[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 14606-14607]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      INTRODUCTION OF H. RES. 916

                                 ______
                                 

                    HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 17, 2006

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER . Mr. Speaker, regrettably, today I am forced to 
introduce this resolution calling for an inquiry into grounds for the 
impeachment of U.S. District Court Judge Manuel L. Real, from the 
Central District of California. This resolution has become necessary 
due to a breakdown in the judicial branch's enforcement of the judicial 
discipline statute Congress enacted in 1980. When the judicial branch 
has failed to address serious allegations of judicial misconduct, as 
the Ninth Circuit arguably has in this matter, the Constitution 
provides the Congress only one course of action: opening an impeachment 
inquiry.
  I would caution my colleagues and others not to jump to any 
conclusions in this matter. Today's resolution merely allows the House 
Judiciary Committee to open an investigation to determine the facts. 
Only after the House Judiciary Committee has conducted a fair, 
thorough, and detailed investigation, will committee members be able to 
consider whether Articles of Impeachment might be warranted.
  The introduced resolution ensures that the investigation will be 
referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It is modeled after the last 
three impeachment resolutions that the House used to investigate, 
respectively, Judge Harry E. Claiborne (1986), Judge Alcee L. Hastings 
(1988), and Judge Walter L. Nixon (1989). All three were later 
impeached and removed from office based on the drafting of more 
detailed articles reported by the committee after the investigations 
were completed.
  According to press reports and legal filings made public, in February 
2000 Judge Real allegedly interceded on behalf of a defendant known to 
him in a joint bankruptcy and California State unlawful-detainer 
action. The defendant reportedly was going through a messy divorce and 
was ordered to vacate a home that was held in trust by her husband's 
family. The defendant filed a bankruptcy petition that automatically 
stayed eviction proceedings in October 1999, but the stay was 
eventually lifted. The defendant, represented by counsel, then signed a 
stipulation that allowed the State court to issue an eviction notice in 
February 2000, approximately 10 days before Judge Real allegedly 
interceded.
  Judge Real allegedly received ex parte communications from the 
defendant and through third parties about the matter before he took 
action. Judge Real was supervising the defendant as part of her 
probation in a separate criminal case in which she had pled guilty to 
perjury and loan fraud.
  Judge Real withdrew the case from the bankruptcy court and enjoined 
the State eviction proceeding. He allegedly gave no reasons for his 
assertion of jurisdiction over the case or his rulings. The defendant 
was allowed to live rent-free in the home for a period of years. When 
the trustee appealed by mandamus to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Real 
transferred the case to another district judge. The trustee reclaimed 
the property on appeal but reportedly lost at least $35,000 in rent 
during the proceedings.
  According to news reports, in February 2003 a private citizen filed a 
complaint against Judge Real for his conduct in the bankruptcy and 
unlawful-detainer actions. This complaint reportedly was dismissed 
twice by the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, even though the Judicial 
Council in the second case reportedly recommended that further 
investigation take place regarding ex parte communications between 
Judge Real and the litigant.
  Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in his dissenting opinion for the Judicial 
Council of the Ninth Circuit, ``The fact of the matter is that the 
judge's conduct here caused real harm. It certainly harmed innocent 
creditors to the tune of $50,000 or more. Worse, it harmed public 
confidence in the fair administration of justice in the courts of this 
circuit. The prohibition against ex parte communications, rules of 
procedure, principles of law--all of these are not trinkets that judges 
may discard whenever they become a nuisance. Rather, they are the 
mainstays of our judicial system, our guarantee to every litigant that 
we will administer justice, as our oath requires, `without respect to 
person'. . . . [T]he majority's exiguous order seems far more concerned 
with not hurting the feelings of the judge in question. But our first 
duty as members of the Judicial

[[Page 14607]]

