William Dodson California Judge Racial Discrimination Pasadena CA

This William Dodson judge guy is clearly at fault, he has no brain and no shame!

The defendent took the time to document the case with crystally clear logic, which overwhelmes the judge, the brainless and shameless judge. The remarkable part of the debate is, the judge, with a 'high IQ', had a slip of tone and was found that he had a conflict of interest with the defendant! Well, I would say he is not the worse judge. The worst judges are the ones that damage the justice system and yet too shrewed to be caught. This William Dodson guy damages the justice system, for sure, with his heart put in the wrong place, for sure, but his IQ is not high enough to hide that! So he is not the worst!

I can't beileve that my tax money is used to pay a "judge" like this.  

I am curious about what the brainless and shameless judge William Dodson looks like and I found him. Looks ordinary, which might be why the ex-governor appionted him. 

Under CA Civil Procedure section 116.710, you gave up your right to an appeal on the merits when you filed your small claims court case, even if you believe the judge made an error in application of the law during your case. 

You can go after the judge because he hates you, which it sounds like you're going to do, but did that racial animus you claim affect the merits of the case?  That's the appealable issue and your biggest problem - the merits of the case are so decidedly against you that even if he had some bias against you, it would not have affected the outcome.  It's worth a shot, but it is a longshot.

Now, you can appeal to the CA Superior Court under 116.770 however all claims and counterclaims will be allowed in, just as they were in your small claims case, and you are allowed a lawyer.  Would you still lose the case?  Probably.

Had you allowed the landlord to remediate the residence, and the mold was still there, then you may have been able to claim uninhabitability and exited the lease via negotiation.  By deciding never to come back....and then finding out someone else lived there for 7 of the remaining 12 months of the lease...??  That's a huge problem....

Yes, I have appealed. Ask Judge William Dodson for detail. 

Since you are obviously an "attorney" with "decades of experience" in not only real estate law but court preceedings, perhaps you can tell us where is your appeal?

Because you lost the Countersuit you have the right to appeal that judgement, in CA you have 30 days from the date the judgement was mailed to you. Once you appeal it is sent to a new division with a different judge, where they get to hear the case again.

Dear 'judge' William Dodson, 

Are you sure you have passed the bar exam?  You just signed your name as the title of your article! 

You responded to my original post within 24 hours while this post cannot be found with a keyword search at that time. The Pasadena courthouse phone number was provided to the ripoff report website.  Whoever responded must have received the news directedly from ripoff report. That means you are someone who works for the Pasadena Court House. Furthermore, you are very familiar with the case. If you are not a lawyer involved, why would you spend your pricy time reading the files and how could you have access to the files easily? All that means you are no one other than judge William Dodson himself. 

I am dismally disappointed that tax money is spent to paid beings like you, with no heart and no brain and no shame. 

About the new lies you told:

Very few judges were investigated, that is why. bad judges like you need to be exposed.

Good news for you:

You just get yourself a bar complaint since you are smart enough to disclose that you had a private conversation before your trial in a public forum. 

I will also send the ripoff report to the newspapers and Twitter.  I am sure you will enjoy it.

Yours, well entertained, taxpayer. 

You truly are a moron.  I am neither the judge, nor a surrogate.  I am a member of the public and a lawyer in California.  You posted to a public website you idiot and if you don't like the fact that someone posted the REAL truth about your case is your problem.

I can post here as much as I wish and there is really nothing you can do about it.  That's the great thing about the First Amendment!  The reason I posted, aside from the fact you are an idiot, is that judges as a whole are investigated over and over again for any sort of bias - if you had a judge hear your case, you can be certain there was no bias before, during, and after your case.

Here is the bottom line that the public needs to take away from your situation, other than you just happen to be stupid.  You walked out on a one year lease 5 days into it.  Under the law, that is a breach of contract. 

The landlord in this situation is entitled to whatever he/she would have collected from you in rent, even though you chose not to live there.  There is a consequence associated with breaching a contract.  It's the reason why you're out $10,000...plus the fees to file in Small Claims.

I laid out the facts for anyone to read because I can tell you...no one (and I mean no one) is going to read your long-winded stupidity you first posted and then followed up with.  You obviously have a very low IQ - as exemplified by (a) bringing a lawsuit when you were the one who breached a contract, and (b) somehow thinking breaking your contract was OK.  When you breach a contract, you break your word.  It means no can trust anything you do or say in court, on this website, or anywhere else. 

