Newhall Ranch vs. Judge Ann I. Jones

ronaldmaustin

Who is this Evangelina and why is she spending a half-hour or more on this? When she responded to my post, I thought, "well..... maybe she has an intense hatred for anyone who has driven while intoxicated." But looking at her posts, and considering she did read a multi-page Court of Appeal Opinion, and then responded to every post on here, there's clearly more to the picture. (Actually, I already do know who you are and why you have posted... if you wonder why, dig a little deeper on my name on the internet.)

Well, Evangelina "girl", you certainly missed the point as much as the judge did. My case is not an appeal of drunk driving. In fact it is a case involving the DMV which legally has NOTHING AT ALL to do with DUI. Yes, I was .22 and walked into Court three years ago and apologized and pled guilty to DUI. The very reason it was mentioned in that opinion is that it proves I dd not refuse to take a chemical test.

The case before Judge Jones was whether I refused to take a chemical test, which carries a one year hard suspension of a drivers license rather than a one month hard suspension a first time DUI carries. The DMV thought they could get me for a one year suspension, so they dropped the DUI allegation completely. The arresting officer walked in and admitted right on tape that I did not refuse a test. Then the DMV's lawyers tried to withhold producing the transcript. Judge Jones clearly saw this, and knew that I would win if she was confronted with a transcript that showed I did not refuse a chemical test. So she went along with the DMV lawyer in violation of a very clear law.

It really does not matter what YOU think and it does not even matter to me what Judge Jones thinks. The Court of Appeal disagrees with you both and is a little more important what it has to say rather than your layman's opinion in a comment section on the internet. Like Judge Jones you apparently think that if someone drives drunk once, every other law can be disregarded. And you are entitled to let that opinion guide you. Judge Jones is not.

Fact is, Judge Jones is a piss poor jurist. I don't care what you think. And even though my case is still before her, I don't care what she thinks either. She'll find against me again. And I'll have her reversed again. And I will spend your tax dollars doing so. The published decision now ensures that Judge Jones and the DMV cannot deny administrative hearing transcripts to people who cannot afford them.

ronaldmaustin

A single pro-environmental decision does not make Ann I. Jones "gutsy" or independent. She is certainly no legal scholar. Judge Jones is rude, condescending and a very poor jurist who will railroad you if she thinks you don't know any better. She cost me my drivers license for one year in a ridiculous decision based on a simple law that would have been obvious to a first year law student.

I had her roundly overturned at the Court of Appeal. See this link to read the published opinion here:

http://tinyurl.com/axa7or5

Evangelina

@ronaldmaustin I read the Court of Appeal decision you linked to Ronny boy. The opinion says that your blood alcohol level, based on a test taken less than an hour after your arrest, was .22. That's rip-roaring drunk Ronny boy...as drunk as the character Arthur in the famous comedy movie. But it's not funny to be driving around Ventura County as drunk as you were.

What the Court of Appeals case actually says was that you were too cheap to buy a transcript of your DMV license revocation hearing, and that the law was unclear as to whether DMV had to provide you with a free typed transcript of that hearing.

The judge said her interpretation of the laws was that you didn't get a free transcript of your DMV hearing paid for by DMV aka us, the taxpayers.

The Court of Appeal had to write a reasoned opinion that you were entitled to a free transcript. A "reasoned opinion" means the law is so unclear the Court of Appeal has to do a long song and dance to reach a conclusion.

According to the Court of Appeals opinion you posted the link to, it wasn't a simple question,

The judge wasn't wrong. You were Ronny boy. You were driving very, very drunk based on a blood alcohol level of .22.

And then you told the judge you were too broke (indigent) to pay for a transcript of your DMV hearing. How is it that you had enough money to get drunk and enough money to have a car to drive? It sounds to me like Judge Jones b.s. detector was going off when she was talking to you.

As a Venturan, I'm glad that ambiguity in the law kept you off the road for a year, Ronny boy. Please do all Venturans a favor and get the heck out of our county before your drunk driving kills someone.

ronaldmaustin

@Evangelina @ronaldmaustin As to your BS about what a close call the case was.... this was a PUBLISHED OPINION. The Court only approves for publication about one in ten of all cases that come before it and only AFTER approval of a majority of the justices for certification. In this case, it was certified because it involves a legal issue of public interest, i.e. having courts order the providing of transcripts to those that cannot afford them. Obviously the Court is not endorsing the "Arthurs" of this world to get behind the wheel.

But, yeah, I agree with you on one thing. Judge Jackass had an opinion that was about as well thought out as yours.

Evangelina

abramsrl

Jones is an unusual judge. With a superior court which is known to have only a huge rubber stamp for whatever disaster the city council wants, Jones is unique. She pays attention to facts and law!

Judges need to be assessed on their legal analysis and most Super Court judge look no farther than which side will benefit their petty careers. You cannot have a corrupt city hall without a corrupt court system, and as Steve Lopez reported in the LA Times, the LA area is the second most corrupt in the nation.

Have some of the billionaire oligarchs woken up and realized that endless real estate corruption has bankrupted the state and Los Angeles and corruption has driven businesses out of the State or will Judge Jones soon be moved to traffic court?

Evangelina

@abramsrl Perhaps worse than being re-assigned to judging Traffic Court, the "new" Presiding Judge, David Wesley, has assigned Judge Jones to manage the court's budget, which is in complete chaos because of multi-million dollar budget cuts by the state. Presiding Judge Wesley is known as a notorious chauvinist pig, so it's not surprising that he thinks it's more important to have "the little lady" do some serious housewifely work around the court house...rather than protecting the public from crooked politicians and their corporate pay masters. My bet is that when Presiding Judge Wesley's term is over on 12/31/2014 we'll see him "retire" (at taxpayer expense) and get a very cushy job with a big, private law firm in LA.

So said for the public, who want honest government. If you want to learn more about corruption in the City of LA's government, look up Jill Stewart's story on this website concerning the Mayor, the City Attorney and the Councilman from Hollywood trying to grease the skids for a well-connected developer who wanted to build a big high rise condo building in Hollywood with far fewer parking spaces than LA's zoning law requires, where Judge Jones told the crooked pols "No you can't do that".

Yep, send the little lady who is not afraid of crooked men politicians down to the court house's basement to balance the court's check book and do all those other important things a good housewife handles.

abramsrl

@Evangelina @abramsrl Yes, the corruption in Hollywood literally tops $1 Billion. The loss on the Hollywood Highland Complex was almost $1/2 Billion. You seem to have their number. Have you heard of Accounting Control Fraud? See William K. Black and also Henry Pontell, UC Irvine. They also explain how these fraud works. One of the more notorious was the 1-12-2011 LAFD fraud on the Response Times deceiving people into agreeing to cutting the LAFD budget by $200 Million.