December 21, 1999

By Jason W. Armstrong
Copyright la daily journal.com

A Huntington Beach attorney filed a federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit Monday against nine Orange County Superior Court judges and one Riverside County Superior Court judge, charging the jurists are destroying his cases in a conspiracy to drive him out of practice.

Huntington Beach sole practitioner Philip A. Putman filed the action against Orange County Superior Court judges Ronald Bauer, Randell Wilkinson, Ronald Kline, Francisco Firmat, David Chaffee, John Watson, Robert Monarch, Thomas Thrasher, Frederick Horn; and Riverside County Superior Court Judge Gary Tranbarger.

Each judge is charged with one count of violating RICO and one count of violating Putman's civil rights.

According to the complaint, the jurists acted as an "enterprise" against Putman within the meaning of RICO -- defined as "activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce by virtue of the positions held whereby decisions made provide a benefit, revenue or income to parties involved in litigation appearing before them," the suit says.

Putman, who specializes in suing lawyers for malpractice, contends that each judge named in the complaint has used his position as "an offensive weapon to vindicate personal objectives..." Putman v. Monarch, SACV99-1564AHS. Putman is representing himself in the suit. He is asking $35 million in actual damages in addition to treble damages against each defendant.

Putman said Monday he suspects that his involvement as a proponent of the state Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) is a major reason for the judges' conspiracy against him. The initiative, which Putman is trying to get placed on next year's ballot, would eliminate immunity from civil liability of state judges, magistrates, commissioners, arbitrators and judicial mediators in deliberate violations of the law. It would establish three 25-member special grand juries with the power to indict, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct, according to a draft of the initiative.

"The acts of [the judges]...constitute repeated and continuing conduct that was neither isolated nor sporadic, but that involved a callous disregard for the law that has evolved gradually over the years," Putman says in his complaint.

Putman contends the judges have "maliciously" reduced awards of damages in his cases; retaliated against him by dismissing his cases; and "attempted extortion" against him after communicating with his clients ex parte. He alleges that one judge said during a hearing in which Putman was being sued for malpractice that it "would have been malpractice for [the plaintiffs] not to sue Putman for malpractice."

In his suit, Putman says the alleged conspiracy against him began in 1992 before Bauer in the case of Putman v. Warmack, 69935. In that case, Bauer allegedly read Putman's attorney the "riot act" and dismissed the case. "[Bauer] said he was just going to dismiss the case rather than reset it for trial," Putman said. "He didn't want my case to go to trial."

"The conduct of [Bauer] was done with malice and spite..." the lawsuit says. Bauer could not be reached for comment.

In the case of Putman v. Nunes, 763947, in which Putman sued Irvine attorney Frank C. Nunes for "incompetent legal representation," Putman contends Wilkinson "maliciously" reduced the damage award in Putman's case to $30,000 from $300,000. Wilkinson declined to comment.

In his charge against Tranbarger, Putman alleges that Tranbarger overruled all of Putman's motions in a 1994 Riverside County case, and refused to allow Putman to withdraw as an attorney in the case. In that case, Tranbarger is alleged to have "set up the case for summary judgment for the defendant...which was granted despite [Putman's] well-documented opposition establishing extensive issues of fact for the jury, and finally held that [Putman] had 'abandoned his client,'" the lawsuit says.

"The unlawful malicious and oppressive conduct of [Tranbarger] resulted in...losses to [Putman] of $33 million," the complaint continues. Tranbarger could not be reached for comment.

Putman contends that Kline "demonstrated his ignorance of law and his maliciousness" in the case of Putman v. Lin, 758272. In that case, Putman sued his landlord, charging the landlord allowed Putman's former law partners to break into Putman's office and try to steal his law practice. Putman says Kline placed a stay on his case over the objection of Putman's counsel in the case, Orange sole practitioner Suanne Honey. Honey could not be reached for comment.

"On the trial date despite [Kline's] own stay, [Kline] maliciously dismissed [Putman's] case," the lawsuit says. Kline could not be reached for comment.

In the case of Putman v. Richard Lenard, 793653, which Firmat heard, Putman represented a man in a tort action stemming from an auto accident. According to Putman, the case was settled for $12,500, of which Putman's client would receive $5,000 contingent upon reduction of his client's medical bills. Putman says he was only able to reduce the medical bills by $1,000, and his client ended up with about $3,000.

Putman alleges that his Firmat communicated ex parte with Putman's client, after which Firmat called Putman and "attempted extortion" by threatening to report Putman to the State Bar if Putman didn't pay his client more money. Firmat could not be reached for comment.

In allegations against Chaffee, Putman contends an attorney in one of his cases was overheard saying, "As long as Putman is in this case we can't lose with Chaffee. He hates Putman." Chaffee could not be reached for comment.

In one case, in which Putman sued an attorney on a "written agreement for binding Christian arbitration," Putman's complaint says that Watson commented, "'I hope they hold this arbitration in a coliseum,' meaning the Roman coliseum where Christians were fed to the lions," the complaint says, "thus demonstrating a religious discrimination and prejudice against [Putman] and all other Christians." Watson said ethics prohibit him from commenting on the suit.

In the case Pacific Family Entertainment Co. v. Putman, 787755, Putman was sued by the Fountain Valley company for non-payment of a debt. Putman contended the firm's owners fabricated Putman's signature on a promissory note. Monarch, who heard the case, would not refer the matter to the district attorney's office, and "thus became an accessory to the fact...in furtherance of the racketeering conspiracy," Putman's complaint says. Putman said he began observing an unrelated case in Monarch's courtroom last week but the marshal told Putman to leave, allegedly saying, "the judge doesn't like you staring at him." Monarch declined to comment.

In a case before Thrasher, Putman contends Thrasher "took up the cudgel" against Putman in a case in which Putman was sued for malpractice. Referring to the plaintiffs in the case, Thrasher allegedly said, "It would have been malpractice for them not to sue Putman for malpractice," Putman says in his suit. Thrasher said he could not comment because he had not seen the complaint.

In allegations against Horn, Putman says Horn "demonstrated a clear-cut animosity" toward Putman "in furtherance of the conspiracy to drive [Putman] from the practice of law." Horn could not be reached for comment.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler.