Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, May 2, 1980
Page 5
judges on a statewide basis to assist the voting citizenry in reelecting
the kind of judges which best serve society. This Sacramento-based organ
ization (not a state commission) just recently completed its evaluations
which were begun last summer. Tough judges were generally applauded and
judges who made looser, or more lenient interpretations of the law were
given poorer ratings. Fifty-four of the 67 judges up for election in Los
Angeles County received ratings of satisfactory to excellent, while nine
others were listed as weak or poor.
Judge Jerry Pacht, infamous in Church circles for his action in the World
wide Church of God case, was one of just three who received poor ratings.
With permission from the Star-News to reproduce his comments�re now
are Mr. Hunsberger's observations.
r
Your opinion forum
A-6
STAR-NEWS
SATURDAY, APRIL 26, 1980
Judge Pacht's rating is not sur p rising
I was interested to read in the
Apri\ 9 St ar-News about Sen.
R i c h a r d so n's Law and Or d e r
Campaign Committee issuing report
cards on Los Angeles judges.
Judge Jerry Pacht was one of the
judges rated "poor" with the
comment that he "manufactures law
to fill political needs."
Judge Pacht is the one who issued
the receivership order against the
Worldwide Church of God Jan. 2.
1979, under rather peculiar and
questionable c1rcumstances.
The judge granted attorney Hillel
Chodos (a fellow member of the
Judicial Performance Commission) a
hearing on his receivership request
before ChQdos even filed his case.
The official transcript quotes Chodos
telling Judge Pacht that the case "has
not yet been filed, but we are
prepared to me it and pay the
necessary fee at any moment. It is
just that we did not want a public
filing before coming to see you."
It is contrary to rules of the court
to hear. and rule on ·a case before it is
filed. To maintain integrity and
impartiality, a case is to be filed, then
assigned to a judge by draw for a
hearing. An attorney is not supposed
to be able to pick a certain judge he
believes will be more sympathetic,
get his case heard and decided, then
file it. That tips the scales of justice
rather heavily to one side!
Court rules also require
,1
minimum four hours notice to the
other party when an ex parte hearing
is requested. Yet, no notice at all was
given to the church. The record does
not indicate that Judge Pacht even
inquired as to whether such notice
had been given.
The thwry of justice is that both
parties present their arguments and
the judge is supposed to be neutral
and see that each party has a fair
opportunity to be heard. When the
facts are established an equitable
decision can be rendered.
In this case Judge Pacht heard only
one side and yet rendered one of the
most sweeping orders in judicial
history. Judge Pacht remarked on the
record, "I am concerned about the ex
parte nature of the proceedings, and
the rather majestic order which
would flow from these proceedings
without a hearing."
Yet. he went ahead and heard the
one side of the case anyway, made
his majestic order. and it has cost the
church an immense sum to defend
itself.
I should be pointed out that also
present was a former judge. Mr.
Weisman, who was to be appointed
receiver. Subsequently Weisman ran
up charges including his personal
salary against the church amounting
to a quarter of a million dollars.
Chodos also argued at a subsequent
court proceeding that the church
should pay him about $100,000 and
dropped out of the case wnen that
was denied. Thus the one side
represented at that strange hearing
Jan. 2, 1979 stood to collect huge
financial rewards from the side that
was not given any notice, nor any
opportunity to object, and was not
represented.
That does not strike me as a fair
way to run a courtroom, nor to
maintain the integrity of justice.
Since elections are coming up, it
would be good if the citizens of this
county were informed how often
particular judges make decisions by
hearing only one side of a case, to
whom such unusual hearings are
granted, which judges conduct
themselves in this manner.
It is encouraging to learn of Sen.
Richardson's committee beginning
work on a project of rating the
performance of judges. I hope they
are thorough in their reporting.
DAVID HUNSBERGER
Pasadena