presents
Voter’s Edge California
Conozca la información antes de votar.
Presentado por
MapLight
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
KPBS Voters Guide@KPBSNews
June 5, 2018 — Elecciones Primarias de California
Judicial

Tribunal Superior de California, Condado de Los AngelesCandidato para Juez, Cargo 126

Photo de Shlomo Frieman

Shlomo Frieman

Attorney/Volunteer Adjudicator
103,516 votos (9.46%)
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
Para obtener más información a fondo sobre este candidato, siga los enlaces de cada pestaña en esta sección. En la mayoría de los lectores de pantalla, puede presionar Regresar o Ingresar para entrar a una pestaña y leer el contenido.
El candidato(a) proporcionó información.
Agradezca al candidato por compartir su información en Voter’s Edge.

Mis 3 prioridades principales

  • Execute judicial duties competently and fairly in a respectful and courteous manner.
  • Provide fair justice for all.
  • Make suggestions for improving legal system whenever appropriate.

Experiencia

Experiencia

Profesión:LA County Superior Court Volunteer Temporary Judge
Senior Associate Patent Counsel, Unocal (1988–1999)
Associate, Sheldon & Mak (1986–1988)
Senior Attorney and Special Counsel, Beckman Instruments, Inc. (1976–1986)

Educación

The American College Charter Life Underwriter (CLU), Financial Planning/Taxation/Insurance (2016)
New York Law School Juris Doctor (J.D.), Law (1974)
Rutgers University Bachelor of Science (B.S.)/Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Chemical Engineering/Liberal Arts (1970)

Actividades comunitarias

Temporary Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court Temporary Judge Program (2017–current)
Mediator, LA County, Department of Consumer and Business Affairs, Court-Connected Mediation Program (2017–2017)
Volunteer Mediator, Office of Los Angeles City Attorney, Dispute Resolution Program (2016–2017)
Volunteer Mediator, Asian Pacific American Dispute Resolution Center (2015–2016)

Biografía

·  J.D.  New York Law School

·  B.S. Chemical Engineering/B.A. Liberal Arts Rutgers University

·  Temporary Judge - Los Angeles County Superior Court

·  Volunteer Mediator - LA County, Department of Consumer and Business Affairs, Court-Connected Mediation Program

·  Volunteer Mediator - Office of Los Angeles City Attorney, Dispute Resolution Program

·  Volunteer Mediator - Asian Pacific American Dispute Resolution Center

Preguntas y Respuestas

Preguntas de League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County (3)

What criteria are most important for voters to use in evaluating judicial candidates?
Respuesta de Shlomo Frieman:

The criteria most important for voters to use in evaluating judicial candidates are the judicial candidate's:

·  competency

·  fairness

·  ability to keep his or her mind open and listen to and understand each party's perspective

·  desire and ability to learn

·  awareness of his or her biases

·  willingness and effort to leave his or her biases outside the courthouse

·  experience

·  education

·  willingness to speak up when there may be room for improving the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice

How can courts and judges better assure that all people have adequate access to legal help and the legal system?
Respuesta de Shlomo Frieman:

By following the following guidelines stated in the Advisory Committee Commentary to Canon 4B of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, judges can help to better assure that all people have adequate access to legal help and the legal system:

"[A] judge is in a unique position to contribute to the improvement in the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including revision of substantive and procedural law and improvement of criminal and juvenile justice.  To the extent that time permits, a judge may do so, either independently or through a bar or judicial association or other group dedicated to the improvement of the law."

Accordingly, when a judge becomes aware of an area of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice where there may be room for improvement, a judge can work, either independently or through a bar or judicial association or other group dedicated to improving the law, towards achieving that improvement.  In fact, as a Los Angeles County Superior Court  temporary judge, I have followed these guidelines in publishing an article about possible improvements for traffic court which can be found at www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=206636220110329&id=153702252070393.

Most defendants are held in County jail before trial because they are not able, due to low income or homelessness, to secure bail imposed by the Court at their arraignment.  Does California’s system of imposing bail on defendants need reform?  If so, what would you recommend?
Respuesta de Shlomo Frieman:

There appears to be a general sentiment that California’s system of imposing bail on defendants needs reform. 

My recommendation would be to first do a thorough study of defendant release systems in other states and foreign countries to determine which systems have achieved the best results for all parties involved, including the general public as well as the victims and defendants.  For those systems that appear to have achieved the best results, I would then determine whether those systems would be able to achieve similar results in California.  For the best systems that appear to be workable in California, the appropriate authorities should then decide whether to implement one of them throughout California or implement a number of them in a few different counties to determine which ones actually work best in California.

