.
Welcome to today’s Judicial Council Muppet show. This is a pre-recorded post timed to post. We wanted to review what we have on tap in today’s demonstration of governance via the AOC nose ring because no matter what presiding judges may have agreed to yesterday, without fundamental changes in governance and oversight we have laid the foundation to a superhighway to judicial branch corruption. We’ve built on this foundation by submitting to management oversight by an organization that has several thousand pieces of skin in the game and actively promoting centralization through their emissaries – including the chief justice.
Thanks to Justice California showing us the way, today’s meeting agenda can be found here. Submitted for your consideration are the written comments submitted by others that usually make for a good read and they can be found here.
Also on tap: San Francisco Superior Court has been the location of some questionable litigation involving the AOC as of late. Currently moving through San Francisco courts is the AOC vs. Jacobs matter. We’ll add more to this post later.
JCW just obtained a media advisory that the Aliance of California Judges will be calling for an outside investigation into the Judicial Branch’s construction and maintenance practices. (possibly at 12:35PM )
The timing is interesting: – right before an agenda item that will give Lee Willoughby even more control and issuing even more sweetheart deals by closing ranks and dealing only with preferred vendors that can keep their mouths shut. With the cost spiking of all projects with little previous objection, it’s effortless to show you cut 10%. Let’s see them commit to less than $500.00 per square foot for all costs.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 24, 2012
Gee, sounds like several people missed me. Well, I’m b-a-a-c-c-k.
Despite the fact that the Chief met with a couple of the members of the Board of the Alliance and lip service was given to some of their concerns, the members of the Judicial Council are back at it again. The reports given by the “liaisons” (aka: snitches) to the Council today was nothing short of hilarious. According to our monitors, I’m sorry, liaison mentors, all of their “buddy” courts reported that they wanted no cuts to AOC budgets, nor any diversion of Kourthouse Konstruction funding. The reports were that the “local courts” believe they cannot survive without the invaluable services being provided by the AOC and that all of the current services are essential to the survival of the local trial courts. In addition, no local courts were mentioning or complaining that they were having to reduce the number of hours in which they were open to the public. Finally, the proletariat reported to their observers that Kourthouse Konstruction projects were “vital” and all available monies should be spent on these vitally important projects.
H-O-O-E-Y! Nothing has changed folks. I cannot believe that any local court (other than noe or two rogue members) might have told their CJ Buddies (snitches) any of what was reported this morning. Certainly no one asked those questions of courts in my neighborhood.
Where exactly is the SEC Report? The draft was to be delivered in February 2012, with a public copy available in April 2012. I guess the re-write is going slower than expected. You know that if and when it is finally released, HRH-2, the Judicial Council and AOC administration will point out that all suggested areas for change within the structure of judicial administration has already effected and everything is just fine now. Where have I heard that before????
Keep vigilant! Get those petitions out and circulating…
Wendy Darling
April 24, 2012
“Where exactly is the SEC Report?” Where, oh where, can it be?
In the not too distant future, be looking for a number of people in the AOC Director, Assistant Director, and Senior Manager ranks to suddenly decide to “retire” or otherwise “voluntarily separate.” Sometime after their departure, the revised/redacted/sanitized SEC report will be released. Conveniently, any mention of the recently departed will be excised, under the Ministry of Truth rationalization that as those people are no longer there, then there is no reason to include them, or their misconduct and mismanagement (and illegal activities) in the SEC report. And the truth, once again, will be covered up.
Justice Scotland’s SEC report, however, told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God.
And, yes, General Woodhull, you were missed. And yes, you are right – more of the same dog and pony show today with the Judicial Council. Lip service yesterday, back to lying today. And it will not change without a legislative correction. Ever.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
April 24, 2012
Someone whose opinion I respect told me Scotland was no doubt told to “buzz off,” “take a hike,” “move on down the road,” “get lost.” The truth can’t be tamped down forever. Doesn’t the JC/AOC get that? As JusticeCalifornia asked previously, do they really think we don’t see what they’re trying to pull off? I know no one would want me in charge. I would simply get rid of the AOC. In entirety.
Good to hear from you, General Woodhull.
Pass AB 1208!
Recall Tani!
JusticeCalifornia
April 24, 2012
Really. . . .the suspense about the SEC report is building.
Clearly “top leadership” intends to keep this report under wraps for as long as possible.
Reading between the not-too-hard-to-read SEC “delay” lines– the SEC report, no matter how many times it is re-worked, is apparently devastating. If the report was positive it would have been trotted out a long time ago.
We are almost through April. It would appear barrels of new information are going to be dropped at once on the judicial council and the branch in the next few months– timed perfectly to overwhelm and prohibit proper consideration of the information before votes are taken. For example, the SEC report, the results of the search for a new director, the CCMS salvage updates, the courthouse construction debates, new top leadership appointments, to name a few. . . .
