Tigar's "Lost Years"from induced haze
Tigar Engaged in Nullification
Tigar's "Lost Years"from induced haze
The deceitful Judge Jon Tigar openly confessed at a hearing on August 4,2008 that one of the major concerns in this al-Hakim v. CSAA Insurance case is his desire to protect his own interest (and those of other judges,his friends and defendant parties) and not to have those damaging issues (testimony,facts,and evidence) presented in this case. He has attempted to bury this case and the evidence of his nullification by constructing and issuing perjurious orders;withholding the filing and serving of endorsed orders until such time as the right to an appeal was encumbered;twice denying the presentation of that damaging evidence in a Separate Statement of Facts with Exhibits submitted by al-Hakim;denying and then delaying the hearing on crucial motions until such time as the right to an appeal has run. Truly incredulous!
Prejudice will be found where it seems probable that the verdict may have been based on error.
Judge Jon Tigar’s Nulification of Trial
A substantial body of California decisions recites that the erroneous denial of correct specific evidence and testimony covering a civil litigant’s supportable “theory of the case” is “inherently” prejudicial. Decades old,this principle has been stated,or at least implicitly applied,in a wide variety of situations,ranging from the complete preclusion of a claim or defense,to mere lack of specificity in relating correct general principles to the particular facts.
The rationale generally given is that an error of this nature prevents consideration of the omitted “theory” with it’s evidence and testimony and thus denies,to that extent,the right to a jury trial. The courts have declared that “[s]uch an error cannot be cured by the beneficent provisions of article VI,section [13 of the California Constitution]“,and this reasoning has been followed with little elaboration in more recent cases. The “inherent prejudice” line of authority has a number of decisions addressing erroneous denials of specific “theory” with it’s relevant testimony and evidence.
What is referred to as “jury nullification” is a judge or jury’s “defiance of the law.” (U.S. v. Thomas (2d Cir. 1997) 116 F.3d 606,614.) and rendering verdicts based upon such things as bigotry,racism,bias,political views,public sentiment or outrage,disability,gender,sexual preference,age,social-economic status,physical appearance,class and privilege,among others. It “can cover a number of distinct,though related,phenomena,encompassing … conduct that takes place for a variety of different reasons;jurors or judges may nullify,for example,because of the identity of a party,a disapprobation of the particular prosecution at issue,or a more general opposition to the applicable law or laws.”
Tigar Criminal Charges
Nullification simply means that a fair and just verdict can not or was not reached on the merits of the facts,evidence and testimony. This can also be most effectively executed by unscrupulous judges with the unbridled power of authority to control those factors and no censoring oversight,even if it is a jury trial.
Accordingly,“it is important not to encourage or glorify the judge or jury’s power to disregard the law. While that power has,on some occasions,achieved just results,it also has led to verdicts such as the al-Hakim case based upon bigotry,racism,bias,class and privilege,coupled with the desire of Judge Tigar to conceal his transgression in engineering that nullification. A judge or jury that disregards the law and,instead,reaches a verdict based upon their personal views,beliefs and gains,violates one of our nation’s most basic precepts:that we are ‘a government of laws and not men.’ [Citation.]” (Williams,supra,25 Cal.4th at p. 459,fn. omitted.)
Judge Jon Tigar Appointed Thru Nepotism,Cronyism
Nullification certainly has no place in a civil trial where neither party has a right to a general verdict. Nullification is wholly inconsistent with the trial court’s authority in a civil case to order a special verdict in which the jury finds the facts,leaving for the court the determination of the conclusions of law to be drawn from those facts. In this case,the jury was released by the court before the misconduct could be addressed,the jury trial was never completed and the jury never reached a verdict. Yet all the same objectionable,improper influences from the trial that was in the province of the jury are then safely in the hands of the perpetrator of the improper influences,Tigar,to render judgment for and upon himself as he wished. See al-Hakim’s Writ in the Didqualification of Judge Tigar here http://www.box.net/shared/6svfzfjial
Given that the jury was released by the court before the misconduct could be addressed,the jury trial was never completed and the jury never reached a verdict,it must also be reconcilable with the trial court’s power to enter a judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict,or to order a new trial following a jury verdict which is contrary to law. Specifically,and most importantly for purposes of the issue posed by this case,jury nullification can be reconciled with the well-established authority of a trial court to order a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct.
Tigar’s Statement of The Case and Jury Voire Dire was a refusal to properly and fairly instruct the jury and furnished inferences of the value of al-Hakim’s claim,that al-Hakim could not possibly prove his case,and gave the jury an invitation to consider “the weaknesses” of al-Hakim’s claim. Walbrook Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1445,1461-1462 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 513] [refusal in insurance bad faith action to instruct that amount of underlying personal injury verdict furnishes inference of value of claim;error deemed harmless under "all the circumstances" where other instructions invited jury to consider "strength and weaknesses" of third party's claim].
al-Hakim found it incomprehensible that no parts of his Statement of the Case could be used in anyway by Tigar,his jury questions submitted to the court for the jury were ALL prejudicial,his personal jury voire dire questions were ALL prejudicial,his questions of the witnesses during examination were all disallowed from objections by the defendants repeatedly sustained by Tigar,All his exhibit evidence was inadmissible because it violated the erroneous prejudicial in limine orders,and ALL his questions of the witnesses during examination were all disallowed because they violated the erroneous prejudicial in limine orders. Yet when al-Hakim objected,Tigar allowed the matter to go forward without hesitating. Tigar facilitated the misleading argument of defense counsel and the non- responsive testimony of witnesses that emphasized their case theory by refusing to use any portions of plaintiff’s proffered Statement of The Case or Jury Voire Dire.
Tigar’s (Description) Mental Meltdown
Tigar told the prospective jurors “to follow the law as instructed by the court.” Tigar did not inform the jury that he had already exercised his inherent power to nullify the law with his many erroneous rulings,including on the Motion to Vacate,an impermissible invasion of the province of the jury and a denial of the historic right of due process. “Tigar engaged in nullification when he removed from the Sixth Amendment the jury’s role” as “the conscience of the community” and “the final barrier against unjust trials and verdicts.”
As a practical matter,however,some of the prospective jurors reasonably may have construed the admonition that they had no right or authority to disregard the trial court’s instructions on the law and,instead,to decide what they think is “right” under the circumstances,regardless of the law as nullified by Tigar. Tigar’s improper statements had an incurably negative effect on his and the jurors’mental processes and influenced the trial and verdict.
