Is there (RE) Election Fraud by Our California Superior Court Gubernatorial Appointees to a Judgeship? www.santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
My name is Lawrence Mendoza and I live in Santa Barbara, California. I was a victim of judicial corruption, law enforcement stalking and legal corruption starting in late 2005 and all of 2006. In an attempt to protect myself and prevent others from also being victimized, I created my blog in order to share my experiences through. The subject of today’s posting is as important as anything I have written over these last six years.
When must a Gubernatorial Appointee to the California Superior Court seek re/election to their first full term of six years? What happens if the temporary judicial appointee fails to seek re/election yet still occupied their seat on the bench?
The reason I ask is because it appears that some judicial appointees have failed to seek reelection when required to by the law, my first example comes from July of 2005.
Posted on Tue Jul 12 2005 22:41:42 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1441708/posts 07/12/2005 “Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced the appointment of Franklin E. Bondonno and Carol W. Overton to judgeship’s in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Filling the vacancy created when former Superior Court Judge William Danser was ousted as a result of his criminal conviction in a ticket-fixing scandal. Both newly appointed Superior Court Judges can seek a full six-year term in the June 2006 primary elections. “
Through my research I found that 2005 appointee Judge Bondonno ran for his first full term in the 2006 June primary, keeping in complacence with our State Constitution. .(http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/scl/judicial.html ) However the other 2005 appointee Judge Overton did not seek re/election in 2006, instead choosing to wait until the June 2008 primary to run for re/election. Consequently she failed to comply with our Constitution and that is our problem! (http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/scl/judicial.html)
Over these last six years I have spent countless hours researching issues and events so that I can intelligently share my findings and tonight is no different. You see there is no ambiguity in regards to the length of time a temporarily gubernatorial appointee/ judge may occupy the bench before being required by law to seek re/election to their first full term.
The California Constitution clearly states that if a vacant Judicial seat in Superior Court was filled by a temporary gubernatorial appointee in a non-election (odd) year. They must seek re/election to their first full six-year term in the following years (even) general primary
If the judicial vacancy was filled in an (even) election year, they must wait to seek re/election to a full term in the next even year’s general election or roughly two years. Let’s review three more appointees to the bench in odd years and when the first sought re/election to their first full term of six years.
Richard B. Ulmer, Jr. a judge for the Superior Court of San Francisco was appointed to the court by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2009. Ulmer then ran for re/election in 2010 for the seat he was appointed to in 2009. http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/06/08/ca/sf/judicial.html
Arthur A. Garcia. a judge for the Superior Court of Santa Barbara was appointed to the court by Governor Gray Davis in 2003. Garcia skipped running for re/election in 2004, and finally ran for re/election in 2006 for the seat he was appointed to in 2003. http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/sba/race/1935/
George C. Eskin a judge for the Superior Court of Santa Barbara was appointed to the court by Governor Gray Davis in 2003. Eskin skipped running for re/election in 2004 and finally ran for re/election in 2006 for the seat he was appointed to in 2003.
In closing we have a very serious problem when Judges, Civil or Criminal, Law Enforcement, District Attorneys and their prosecutors intentionally attempt to misrepresent facts or out right lie to the public in Any Matters. Those types of actions by them automatically “forfeit their right to the Public’s Trust”. Without doubt the keeping of Public Trust requires a higher standard from those previously mentioned than that of you or me. This standard dictates that because integrity is indispensable to those positions, any one whose misconduct undermines that integrity no longer deserves to serve the public or our trust.