People who break contracts are untrustworthy and not deserving of any consideration.  You have no credibility here.

This is a repost of the response to 'judge'  William Dodson's rebuttal. My original response had its format messed up when it was copied pasted from another editor.

Dear Surrogate of Judge William Dodson, or William Dodson himself (more likely),

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you are a racist and you are grossly negligent.

A. Response to your comment about audiotaping.

What you said applies to a ‘private conversation” ONLY. (Read, Dodson, read!) The conversation I audio tapped happened on the open street. The landlord is shrewd enough to insist on having the conversation in private, but I refused. Your knowledge is so deep, dismally deep, judge William Dodson. Read, Dodson, Read! 

B. Response to your claim about your allowing the defendant to have someone represent her at the capacity of an attorney.

You said the following is ‘WRONG”:

“a person MUST represent themselves in Small Claims”

But then you claimed that

“Small Claims does require everyone to represent him or herself, but that doesn't mean someone else can't speak for you.  Whether the individual is an attorney or not is irrelevant.”

Your articulation as a judge is not clear, to put it mildly. I assume you meant to say, “represent” is different than “speak for” and in your case, it was 'speak for', not 'represent'. 

In your case, however as I have described in my original post---the only thing the defendant said is ‘No’ when you asked her if she had anything else to add, at the end of the presentation of her brother. That was all her talking. Her brother did all the rest. Do you classify this as ‘speak for’? It is interesting that you take things lightly. If you sign up to be the human subject to help flu research but is injected AIDS, would you call that a joke?  Remember that viruses are everywhere in nature and they would not make a healthy person sick. Is it also a joke? Or a malicious lie of a racist? 

C. Response to your claim that the judge was given the power to allow a counterclaim to stand when such practice clearly contradicts what the law says.

You failed to specify the code of law to prove the judge is given such power. Also, you failed to produce a reason why “the judge believes there was something preventing the timely submission of the counterclaim” in this case. In fact, you never even asked in the trial.

This is one more indication that you had a private conversation with the defendant outside of the courtroom before the trial. By law, when you have a conflict of interests, you need to excuse yourself. Do you need a  taxpayer to tell you that? You did pass the bar exam, right? 

IMPORTANT: Have you violated the conflict of interest disclosure law yourself? If so, the consequence would be severe. 

D. Response to your claim that the rest of my complaint is irrelevant.

You failed to specify why the rest of the evidence I produced is irrelevant. Your response actually fit into a typical tactic used by beings who fail to produce any legitimate counter-arguments. In fact, your comment shows that the rest of my claim is not only relevant but true and right to the point, to the extent that you are unable to even produce any legitimate counter-argument.

E. Response to your explanation why you FAILED your job in a lawless, heartless and brainless way:

If you read the law, The house has to habitable for the contract to mean anything at all. In this case, the house is clearly unhabitable. In fact, it posed an imminent danger to human beings living in it. I have the doctor's letter to prove it. Also, if you actually spend the time and energy to read the doctor's note, you would have understood that the high density of molds evidenced a hot, humid, and dusty indoor environment , which is exactly where bacteria thrive too.  Do you think bacterias are harmless too? Read, Dodson, read.

If you read the law, when the house is uninhabitable, the landlord has already breached the contract. The following facts showed that the landlord knew it was uninhabitable before she signed the contract:

2.1 The defendant ignored my subpoena which demands her to bring all the documents of any previous inspections, including the disclosure she received when she bought the house. Shockingly, you, as the judge, allowed her.

2.2. The defendant failed to disclose the mold problem even to her current tenant after the lawsuit I filed and after I sent her the inspection report before I moved out.

2.3 The defendant ignored my subpoena which demands her to bring all the record of all the modification she did to the house since I left. Such modification might have made the house habitable 5 months after I left since she leased the house out 5 months after I left. The defendant ignored the subpoena. You as the judge allowed her.

2.4 The defendant left an important page in the disclosure she is required by law to sign. In that page, she has to check that she has no knowledge of anything that would prevent her from leasing the house legally. The defendant did not check that box. Namely, she signed an empty document. This evidence is in the document I submitted to you. Read, Dodson, read! 

F. Response to your comment about my not having the right to move out of a house once I signed a contract:

If you read the law, I do have the right to immediately move out of a house which posed an imminent danger to my family, even if I have signed a contract and not come back.