Creencias poliza

Filosofía política

A Fairer, More Effective Traffic Court Alternative

by

Shlomo Frieman

Candidate for Judge of the Superior Court - Office 126

Primary Election:  Tuesday, June 5, 2018

General Election:  Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Traffic court is substantially the same as in 2015 when Governor Brown described it as a "hellhole of desperation" for the poor.  Was it always this way?  What are the alternatives? 

Under the traffic court system, each infraction incurs a base fine, a penalty assessment, and other fees.  In 1953 the first penalty assessment was $1 per $20 of base fine or $5 for a $100 base fine.  Today, the penalty assessment and fees for the same $100 base fine are $390 - a 7,700% increase! 

Due to the numerous unpaid tickets and suspended driver licenses spawned by traffic court fines, to date, there have been two traffic amnesty programs.  Future ones are inevitable because these programs do not address the underlying cause for the unpaid tickets or suspended licenses. 

While the theoretical purpose for penalty assessments is to have those who violate laws help finance programs related to decreasing those violations, that is not their purpose today.  For example, the State Penalty Fund receives the largest portion of penalty assessment revenues, with the rest going to various funds including a State DNA Identification Fund and a County Emergency Medical Services Fund.  What do the latter two funds have to do with decreasing infraction violations?  The answer is simple:  NOTHING.  Furthermore, most of the programs receiving State Penalty Fund revenues also have nothing to do with decreasing traffic violations.  Thus, the major purpose for penalty assessment and other fees is the need to fund programs unrelated to decreasing traffic violations.

There are fairer and more effective alternatives.  For instance, a traffic court system that issues one or more points instead of fines for moving violations should be more equitable because points have a more even effect across the socio-economic spectrum.  In particular, since people differ economically, a specific fine can be insignificant for the rich, but a hardship for the poor.  However, a point brings every driver, rich or poor, equally closer to having a suspended license. 

In addition to the current practice of removing points from drivers' record after three years, drivers can be rewarded by removing one point from their record after each shorter, continuous period of time they do not incur a new point.

Also, court resources could be better allocated by charging drivers for only the services they use.  This approach will result in fewer drivers utilizing traffic arraignment courts because what a driver can accomplish at a court arraignment can generally be accomplished quicker and cheaper online or at a courthouse cashier window.  Likewise, fewer drivers will go to trial because of the additional cost if found guilty.  The resulting freed up traffic courtrooms and personnel could be used to handle heavily backlogged matters, e.g., small claims cases.

Besides the current traffic school option, approaches aimed at changing a driver's mindset, e.g., motivational interviewing, should be offered.  In motivational interviewing, an interviewer helps a driver identify the reasons for the driver's behavior and works with the driver to identify better ways of handling similar situations in the future.

To help build goodwill between the police and community, if a car has a defect unknown to the driver (e.g., a non-working taillight), the driver could be issued a courtesy notice instead of a fix-it ticket, given a reasonable time period to fix the violation, and, after providing proof of correction, the case would be closed without any fine or court appearance.

When a court is not the best agency for handling a matter before it, e.g., a mentally disabled defendant charged with blocking a sidewalk, justice would be better served and the underlying problem addressed if a judge, prior to rendering a decision, could refer the defendant to an appropriate social services agency to be linked to services the defendant needs to address the underlying reason for the infraction.

In "Barking to the Choir", Father Gregory Boyle quotes a Chinese proverb, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name".  To fix the traffic court system, we have to recognize it for what it is: misfocused, inequitable, and a "hellhole of desperation" for the poor.

There are better alternatives including those discussed above.  No doubt there are others.  The important thing for us is to start a dialogue, come to a consensus as to better alternatives, and make the necessary changes.  Only when a more equitable, traffic safety focused system is in place will we achieve safer roads and, at least in traffic court, fair justice for all.

Documentos sobre determinadas posturas

A FAIRER, MORE EFFECTIVE TRAFFIC COURT ALTERNATIVE

Summary

Position paper describes the present state of traffic court and suggests some possible alternatives. 

 

Traffic court is substantially the same as in 2015 when Governor Brown described it as a "hellhole of desperation" for the poor.  Was it always this way?  What are the alternatives? 

Under the traffic court system, each infraction incurs a base fine, a penalty assessment, and other fees.  In 1953 the first penalty assessment was $1 per $20 of base fine or $5 for a $100 base fine.  Today, the penalty assessment and fees for the same $100 base fine are $390 - a 7,700% increase! 

Due to the numerous unpaid tickets and suspended driver licenses spawned by traffic court fines, to date, there have been two traffic amnesty programs.  Future ones are inevitable because these programs do not address the underlying cause for the unpaid tickets or suspended licenses. 

