Monday, March 2, 2026

Page 8

In My Opinion

Office 131: Cuckoo Candidates?

One who follows judicial elections

(The identity of the anonymous writer is known to the MetNews. The person is knowledgeable and respected. Omitted from the discussion is a possible candidate for the Los Angeles Superior Court open seat in question: Administrative Law Judge Dieter Carlos Dammeier who has said he will run for Office No. 131 but has also filed declarations of intent to seek four other seats.)

Two of the current candidates for Judicial Office 131, Troy Slaten and David Ross, may be birds of the same feather—cuckoos, perhaps.

Slaten’s past attempts to mislead by falsely claiming to be a “former prosecutor,” failed to resonate with voters in 2020, and some might say that his subsequent change of occupation to a workers compensation judge could have been simply a ruse to acquire a more attractive ballot title, namely, “Administrative Law Judge.” That ballot title, however, was equally ineffective in the 2022 election.

Perhaps Slaten felt that his ballot title needed a little more “juice” in order to mislead voters into believing he was a judge of the Superior Court? Hence his appearance in a Facebook post wearing a robe having purportedly been “sworn in,” and his job description on his Facebook profile as “Judge.” (See Ex 1, below). Both failed to do the trick at the ballot box in 2022.

Slaten returns in 2026 and his Facebook hoax remains, bolstered perhaps, by his use of the title “Honorable” in other social media. The LinkedIn profile page for the California Department of Industrial Relations, Slaten’s employer, shows a number of Administrative Law Judges with Slaten distinguishing himself as “Hon. Troy Slaten,” while no other ALJ uses that honorific. It is my understanding that only government officials who have been elected or appointed to public office are afforded the courtesy title of “The Honorable.”

Slaten’s use of the honorific could be seen by some as a case of stolen valor. It is certainly the case that those appearing at Workers Compensation hearings may refer to the ALJ as “Your Honor,” however, according to the ALJ Discussion Forum (https://aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/2301/aljs-privileged-use-title), the use of that title is simply for convenience of the parties and is not an official title.

★

Fellow candidate for Office 131, David Ross, appears to have been infected by Slaten’s propensity to mislead voters. Ross, a deputy alternate public defender, who has amassed an impressive slew of judicial endorsements, had chosen to use “Deputy Public Defender” as his Ballot title. According to TransparentCalifornia.com, a website listing the salaries of government employees, Ross is a “Deputy Alternate Public Defender IV” and therefore, in accordance with Elections Code Section 13107, his ballot title should be “Deputy Alternate Public Defender, County of Los Angeles.” A protest was lodged by a rival candidate and the word “Alternate” was yesterday inserted.

Some might say that a candidate for judicial office who willfully violates the law is quite simply unworthy of the voters’ trust, let alone that of those bench officers who, hopefully, were unaware of Ross’s deception before endorsing him. Others might say that if Ross claims ignorance of the law, then that makes Ross a very poor candidate for judicial office.

It is also noteworthy Ross names the judges on his website without the qualification that their names appear only for identification purposes, perhaps a careless misstep rather than a willful attempt to mislead.

★

Ross’s deception, however, goes beyond a willful disregard for the Elections Code. Ross recently attended the Capital Case Defense Seminar, an annual event hosted by the California Public Defenders Association and the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. The event took place in San Diego between Feb. 13 and 16. Whether Ross attended the seminar to enhance his knowledge of criminal defense in death penalty cases, or was merely present to garner support for his judicial campaign, is unclear. Ross, apparently, has never attended that particular seminar before. What is clear, however, is that Ross’s digital credentials—available on a screen at the seminar, not only touted his judicial aspirations, but shockingly, Ross described himself as employed by the “Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office.” He is not so employed.

Potentially of more consequence is the question as to whether judges who have endorsed Ross and who are now aware of Ross’s use of a misleading ballot designation in violation of Elections Code 13107, and his deception at the Capital Case Defense Seminar, now have an affirmative duty to take action to either insist that Ross corrects the situation, or withdraw their endorsements?

Canon 5B(1)(b) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, in the pertinent part, provides that “A candidate for judicial office…shall not knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, make false or misleading statements about the identity, qualifications, present position, or any other fact concerning himself or herself or his or her opponent or other applicants.” While that section clearly applies to Ross and could lead to discipline by the State Bar, the question arises as to whether, by failing to take corrective action or withdrawing their endorsements, judges who have endorsed Ross are thereby endorsing his deception? That might be seen as violative of Canon 2A requiring judges to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.

★★★

IN THE INTERESTS OF FULL DISCLOSURE: I am supporting Deputy Public Defender Donna Tryfman’s candidacy. I have known Ms Tryfman since 2011 when she and I were calendar deputies, albeit on opposite sides of counsel table.

Ms. Tryfman earned my respect as an opponent not only for her passionate advocate for her clients, but equally for her practical and candid approach. Honesty among attorneys is a rare and most valuable attribute, and Ms. Tryfman has that attribute. We settled cases fairly, and where we could not, we took those cases to trial. As a trial attorney Ms. Tryfman was always well-prepared, and while even the most skilled advocate cannot overcome solid evidence, Ms. Tryfman’s attack on that evidence was always well-grounded. She treated witnesses appropriately and effectively, exposing flaws in their testimony where possible. Doubtless, she is not without flaws.

She can have an abrasiveness or directness about her, and perhaps tends to be overly defensive at times. I suspect that is likely the result of having to represent the often defenseless. I do know of her passion to become a judge and that is also likely the cause of some anxiety.

She is a widow, putting her daughter through college, and I know that the decision to plunge herself into the foray of judicial elections was not an easy one. However, over the years I have seen how she has matured and when necessary, will correct herself. I truly believe she would make an excellent bench officer.