Two men accused of filing false claims against a Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge were back in court on Aug. 4 in Santa Barbara for their arraignment on felony charges in the matter.
San Luis Obispo marketing executive Jeff Lind and co-defendant Tom Murphy of Los Osos sat before Judge Jean Dandona to respond to charges of attempting to procure a false instrument for record, conspiracy to commit a crime, and attempted filing of a false document related to a single-family residence.
The charges stem from the filing by Lind and Murphy of a “National Standards Damage Claim Packet” alleging more than $77 million in damages against Judge Kay Kuns, the original presiding judge in Lind’s misdemeanor case. In that case, Lind stands accused of threatening a witness, a result of a December run-in with Guadalupe police officer Robert Ortega at Superior Court in Santa Maria. Ortega was the arresting officer in the DUI arrest of one of Lind’s relatives.
Both Lind and Murphy contend the county must answer to their countersuit and prove it has the jurisdiction to try their cases, as they claim there are no injured parties or damaged property. The court system doesn’t see the claims as legitimate.
During the most recent hearing, Lind and Murphy repeatedly brought up the counterclaim and asked to file a 45-day continuance with the court to give the court time to answer the question of jurisdiction raised in the document.
Judge Dandona overruled the objection, and becoming visibly frustrated, implored Lind and Murphy to obtain attorneys to file the motion on their behalf.
“The court has jurisdiction, and the court is proceeding,” Dandona said. “I don’t believe there’s been a filing of a counterclaim. There are certain procedures that we follow and if it’s a civil matter, you need to file it across the street in the civil division. If there’s any validity to it, that will be determined by a different court.”
Both men answered they would reserve their rights to obtain counsel but also did not commit to hiring an attorney.
“After multiple demands to show cause, they have not shown cause,” Lind said following the hearing. “Once again all they know is procedure, and they’re proceeding. …They’re not recognizing the law, and as a result, they’re violating our due process.”
After their motion was denied, Murphy and Lind requested a continuance to obtain counsel and Dandona agreed to continue arraignment on the felony charges to Aug. 25. Up to this point, Lind and Murphy have refused to be represented by counsel, claiming bar attorneys are part of a judicial extortion scheme.
“When you sign that attorney’s agreement, you automatically fall to the bottom,” Murphy said. “As soon as you hire an attorney, you surrender all your rights as one of the people.”
After Murphy was sent back to the gallery, Dandona called Lind on his misdemeanor charge and ordered him to apply for a public defender, which he did, but it was determined he didn’t fall into the financial parameters to qualify. Lind was ordered to either represent himself or secure legal representation by his next court date—a settlement conference on Aug. 11.
Because of the nature of the misdemeanor charge, Lind doesn’t have to be present at the hearing. Lind said he would “consider” being represented by an attorney by that date.
Immediately following the hearing, Lind and Murphy filed the motion for continuance, an order to discharge and a second notice of unlawful proceeding with the court, accusing Judge Dandona of treason.
“They’re refusing to recognize law and our paperwork and they’re just moving forward,” Murphy said. “That’s a violation of our due process rights.
“What we have exposed in these cases undermines their whole process as treason,” he continued. “It makes them liable for damages and they don’t want to acknowledge it.”
This article appears in Aug 11-18, 2011.