While the theoretical purpose for penalty assessments is to have those who violate laws help finance programs related to decreasing those violations, that is not their purpose today.  For example, the State Penalty Fund receives the largest portion of penalty assessment revenues, with the rest going to various funds including a State DNA Identification Fund and a County Emergency Medical Services Fund.  What do the latter two funds have to do with decreasing infraction violations?  The answer is simple:  NOTHING.  Furthermore, most of the programs receiving State Penalty Fund revenues also have nothing to do with decreasing traffic violations.  Thus, the major purpose for penalty assessment and other fees is the need to fund programs unrelated to decreasing traffic violations.

There are fairer and more effective alternatives.  For instance, a traffic court system that issues one or more points instead of fines for moving violations should be more equitable because points have a more even effect across the socio-economic spectrum.  In particular, since people differ economically, a specific fine can be insignificant for the rich, but a hardship for the poor.  However, a point brings every driver, rich or poor, equally closer to having a suspended license. 

In addition to the current practice of removing points from drivers' record after three years, drivers can be rewarded by removing one point from their record after each shorter, continuous period of time they do not incur a new point.

Also, court resources could be better allocated by charging drivers for only the services they use.  This approach will result in fewer drivers utilizing traffic arraignment courts because what a driver can accomplish at a court arraignment can generally be accomplished quicker and cheaper online or at a courthouse cashier window.  Likewise, fewer drivers will go to trial because of the additional cost if found guilty.  The resulting freed up traffic courtrooms and personnel could be used to handle heavily backlogged matters, e.g., small claims cases.

 

Besides the current traffic school option, approaches aimed at changing a driver's mindset, e.g., motivational interviewing, should be offered.  In motivational interviewing, an interviewer helps a driver identify the reasons for the driver's behavior and works with the driver to identify better ways of handling similar situations in the future.

 

To help build goodwill between the police and community, if a car has a defect unknown to the driver (e.g., a non-working taillight), the driver could be issued a courtesy notice instead of a fix-it ticket, given a reasonable time period to fix the violation, and, after providing proof of correction, the case would be closed without any fine or court appearance.

 

When a court is not the best agency for handling a matter before it, e.g., a mentally disabled defendant charged with blocking a sidewalk, justice would be better served and the underlying problem addressed if a judge, prior to rendering a decision, could refer the defendant to an appropriate social services agency to be linked to services the defendant needs to address the underlying reason for the infraction.

 

In "Barking to the Choir", Father Gregory Boyle quotes a Chinese proverb, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name".  To fix the traffic court system, we have to recognize it for what it is: misfocused, inequitable, and a "hellhole of desperation" for the poor.

There are better alternatives including those discussed above.  No doubt there are others.  The important thing for us is to start a dialogue, come to a consensus as to better alternatives, and make the necessary changes.  Only when a more equitable, traffic safety focused system is in place will we achieve safer roads and, at least in traffic court, fair justice for all.

TO MISLEAD, OR NOT TO MISLEAD, THAT IS THE QUESTION

Summary

Positiopn paper discusses slate mailers.

They're legal, but usually misleading.  You probably already received at least one.  They're slate mailers.  You can recognize them by an asterisk ("*") adjacent some of the candidates and ballot measures.

 

Many slate mailers are misleading in a number of ways.  For example, they generally have authoritative sounding names - so and so Voter Guide, your benevolent Committee, we protect your interest Newsletter, and on and on - implying knowledgeable, reputable organizations.  In reality, they're typically creations of individuals - the Wizards of Oz of elections.  In fact, some Wizards create multiple slate mailers, each targeting specific voters: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, women, seniors, ethnic groups, etc.

 

Some slate mailers also mislead by stating they selected their listed candidates and ballot measures.  While possibly true for candidates and ballot measures not asterisked, that statement is rarely, if ever, true for asterisked ones because these are typically on slate mailers solely because they paid the Wizards to be there.  As indicated by the last sentence in a printed box on each slate mailer "Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure which is designated by an *."  (Emphasis added.)

 

The legislature has attempted to deal with misleading slate mailers.  They enacted legislation requiring slate mailers to also state in the printed box "NOTICE TO VOTERS:  THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY (SO AND SO SLATE MAILER ORGANIZATION), NOT AN OFFICIAL POLITICAL PARTY ORGANIZATION."  (Emphasis added.)  In addition, slate mailers appearing to come from a nongovernmental organization composed of, representing, or affiliated with public safety personnel (e.g., police, fire fighters, paramedics, etc.) are, as of this year, required to state either "This organization represents __ public safety personnel" or "This organization does not represent any public safety personnel".

 

Candidates and ballot measures should not mislead us.  But by paying to be on misleading slate mailers, asterisked candidates and ballot measures have, intentionally or unintentionally, so chosen.  Because I refuse to mislead voters, my name will never be asterisked on any slate mailers.

 

Información de contacto del candidato

¿Quién más se está postulando?

Comparta este sitio para ayudar a otras personas a investigar sus opciones para las votaciones.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION