the petitioner’s boss, “a great doctor” and did not recuse himself.  This unfounded admiration of a gastro doctor who moonlights as a movie producer, lead to the judge bullying the actual victim, the respondent, over having the audacity to copy this “great doctor“ on ONE email, and blindly believing the petitioner’s testimony, which would later be proven to have been perjured testimony.  This clear bias lead to the respondent reluctantly, and out of great fear, signing a stipulation.  When later presented with proof of perjury obtained in a separate civil suit against the petitioner, Judge Dillon said nothing and did nothing and refused to vacate. 


In fact, Judge Dillon has been accused multiple times of turning a blind eye to perjured testimony allowing litigants with criminal records to walk away unscathed.  Why take the oath if there are no repercussions for lying? 


There have been several reports against Judge Dillon to the CJP who are supposed to be an independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity and for disciplining judges. Unfortunately they did nothing. 


You can read a few of his reviews on The Robing Room.

  

Judge Timothy Dillon believes he will face no consequences for his years of alarming conduct. We are here to prove him wrong.

Alison Mackenzie

Judge Alison Mackenzie

Judge Alison Mackenzie was appointed to the bench by Governor Brown in July 2018 to fill a vacancy. 


Mackenzie’s background is in entertainment law, so naturally she is presiding in a family law court.


Mackenzie is disorganized, scattered, and misrepresents the facts on the record. She sends litigants to other courtrooms only to find out there is no judge currently in that courtroom. 


The hate she exhibits towards litigants is unacceptable. 


At one hearing, Mackenzie was holding a FL300 order form in her hand while saying over and over “I don’t have an order” on the record. She then accused the respondent of “not filing a proof of service,” despite the docket showing it was filed a month prior. Mackenzie had very little to say about the actual request for clarification and subsequently denied the request. 


Mackenzie is erratic and berated the same respondent in an open courtroom, yelling that the respondent had a restraining order against her and how “serious” it was, when she demonstrably did not. In fact, even Judge Dillon had previously stated on the record “there is no restraining order - just a piece of paper in a file.”  Mackenzie then ignored opposing counsel’s improper conduct when she was informed that counsel told the respondent’s landlord that the respondent had a restraining order on her, hoping to get her evicted. Counsel didn't even deny it on the record.  Mackenzie said nothing.


Judge Mackenzie has been on the bench for only one year and has shown she is not capable of the position. 


Join us in our efforts to recall Judge Mackenzie.  

image21

Judge Michael Convey

Convey joined LA Superior Court as a commissioner in 2002 and was appointed by Arnold in 2010. Convey ran for re-election in 2012 as an unopposed incumbent never appearing on the general election ballot again. His term ends in 2025.  We must recall him now. 


Convey has a very interesting way he runs his courtroom. With his background in insurance defense he appears to empathize with defendants and the carriers. To say he despises self-represented litigants would be quite the understatement. Even when presented with new facts - and evidence, he denied a plaintiff's right to amend her complaint. He then forced her to respond to a demurrer filed by an employee of a suspended corporation after mediation and settlement. Convey could have simply taken the motion off calendar as required per CA Rules of Court, Rule 3.1385(c)(3) or the lawyer in question could have withdrawn the motion. Instead the self-represented litigant was forced to file a response/opposition to the demurrer. His courtroom staff then allowed this same lawyer (via a mere phone request) to move up a protective order hearing seeking sanctions of $6400 against the self-represented litigant (after settlement) by two months without a motion to shorten time, his approval or the parties in the case stipulating. He never even sanctioned the lawyer for doing so. This new date did not even permit for proper service under CCP Section 1005. He then denied (and struck) the plaintiff's motion to disqualify him for bias. This seems to be a pattern of his. He is currently permitting a cross-complaint (in the same matter) to be litigated after no responsive pleading was filed by the cross-defendants (or default entered) for 15 months. Convey never even put an Order to Show Cause hearing on calendar as transcripts lodged in 2019, confirm. 


Public records show two cases filed by self-represented litigants against him (one, a lawyer himself); Art Bufford v Michael J Convey et al (2007) and Alexander Baker v Michael J Convey (2016). The stories about Convey are endless. 


He tragically even issued a restraining order against singer Elizabeth Le Fey (appearing in pro per) when in fact she was physically assaulted by the petitioner. You can read more about her case below.  


How much more damage will we allow Convey to cause?