Judge, Seat 126 — Los Angeles County Superior Court

• Handles child abuse cases in Los Angeles Juvenile Court
• Served as Legal Advisor for the County Sheriff's Department
• Represented indigent children and youth in the foster care system
• Dedicated 24 years to protecting the children of Los Angeles County

 

• For the past 24 years, Ms. Gilbertson has worked primarily in the area of juvenile law, to prevent child abuse and neglect and to ensure that necessary services are provided to children and families.  She began her legal career as a Staff Attorney at The Alliance for Children’s Rights and, by 1995, became the Interim Executive Director. In 1996, Ms. Gilbertson began representing children in the juvenile dependency arena at Children’s Law Center Los Angeles (formerly Dependency Court Legal Services). 
• Since 1999, Ms. Gilbertson has worked in the Office of the County Counsel where she litigates child abuse and neglect cases on behalf of the County.  Over the years, she has also served as Legal Advisor to the Sheriff’s Department and as advisor to the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors.
• In her private life, Ms. Gilbertson has been married for 25 years to Jack Gilbertson, and they have 4 children, Taylor, Stanton, Robert and Devin.  A former cancer survivor, she is currently on the Board of Directors of the Cancer Support Community of Redondo Beach and is a member of the Palos Verdes Chapter of the National Charities League, a service organization for mothers and daughters.  She formerly served as Parent Advisor for her son’s Los Hermanos public service club and was a Cub Scout Leader for Saint John Fisher Parish Troop 191 for 5 years.

• • Criminal prosecutor of Gang Murder, Environmental Crimes, Child Molestation, and Domestic/Elder Abuse
  • J.A.G. Military in-house counsel/officer with criminal and civil experience
  • Tried 75 Jury Trials and 150 Court Trials
  • Endorsed by elected officials, judges, prosecutors, and unions.
  • Awarded U.S. Air Force Excellence in Advocacy Award

As a seasoned prosecutor, Ken Fuller has protected the community by holding accountable environmental polluters/ corrupt corporations, hardcore gang murderers, and child molesters.

In addition to his full time career as a Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles County, Ken has demonstrated an even greater purpose and deep love for our country through his choice to serve as a Captain in the United States Air Force JAG Corp.

Ken has been in various specialized units of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, including the:
Hardcore Gang Division;
Environmental Crimes Division; and
Victim Impact Program (VIP) which specializes in the prosecution of sex crimes, domestic violence, elder abuse, and child abuse.

Ken has impressively handled thousands of criminal cases and has tried more than a hundred cases to verdict over a legal career that spans thirteen years in adult, juvenile and military courts and has a favorable jury trial verdict of over 90%. He was awarded the coveted American Trial Lawyers Association Award for Excellence in Trial Advocacy from the United States Air Force JAG Corp in 2013.

COMMUNITY:
Ken’s service to the community doesn’t end there. Ken has proudly taught at risk fifth grade students every week for the last seven years in the LADA Project LEAD program. He teaches his students about gang intervention, bullying, tolerance and criminal justice. He holds this program near to his heart.

Ken has also participated twice in the federally funded Community Law Enforcement and Recovery Program (CLEAR), meeting regularly with police, probation officers, and the citizens of Watts and Baldwin Village to better the community.

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT:
Having graduated from the highly selective USC Gould School of Law, Ken has a solid academic foundation. He received numerous honors as well as being selected as a staff writer for the USC Interdisciplinary Law Journal. Ken graduated in the top 20 percent of his class in legal writing and research courses. He also graduated from USC as an undergraduate, earning two bachelor’s degrees, magna cum laude, one in Cinema-Television Production from the top ranked USC School of Cinematic Arts and the other in Political Science. Ken earned the honor of being designated a USC Renaissance Scholar for excelling in two divergent fields of study at the same time.

FAMILY LIFE:
Ken is a lifelong resident of Southern California and a seventh generation Californian. He is above all a loving husband and proud father of an 11 year old son, 9 year old daughter, and 18 month old son. Ken’s children would argue his best talents are playing the “tickle monster” and his reigning title in the Disney Princess game. His best friend and wife, Roshni Gandhi Fuller, is a former prosecutor herself, and currently practices as a special education attorney.

In his spare time, Ken enjoys traveling with his family, singing, playing guitar, improv comedy, and running marathons.

Ken humbly seeks your support in his effort to achieve a life long dream. Ken believes strongly in a fair judicial process and would work long and hard each day if afforded this opportunity. Please remember to vote for Ken Fuller on June 5, 2018.

Character

One key aspect of Ken’s character that makes him especially well-suited to be a judge is his even-tempered nature and ability to remain calm even in tense situations. This stems not only from his military and courtroom training but also from his exposure to a variety of life experiences that have allowed him to push beyond his normal comfort zone.

Being multifaceted not only seems to come naturally to him but, with added discipline, has become essential to his philosophy and approach to life. He constantly challenges himself.  To this end, for example, he has run marathons in his 30s. He draws, sings, edits films, performs improvisational comedy, and plays guitar.

DA’s Office Career:

Up until now being a Deputy District Attorney has been one of Ken’s life’s greatest gifts. It has not been just a job but a calling, charging him with the responsibility of delivering justice in a fair and dignified manner. Now more than ever, Ken believes he is ready and qualified to take the next step in his life and career by becoming a judge.

Ken has been with of the District Attorney’s office since 2004, starting as a law clerk and moving up the ranks.   

Environmental Crimes Division:

Ken is a member of the Environmental Crimes Division, holding accountable corporations and individuals that pollute our environment, illegally poach wildlife, and produce unsafe work conditions causing death.  Ken has worked on cases involving the systematic spilling of toxic waste into our waters, the illegal depositing of contaminants on property where school children play, and the leaking of harmful gases into the air.  The Environmental Crimes Division is also one of the few divisions in the DA’s office that files both criminal and civil cases.  The unit files statewide civil cases against large corporations polluting the environment and engaging in unfair competition.

Hardcore Gang Division:

Immediately preceding this assignment, Ken was part of the elite Hardcore Gang Division. During that time, Ken prosecuted homicide cases. While in the Hardcore Gang Division, Ken was twice assigned to a federally funded program called Community Law Enforcement and Recovery program (CLEAR) meant to foster community policing and cooperation with the public in the neighborhoods served.  Ken was assigned to LAPD Southwest while working in downtown Los Angeles and, LAPD Southeast CLEAR while working in Compton and Watts.

Central Bureau:

Before the Hardcore Gang Division Ken was assigned to the central bureau of the district attorney’s office. It represented the culmination of a career long dream of trying a large volume of cases.

Victim Impact Program (Special Victims Unit: Sex Crimes, Domestic Violence, Elder and Child Abuse)

Ken was assigned to the elite Victim Impact Program (VIP) units in both Norwalk and Pomona. During that time he tried cases sex crimes, child molestation, domestic violence, elder abuse, and stalking cases.  The VIP unit experience not only provided Ken with an opportunity to hone his complex litigation skills, but involved some of the most serious and emotionally difficult cases.

Military:

Ken is not just a Deputy District Attorney but is also a Reserve Captain in the United States Air Force. Coupled with his civilian experience Ken has been fortunate to gain federal experience trying courts-martial and has repeatedly gone on active duty orders to serve our country and backfill deployed personnel.   The J.A.G. Corp offered him exposure and experience in a variety of legal fields in light of the fact that officers within its ranks are not only prosecutors but also defense attorneys and effectively the “in-house” counsel for the Air Force.  This gave Ken exposure to not only federal criminal practice from the perspective of both sides, but civil as well, including but not limited to labor law, administrative law, contract law, fiscal law, international law, and civil claims/remedies.  In 2016 and 2017, Ken provided more legal assistance service hours to military personnel and their families than any other reservist on his base.  To this end when his duty obligation for the year was complete, he chose to perform additional duty in an unpaid status to further help the brave men and women in our nation’s armed services with their legal affairs.  

Compton Juvenile

From October 2008 to October 2009, Ken was assigned to Compton Juvenile Division. During this year long juvenile assignment Ken handled virtually every type of felony adjudication that came through the office.

Charity Work:

Ken gives blood and has earned multiple Red Cross gallon donor pins.  He does this in particular, because his blood is CMV negative, lacking antibodies that allow it to be given to babies in the neonatal intensive care unit. He has volunteered for six years as an instructor in Project LEAD, a program where prosecutors teach at risk school children on a weekly basis about a variety of topics including our court system, peer pressure, bullying, tolerance, gang intervention and the importance of education.

Business Experience:

Ken worked in the business community, supporting himself through law school as the onsite general manager of a restaurant in Silverlake, living on the premises and being on call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Ken also served as an advisor to the parent corporation which included multiple companies underneath its control, including two restaurants, a deli, and a sausage factory. This experience taught him real world management and organizational skills, being exclusively responsible for the supervision of thirty-five employees and gross income receipts of over two-million dollars.

CONCLUSION

Ultimately one can see that Ken has endeavored to live in a way that encompasses a wide variety of experiences. He would bring these experiences to the bench while striving to never have a closed mind or be unwilling to consider different perspectives, backgrounds and contributions to our society. Every person is unique and deserving of respect. Professionalism is of the utmost importance on the bench. To that end, Ken would be a fair, even tempered, professional, efficient, and enlightened judicial officer, respected by all coming into his courtroom.

·  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

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.