The landlord has already shown bad faith for knowingly leasing an uninhabitable house (see evidence above), and showed disregard for the safety of my family repeatedly.  If you cannot imagine what mold can do to you and your whole family, let’s assume that you have read enough to understand that gas can kill you and your whole family. As described in the document submitted to you, there were multiple gas leaks in the moldy house and we called the gas company to come to fix them. The stove could not be fixed, so the gas company turned off the gas.  The defendant sent someone without any licenses to fix the gas pipe. This person is not even licensed to work with water pipes, and the defendant sent him to fix the gas pipe, in a house with a young child, women, and elderly!

Even if you don’t read the law (The taxpayers have not paid you enough to read? ), a case is presided over by a human judge instead of a computer because common sense is needed. There are at least two vital elements in that common sense---human conscience and intellectual capacity.  You have demonstrated neither. Whatever you do can be replaced by a computer, a 285, for example. You are not suitable to be a judge.

G. Summary 

Assuming that you also have a family and love children too, or at least do not mind children, assuming that you do not want your grandchildren to live in a world where they sign up to help with flu research, but was injected with AIDS, and they cannot get out of that situation because it is too late for them to find out the one who signed the contract with them is a baby killer, if you don't want that for your grandchildren, stop turning the world into that, Dodson, resign NOW,. 

Yours, A taxpayer dismally disappointed by your dismal knowledge base and dismal conscience. 

 Dear Surrogate of Judge William Dodson, or William Dodson himself, Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you are either a liar, or grossly negligent, or both. A. Response to your comment about audiotaping. What you said applies to 'Private conversation”. (I dare to assume you passed the bar exam!)

The conversation I audio tapped happened on the open street. The landlord is smart enough to insist on having the conversation in private, but I deliberately refused. B. Response to your claim about your allowing one side to have a lawyer representing her. You said the following is 'WRONG”: "a person MUST represent themselves in Small Claims” But then you claim that "Small Claims does require everyone to represent him or herself, but that doesn't mean someone else can't speak for you.

Whether the individual is an attorney or not is irrelevant.” Apparently, "represent” is different than "speak for”. In this case, as I have described the proportion of wording the defendant did---she simply told the judge 'No’ when Judge Willam Dodson asked her if she had anything else to add, at the end. That was all her talking! Her brother did all the rest. Do you classify this as 'speak for’?

I dare to disagree. C. Response to your claim that the judge was given the power to allow a counterclaim to stand when such practice clearly contradicts what the law says. . You failed to specify the code of law from where you establish why the judge is given such power. Also, you failed to produce a reason why "the judge believes there was something preventing the timely submission of the counterclaim” in this case. In fact, Judge William Dodson never even asked.

This is one more indication that you might have a private conversation with the defendant outside of the courtroom before the trial. By law, when you have a conflict of interests, you need to excuse yourself. Have you violated the conflict of interest disclosure law yourself? D. Response to your claim that the rest of my complaint is irrelevant.

You failed to specify why the rest of the evidence I produced is irrelevant. Your response actually fit into a typical tactic used by beings who is incompetent to produce any legitimate counter-arguments. In fact, your comment showed that the rest of my claim is not only relevant but true and strong, to the extent that you are unable to even produce any legitimate counter-argument. E. Response to your explanation why Judge William Dodson ruled in a heartless and lawless way: If you read the law, The house has to habitable to start with.

In this case, it is clearly not. On the contrary, it posed an imminent danger to human beings living in it. If you read the law, when the house is uninhabitable, the landlord has already breached the contract. The following facts showed that the landlord knew it was uninhabitable before she signed the contract: 2.1 The defendant ignored my subpoena which demands her to bring all the documents of any previous inspections, including the disclosure she received when she bought the house.

Shockingly, Judge Dodson allowed her to do so. 2.2. The defendant failed to disclose the mold problem even to her current tenant after the lawsuit I filed and after I sent her the inspection report long long ago. 2.3 The defendant ignored my subpoena which demands her to bring all the record of all the modification she did to the house since I left. Such modification might have made the house habitable 5 months after I left since she leased the house out 5 months after I left.

The defendant ignored the subpoena. Judge William Dodson allowed her. 2.4 The defendant left important page in the disclosure she is required by law to sign. In that page, she has to check that she has no knowledge of anything that would prevent her from leasing the house legally. The defendant did not check that box. Namely, she signed an empty document. F. Response to your comment about my not having the right to move out of a house once I signed a contract: If you read the law, I do have the right to immediately move out of a house which posed an imminent danger to my family, even if I have signed a contract and not come back.

