Last week Linda Pitman got a notice from Small Claims Court Judge Jeanine Nadel informing Pitman that her request to have her $3,000 truck returned from impound was denied “with prejudice” — which means Ms. Pitman can’t get her case re-heard.
The notice was dated Thursday, October 25 — the day before Ms. Pitman's hearing in Judge Nadel’s Small Claims court on Friday. Of course Lady Justice is blind, so maybe…
The pre-dated denial says that Ms. Pitman should have complied with Civil Code Section 1094.5, which is a reference to the “Writ of Mandemus” called for in the “Brief” submitted by the Ukiah Police Department during Ms. Pitman's Friday court appearance. The brief was prepared by Ukiah's city attorney, although in theory lawyers are excluded from small claims actions. If you hired a lawyer to pile up a lot of legal references into a Writ of Mandemus it would cost you more than a $3000 pick-up truck.
“I guess I could say that they put the wrong date on the paperwork,” noted Ms. Pitman, “but it's on there twice. And it's official. They might have put the wrong date on there twice if that's what happened. But I don't believe it. Since it’s dated the day before my hearing — in two different places — I believe that [Ukiah Police] Captain [Trent] Taylor had already given that [brief] to her before my trial and she had already decided the case the day before. And that's probably why he sat there and said nothing when Judge Nadel asked for his response. The whole thing was bogus. She sat there and listened to me but she had already made her decision. She didn't want to hear from me.
“I already filed a claim with the city and with the Police Department using their standard claim form. Both of them were denied. Copies of both of those claims and the denials were in the package of material I provided to the judge.”
Ms. Pitman now suspects that Judge Nadel was prejudiced against her.
“She was County Counsel when the County had to pay the big settlement payment after I won my lawsuit against the county after they wrongly accused me of embezzling from the library,” Ms. Pitman explained. “I was acquitted on that charge by a jury and I sued for back wages and loss of income and won a pretty big settlement from the County.”
Ms. Pitman knows about Judge Nadel’s knowledge of her case because then-County Counsel Nadel spoke about the Pitman settlement at the Board of Supervisors meeting in March of 2011. The Supervisors were discussing the big insurance payment they had to make to cover the County's increased premiums because of the Pitman pay-out back in 2009.
Ms. Pitman's suspicions are verified in living fact. In March of 2011, Nadel, in her capacity as County Counsel, said to the Supervisors in open session, “An employee was prosecuted for embezzlement. After prosecution she was acquitted. The settlement was for back wages.”
“The judge did not notify me of her background with that case,” continued Ms. Pitman. “She did not declare a possible conflict of interest that I could have considered and perhaps requested a different judge.”
Judge Nadel’s notice of denial to Ms. Pitman included a note on a separate piece of paper notifying the tow company they could proceed to sell Ms. Pitman's truck.
“I gave the judge the legal background material showing them that the state Supreme Court has ruled that such minor offenses as not paying a fine are not grounds for impoundment of a vehicle. But my main complaint is they don’t have a reasonable procedure for getting your vehicle back. The vehicle code says that the vehicle has to be released to the registered owner upon proof of valid license and registration of the registered owner. There is no vehicle code anywhere that says they cannot release it to me once I show proof of valid registration and license for the registered owner — me. The case background I gave the Judge was Smith versus Santa Rosa, which went all the way to the state Supreme Court and they ruled the same thing — the car has to be returned to the registered owner. It's obviously excessive punishment for a minor offense.”
Ms. Pitman insists that the first judge she went to, visiting Judge Ritchie, confirmed her position. “That's why I wanted to have a record of that but the recording equipment in the courtroom did not work at the time.
“She (Judge Nadel) could have at least dismissed my case without prejudice so that I would have an opportunity to bring up her possible conflict of interest and any new evidence such as proof of my son's license or something. This is just another example of what they've been doing all along. She didn't even bring up during the hearing that she thought I was not complying with the claim process or that I needed to submit a writ. I would have said that I did file those claims and they were denied and that's why I was in court.”
“There is no way she would not have known about my case against the County,” added Ms. Pitman. “It was very big and the County was not happy with having to pay me that settlement. She should have recused herself from this case just on that basis alone. She didn't even tell me that she was aware of this background and she should have given me the option of continuing with her as the judge or not.
“I lost my job in the process of that settlement, so I've been screwed over multiple times now by the County and the City of Ukiah. It's ridiculous that it's come to this.”
Be First to Comment