Court:

Present status of suit:

Name, address, and telephone number of your lawyer.

5.

Court of which any appeal has been taken:

Docket number of the appeal:

Present status of appeal:

On separate sheets of paper, not larger than the paper this form is printed on, describe the conduct or the evidence of disability that is the subject of this complaint. See rule 2(b) and 2(d). Do not use more than 5 pages (5 sides). Most complaints do not require that much.

(1) check the first box below and sign this form in the presence of a notary public; or

I have read rules 1 and 2 of the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability, and the statements made in this complaint are true and correct to the of best of my knowledge

Judicial Council of the

Ninth Circuit, Complaint of Judicial
Misconduct and Disability

Page One

ATTACHMENT #1

Additional responses to Question #1 of Complaint Form

The Complainant is CALIFORNIA WOMEN LAWYERS, a California nonprofit corporation located at 926 "J" Street, Suite 714, Sacramento, California 95814. The telephone number in Sacramento is (916) 441-3703. If an individual (non-corporate) complainant is required, the complainant can be Janice Kamenir-Reznik, President of California Women Lawyers. In any event, Janice Kamenir-Reznik is the contact person, and is located at the following address and telephone number: c/o Reznik & Reznik, 15456 Ventura Boulevard, Fifth Floor, Sherman Oaks, California 91403, (213) 872- 2900.

While the behavior which is the subject of this complaint occurred during the course of particular lawsuits, this complaint is not essentially concerning the disposition of any lawsuit. Rather, the complaint is about objectionable judicial behavior and attitudes, irrespective of whether the dispositions were fair or unfair from complainants' point of view.

Judicial Council of the

Ninth Circuit, Complaint of

Judicial Misconduct and Disability
Page One

ATTACHMENT #3

Response to Question #5 of Complaint Form

On May 9, 1989, during the sentencing phase of the criminal burglary trial of Ms. Dannielle Mast, Judge A. Andrew Hauk is reported to have made several statements which the complainants assert to have been gender biased and racist. This complaint is directly motivated by those statements which occurred during that sentencing hearing. Under separate cover, complainants will forward to Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit a transcript of the May 9, 1989 hearing.

In addition to the comments made by Judge A. Andrew Hauk during the course of the sentencing hearing of Ms. Mast, this complaint is intended to bring before the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit various other instances in which Judge Hauk has publicly displayed biased attitudes with respect to Hispanics, Blacks, homosexuals, and women. Complainants are currently in the process of attempting to obtain case names and docket numbers with respect to those

cases.

Regarding the May 9, 1989 sentencing hearing, despite the fact that there was no evidence presented during the course of the trial which suggested that Ms. Mast was under the undue influence or "hypnotic spell" of her boyfriend, Lonnie Jackson, Judge Hauk nevertheless stated that Ms. Mast, like all women, was a "soft touch" who fell victim to her boyfriend's powers. Judge Hauk went on to state that "men have [historically] exercised control over the activities of women". After having stated the foregoing, and speaking about the "Svengali spell" of men over women, he proceeded to say that he was "not going to ignore that [the Svengali spell] no matter how much flak "he gets from 'women's libbers'". While under the federal sentencing guidelines Ms. Mast's sentence would have been between 4 and 5 years in prison, Judge Hauk sentenced the defendant to 2 years in prison ostensibly because she was under her boyfriend's spell.

When the prosecutor objected to Judge Hauk's departure from the sentencing guidelines, arguing that Ms. Mast had shown no remorse for her crimes and that there had been no evidence that Ms. Mast's boyfriend had exercised undue influence over her, despite the complete absence of any evidentiary support, Judge Hauk replied that Ms. Mast committed her crimes because she moved in with her boyfriend and enjoyed sex with him! Judge Hauk added that such male dominance over women has "happened throughout the centuries and nobody can convince me otherwise."

Judicial Council of the

Ninth Circuit, Complaint of
Judicial Misconduct and Disability
Page Two of Attachment 3

This complaint is intended not only to focus on the gender bias which was exhibited by Judge Hauk during the course of that May 9, 1989 sentencing hearing but also to address certain racist statements and innuendos made by Judge Hauk during that hearing. Evidently referring to Mr. Jackson, who is evidently black, and the apparent locale of some of the subject crimes, Judge Hauk stated that he has "a hard time believing there were not drugs involved, arising as it did over there in Oakland, in the Black surroundings. We cannot kid ourselves, that's where drugs are passed around and where violence arises." Additionally, Judge Hauk justified his lenient sentencing by stating that "it seems to me this is a girl whose life could be saved and could still be a great asset to the community, to her race, if you will, but I don't want to get into that;" Ms. Mast is Caucasian.

In addition to the events of the hearing on May 9, 1989, there have been many other instances reported which reflect on Judge Hauk's sexist, racist and homophobic attitudes. In one incident which was reported in the Los Angeles Times in connection with a sex discrimination suit conducted in Judge Hauk's courtroom, Judge Hauk remarked that women "have a monthly problem which upsets them emotionally and we all know that." In other instances he is reported to have stated that he deplored the immigration of "faggots from Cuba;" he has referred to Iranians as "ignoramuses" and Hispanics as "bean counters".

It is complainants' contention that the conduct engaged in by Judge Hauk is prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the court. Not only does Judge Hauk's behavior intimidate litigants and attorneys who must appear in courtroom, but it also discourages would-be litigants from seeking redress through the federal court system. Moreover, it is

his

complainants' contention that as a result of his obvious and welldocumented biases, Judge Hauk is unable to discharge all the duties of his office as a result of his mental and emotional limitations relative to women, minorities and homosexuals.

Please be assured that the intent of this complaint is to put before the Circuit's Judicial Council Judge Hauk's biases as is evidenced by his repeated utterances and slurs. The reduced sentence meted out to defendant Mast is presented only as an example of Judge Hauk's attitudes. We do not seek any alteration

in Ms. Mast's sentence.