Comment #: CA52015
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I expected better from her. She was appointed by a Democrat and seemed enlightened. Sadly, her judgment was harsh and focused on punishment completely disregarding the rehabilitative side of sentencing. She nodded and remarked on how great and heartfelt the character witness letters were, and commended the defendant on how much good they've done during the pretrial supervision. And then threw the book at him. He wouldn't have ever broken the law again even if she gave him half the time she did. He'll come out of prison broken, unable to work and or find housing. What does she expect he's going to do??? May as well go with Trump's suggestion to execute the drug dealers. That sounds more humane than destroying their lives and ability to rehabilitate and be a part of society.

Comment #: CA37317
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
"Worst judge I've been before....*in my ***entire life"? and "seething anger"?



..."**The worst judge I’ve ever been before in my entire life..... and **seething anger; and rules based on emotion only. **I can’t wait til she’s gone from our court. Would be called crazy or emotionally challenged if she were not wearing a robe..."

^Sound like a false flag, disgruntled lawyer, who is not very bright , or clever; or a jealous judge, colleague,and not a "litigant"...Just how many judges have you been "before" in your entire life.."

And, what is it with insecure males and the LASC family law troll, their issues with "women" and numerous posts on "angry women" -and other insecure, disparaging, over-compensating comments, just like the LASC family lawyer troll, who abuses and threatens women, but likely runs to female judges to help him cheat , lie, break law, tilt cases....and harms, abuses vulnerable females and their lives, liberties..., then calls them "angry"...like any psycho, textbook, angry male and abusive angry, guiltymale and/or female judge and lawyer, when their victims call them out...

Comment #: CA37315
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
The worst judge I’ve ever been before in my entire life. Refuses to read or listen to the actual law; is passive-aggressive and flouts statue based on her insecurity and seething anger; and rules based on emotion only. I can’t wait til she’s gone from our court. Would be called crazy or emotionally challenged if she were not wearing a robe.

Comment #: CA35761
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Sounds like I struck a nerve, Maame. I was trying to propose a solution for Judge Frimpong's inability to understand the basic language of the law, which could only be explained by her being illiterate, since it isn't like she would just IGNORE that language in order to cover up a previous mistake, right? I'm trying to give Maame the benefit of the doubt and hope that her very clear disability is accommodated. Could someone please read Maame my comments, so she can understand them?

And maybe I have no desire to control my ire at an incredibly corrupt criminal (not Justice) system. Why should I? Tyranny should be called out and opposed.

Comment #: CA35755
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Maybe it's dyslexia, so I shall refrain from mocking her apparent illiteracy, but might I suggest she be provided with a clerk be hired for her who is specifically assigned the task of reading her laws and pleadings? I guess she should be commended for being able to achieve such a high station despite her apparent illiteracy. Bravo, Maame. Bravo!

Comment #: CA35622
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Frimpong applied a PC 1050(g)(2) continuance to the PC 1382 DEADLINE, and not on the date of the 1382 deadline. She did so prospectively. She effectivey continued the Trial by 11 Court Days. PC 1050, as stated in subsection "(b)" applies to HEARINGS (including trials), NOT TO THE TRIAL DEADLINE. PC 1050(g)(2) expressly states it can only be used to continue a HEARING by a MAXIMUM of 10 Court Days.
Since she already chose to not extend the PC 1382 deadline pursuant to the current COVID-19 Emergency Order, and since the PC 1382 deadline passed last week and since she continued the Trial by a Court Day too many, The Law Requires Judge Frimpong to Dismiss. But she won't, because laws are ignored in the Los Angeles County Kangaroo Courts and because Judge Frimpong is notorious for never admitting she is wrong.

Comment #: CA35498
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I tried correcting my math again, since August 10 to November 19 is not 111 days, but 101 days. But my last comment was deleted.
So long as it was over 90 days, no Los Angeles County Kangaroo Court judges had any authority to rule. Judge Maame Frimpong covered for the demonstrable repeated wrongdoing of Judge Kimberley Baker Guillemet, because Judge Frimpong cares more about covering for the illegal acts of her friends than she does for the law.

Comment #: CA35253
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Frimpong is lazy, unintelligent, and [redacted]
I filed a Habeas Petition on 8/10/20. The incredibly [redacted] and injudicious Dishonorable Kimberley Baker Guillemet completely failed in her duties and failed to comply with the law, and to cover for these demonstrable failures - which included a patently asinine ruling on 8/21/20 - illegally ruled on my Habeas Petition, and illegally did so a full 100 days after the Habeas Petition was filed.
Guillemet, [redacted], claimed that Local Rule 8.33(a) empowered HER to be the one to rule on the Habeas Petition, which is a lie, since that Local Rule only applies to felonies (IT SAYS SO IN THE TITLE OF THE FRAKKING RULE) and I am charged with misdemeanors.
The actual applicable rule is Local Rule 8.33(b)(2), which says that the only person who had that power is "the assistant supervising judge of the Criminal Division, Limited Criminal Cases in the Central District", who is JUDGE FRIMPONG.
The applicable laws/rules pretty clearly say that the Los Angeles County Kangaroo Courts had to ultimately rule on my Habeas Petition within 90 days of its filing. That would have been November 9, 2020. The Dishonorable Guillemet didn't issue her illegal ruling until November 19, 2020, TEN DAYS TOO LATE.
To try to fix this wrongdoing by Guillemet, I re-filed the Habeas Petition in the Dishonorable Frimpong's court. The Dishonorable Frimpong SUMMARILY DENIED my Habeas Petition, based solely on the Dishonorable Guillemet's illegal and illegally untimely November 19, 2020 ruling.
It is completely incredible that the Dishonorable Frimpong could not have known that she, and she alone, had the power to rule on my Habeas Petition. It is completely incredible that the Dishonorable Frimpong could not have known that a Habeas ruling done 100 days after the Habeas Petition was filed was issued at least 10 days too late. The Dishonorable Frimpong, like the vast majority of her fellow incompetents, makes the Los Angeles County Kangaroo Courts what they are.
Los Angeles exists under a tyranny of incompetent [redacted] like Frimpong.