Council is not to spare the feelings of judges accused of misconduct. 
It is to maintain public confidence in the judiciary by ensuring that 
substantial allegations of misconduct are dealt with forthrightly and 
appropriately. This the majority has failed to do.''
  Judge Real's actions are under further review by the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals and have been the subject of numerous news reports by 
the Los Angeles Times and others.
  Based upon these news reports and legal proceedings made public, 
Judge Real's behavior in the bankruptcy and unlawful-detainer actions 
may constitute impeachable conduct. Some of the issues that I hope will 
be reviewed during the Committee investigation include--
  His intercession on behalf of a litigant known to him;
  His alleged ex parte communications with the litigant known to him;
  His assertion of jurisdiction over proceedings in which he lacked 
jurisdiction;
  His alleged failure to explain his assertion of jurisdiction to 
counsel;
  His alleged failure to provide any legal authority for his actions;
  His reply, on at least one occasion, to counsel when questioned as to 
the basis of a ruling (``Just because I said it, Counsel.'').
  I expect the next step in this process to involve the establishment 
of a bipartisan impeachment inquiry team in the near future.

    Chronology of Events Based Upon News Reports and Legal Filings 
   Impeachment Investigation of U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real, 
          Prepared by House Judiciary Majority Committee Staff

       September 11, 1991: Alan and Elizabeth Canter purchase a 
     Los Angeles home as an investment.
       September 25, 1991: Their son, Gary, and his wife, Deborah, 
     take up residence at the home. Gary pays rent thereafter.
       1997: Title to the home is transferred to a trust (the 
     ``Canter Family Trust'').
       February 24, 1999: Gary and Deborah Canter separate. Gary 
     moves out and rent payments cease thereafter.
       August 13, 1999: Alan Canter files an unlawful-detainer 
     action in California state court, seeking Deborah's eviction 
     from the property and $5,000 back rent.
       October 26, 1999: Deborah Canter files a Chapter 13 
     bankruptcy petition 24 minutes before her unlawful-detainer 
     trial commences. The trial is stayed.
       January 24, 2000: Deborah Canter and Judge Real conduct a 
     probation review meeting in his chambers. (Judge Real was 
     supervising Deborah Canter as part of her probation in a 
     separate criminal case in which she pled guilty to perjury 
     and loan fraud.)
       January 26, 2000: The bankruptcy court lifts the stay at 
     the request of the Canter Family Trust, thereby allowing the 
     unlawful-detainer action to proceed. Alan Canter and Deborah 
     Canter subsequently sign a stipulated judgment that Deborah 
     vacate the premises.
       February 7, 2000: The California state court enters a 
     judgment pursuant to the stipulation and orders that Alan 
     Canter recover possession of the property from Deborah 
     Canter.
       February 17, 2000: Judge Real withdraws the case from the 
     bankruptcy court.
       February 29, 2000: Judge Real stays enforcement of the 
     California state court judgment.
       Sometime in 2000 or 2001: Judge Real refuses to lift the 
     stay upon motion by the Canter Family Trust.
       June 18, 2001: Judge Real again refuses to lift the stay 
     upon motion by the Canter Family Trust. When counsel for the 
     Trust requested a reason, Judge Real replied: ``Just because 
     I said it, Counsel.''
       July 2001: Judge Real transfers the bankruptcy proceeding 
     to a second U.S. district judge. The second judge re-refers 
     the proceeding to the bankruptcy court. (The stay of the 
     unlawful-detainer action remains in effect.)
       January 2002: the bankruptcy court grants a motion by the 
     Trust to abandon Deborah Canter's interest in the property.
       August 15, 2002: the Ninth Circuit court of appeals vacates 
     Judge Real's order withdrawing the case from the bankruptcy 
     court and the accompanying order staying enforcement of the 
     California state court judgment.
       February 2003: A judicial misconduct complaint is filed 
     against Judge Real.
       July 14, 2003: The Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit 
     dismisses the complaint.
       December 18, 2003: A Ninth Circuit Judicial Council enters 
     an orderer recommending that the Chief Judge undertake 
     further investigation into ex parte communications between 
     Judge Real and Deborah Canter.
       November 4, 2004: the Chief Judge enters a supplemental 
     order and dismiss the complaint again.
       September 29, 2005: A complaint regarding the Chief Judge's 
     November 4, 2004, order is dismissed.
       May 23, 2006: Ninth Circuit Chief Judge orders a ``special 
     committee'' to investigate consolidated complaints against 
     Judge Real.
                                  ____


                              H. Res. 916

       Resolved, That Manuel L. Real, judge of the United States 
     District Court for the Central District of California, is 
     impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

                          ____________________