Judge assigned to this case

Steve Kim is a federal magistrate judge on the United States District Court for the Central District of California. He was sworn in for this position on April 11, 2016, upon the retirement of Magistrate Carla Woehrle. His current term will expire on April 10, 2024.

Early life and education

Kim earned his bachelor's degree with special distinction from the University of Oklahoma, where he was the recipient of the Carl Albert Award. This award is given to the most distinguished graduate of the University's College of Arts & Sciences. He earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center.

Professional career

After he graduated from law school, Kim clerked for Judge Stephen Wilson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California and for Judge Sidney Thomas of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He then worked for Munger, Tolles, & Olson LLP as a civil litigator before becoming an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles, Calif.

1. In December 2007, Judge Kim left the U.S. Attorney's office to become vice president at Stroz Friedberg LLC where he oversaw three west coast firm offices.

2. He is considered a specialist in law and technology and has counseled corporations, law firms, and government agencies on data privacy, digital forensics, cybersecurity, and electronic discovery.

Judicial career

Central District of California

On April 11, 2016, Kim was sworn in as a federal magistrate judge on the United States District Court for the Central District of California in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 631 and governing regulations for the selection of magistrates. He succeeded retired Judge Carla Woehrle. His current term will expire on April 10, 2024.

Justice Kim's Biography was taken from Ballotpedia

Comments

The Attorney General Reference (Constitution Question) Act. - The Study

Drocker Street Cell: Los Angeles ...

Critical observation in the conduct of the prosecutions Objections to dismiss.

US Prosecutor Miri Song Here we have a case that was brought before the United States District Court, by federal authorities, against a pro se (Self Represented) defendant. For the United States Government there were three practicing lawyers; their names are it appear on the Objection to the motion to dismiss: Nicola T Hanna , who was responsible for prosecuting this case in the court; Laurance Middleton, and Miri Song . Upon reading the prosecution witnesses written statement, I could see that there was no evidence sufficient for the prosecution to convinced the court that I was guilty of committing the alleged offence. As a result the pro se defendant researched, and prepared, submitted and served on the prosecuting team a motion to dismissed, the matter base of valid legal grounds (Motion to dismissed). As a result the prosecution team which is made up of three train and practicing lawyers, stepped outside the scope of their ...

Motion to dismiss case No. # CC42,6033015

The defendant moved a motion for the court to dismiss this case No. # CC42,6033015 of the following grounds: 1. Insufficient allegations to prove the charge 2. Reason for disputes (The oral or dental hygiene tool) impeded the defendants’ rights to enter into and upon federal property 3. U.S Marshall Service personnel and the Paragon Security personnel actions were not in keeping with their professional authority. 4. The actions of the Security Detail were in violation with the law they were enforcing. 5. Federal Law prohibits Discrimination by employees upon federal property. Factual back Ground The defendant goes to the Federal Building in question on a regular basis to conduct business. On the day in question the defendant went to the said building, the defendant clear security, the security took offence and decide...

The United States of America V/S Allan H. F. Palmer

Search This Blog