The landlord has already shown bad faith for knowingly leasing to me an uninhabitable house (see evidence above), and showed disregard for the safety of my family. If you cannot imagine what mold can do to your health because they are too small, let’s assume that you have sufficient reading to understand that gas can kill you and your whole family. In the moldy house, there were multiple gas leaks and we called the gas company to come to fix them.

The stove could be fixed, so the gas company turned off the gas. The defendant sent someone without any licenses to fix the gas pipe. This person is not even licensed to work with water pipes, and the defendant sent him to fix the gas pipe, in a house with a young child, women, and elderly! Even if you don’t read the law (dyslexia?), a case is presided over by a human judge instead of a computer because common sense is needed.

There are at least two vital elements of that common sense---human conscience and intellectual capacity. You seem to have neither. Whatever you do can be replaced by a computer, a cheap one. Assuming that you have a family and you cherish children, for the sake of future generations, please, Dodson, stop making this world a worse place, resign NOW. Yours, A taxpayer dismally disappointed by your dismal knowledge base

Let's start with your recordings because that's an obvious one.  None of your recordings would constitute evidence because CA is a two-party state and you would have to have obtained the other party's permission before recording.  Based on what you wrote, you could not have asked for permission, therefore you have no recordings.

Then let's get to the idea that a person MUST represent themselves in Small Claims.  WRONG!  You can have another person represent you if you wish, even if the person you happen to be suing is an attorney.  Small Claims does require everyone to represent him or herself, but that doesn't mean someone else can't speak for you.  Whether the individual is an attorney or not is irrelevant.

A judge will allow a counterclaim filed after the due date if the judge believes there was something preventing the timely submission of the counterclaim.  Allowing the information in, or not, does not constitute racial bias either.

I'm ignoring the rest of your narrative because it's very irrelevant.  I will explain why you lost.

You signed a one-year lease based on the narrative.  You left 5 days into a one year lease and never came back.  By doing so, you are liable for breach of your lease contract.  The landlord (the defendant) has the right and opportunity to cure the mold situation if the mold makes the residence uninhabitable.  If you ended up paying for the mold remediation, then you could have legally deducted the mold remediation cost from the rent with permission from the landlord. 

You do NOT have the right under the law to move out 5 days after you moved in, and not come back, no matter the circumstance when you have a signed lease.  Under CA law, you owe the defendant for any lost rent, usually the deposit, plus any additional costs (I suspect a few hundred dollars) associated with getting a new tenant into the unit.

The reason the judge didn't allow you to interrupt the defendant and didn't really allow you to speak much is two-fold:

1.  The case is clear-cut from the very beginning - the only thing needing to be determined is how much you actually owe the defendant.  The defendant was probably itemizing for the judge just exactly how much you owe - so interrupting the defendant would have been a bad move on your part.

2.  There is literally nothing you could have said to the judge - you were that much in the wrong.  In fact, there was really nothing for you to say except how much do I owe the defendant?  On top of it, the fact you were the plaintiff and not the defendant is really unbelievable.  You just invited trouble into your life.

I didn't listen to all that racial stupidity because there was nothing racist about your situation.  This was an open and shut contracts case.  I suppose you were fortunate someone else moved into the space; had the space been vacant for the entire year, then you would have owed for all of the lost rent for the entire term of the lease.

 There's much more to this! With any used car purchase, you are also hit with about $1300 in BOGUS, ADD-ON, PHONY FEES! Did you see THAT??? You show a lack of knowledge of what goes on in Sleazy American Car Business. They are NOT going to reach into their pocket and out of the goodness of their hearts, pay off your current loan.

That amount will be rolled over into the next loan and you will end up paying for two cars but driving one. There is ALWAYS going to be a credit check! They LIED to you! Isn't THAT a surprise! The no down payment is not a gift either. It will contribute to you immediately being upside down in the deal. Do your research ahead of time and avoid any of the slimeballs playing the BOGUS FEE con game!

They way that DECEPTION works is they list the car at a FAKE price and then make up the difference with their BOGUS FEES. By doing this, they tell you in advance they have ZERO INTEGRITY and ZERO HONESTY and that's a FACT!