It is foreseeable that the new AOC director will be touted as a knight in shining armor who is going to clean up this mess, now that he or she has the SEC report in hand, and direction from the legislature. Of course, this will be Tani 2– trust us, give this person a chance. Uh huh.
The FIX to what ails the branch is not personality-driven. While a couple of cjs can run the branch into the ground, no one wise person is going to “save” the branch. The governance structure must be changed. The branch must be democratized. Checks and balances must be implemented.
Dan Dydzak
April 24, 2012
The AOC needs to be abolished and monies diverted back to each individual trial district. One of the points of my pending lawsuit is just that–to ensure that the AOC is not used as a vehicle to money-launder and do other unlawful actions that deprive the good people of California of taxpayer monies. If the Judicial Council and AOC had not wasted a lot of monies, through misappropriation, mismanagement and money-laundering, to certain politically connected individuals wishing to unjustly enrich themselves, including unfortunately prominent attorneys and certain judges, California would have a lot more resources at its disposal to continue keeping courts operating efficiently and economically. Fortunately, the Alliance judges are on the right track with Chief Assemblyman Calderon’s efforts. The California Supreme Court should stick to issuing reasonable and fair rulings, not engage in creating a huge bureaucracy, with certain AOC and Judicial Council people benefitting influence wise and economically for a select few and to harm the public at large and hard-working clerks and staff at the Courts.
Although the Chief Justice purports to listen, the Vickrey old guard seems fairly intact at the moment. And where is there an audit by a receiver or fair accountant with the monies going back to the local courts through the legislature or the Controller of the State of California? Should not the AOC be completely abolished due to its constitutional acts?
Dan Dydzak
JusticeCalifornia
April 24, 2012
I entirely missed today’s meeting and hope someone can give the down low.
JCW said:
“JCW just obtained a media advisory that the Aliance of California Judges will be calling for an outside investigation into the Judicial Branch’s construction and maintenance practices. (possibly at 12:35PM )”
“With the cost spiking of all projects with little previous objection, it’s effortless to show you cut 10% . . .”
The Alliance and JCW are once again absolutely right. There must be a comprehensive outside investigation/audit– with ALL OF THE DOTS OF ALL OF THE PROJECTS CONNECTED. Who is getting/has gotten rich? Who brokered the deals? Who sold/bought the property and who profited the most? Who got the contracts and how were they awarded?
Given the miserable, wasteful AOC track record that has surfaced, it is WAY PAST time for these questions to be asked, and answered.
The public is paying the tab for all of this. Multi-billions of dollars are at stake and not one of the three branches is in a position to look the other way.
Wendy Darling
April 24, 2012
Don’t know how the JC meeting went today, Justice California, but here is the reported news so far:
A tweet about today’s JC meeting from Cheryl Miller at Legal Pad, the legal blog of CalLaw:
Capital Accounts: Listening to one of the most divisive Judicial Council meeting debates in years: security funding for El Dorado County Sup Ct. Bizarre.
And published today, Tuesday, April 24, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw:
Judicial Council Agrees to Reassess $1.1 Billion in Court Construction
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — The Judicial Council on Tuesday agreed unanimously to reassess 13 courthouse construction projects valued at $1.1 billion, but then got hung up by one Northern California court’s request for $292,000 in funding.
Full article is subscription access only: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202550171777&Judicial_Council_Agrees_to_Reassess_11_Billion_in_Court_Construction&slreturn=1
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 24, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17886.htm
Gosh, I was impressed with the slick and dire Courthouse news youtube video link posted in the above referenced article.
I sure wonder why some of these apparently really terrible courthouses were not first in line, and I sure hope the expensive courthouses that have been built so far didn’t jump the line. . .and why the hell was a $26 million Markleeville single-courtroom courthouse ever in line?
Someone really needs to audit what has gone down.
JusticeCalifornia
April 24, 2012
Query–JCW and experienced others–what entity is the best equipped to audit the court construction/maintenance program from start to finish? We can all complain about the status quo– and understated and overstated courthouse construction needs– but we must be able to craft a legislative “ask”– what audit/investigation do we want done, specifically, and by whom?
Wendy Darling
April 24, 2012
Bureau of State Audits at the request of the Assembly Accountability Committee and Administrative Review (the same folks who directed Elaine Howle to conduct the BSA audit of CCMS and AOC management practices), or the California State Department of Finance, under their statutory authority to audit the Administrative Office of the Courts.
And the scope of such an audit shouldn’t be limited to court construction and maintenance programs. There should also be an audit of all AOC controlled trial court fund accounts, including, for example, the Trial Court Workers Compensation fund.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 24, 2012
And at the risk of being redundant I will post this:
http://www.nlarch.com/portfolio/cj_mercedcourt.html
And ask experienced others at the AOC/JC/Other to compare that to the billions they are proposing. yeah yeah, land costs. . .but lay it out for us, please, and in detail.
JusticeCalifornia
April 24, 2012
Wendy, I heard the Trial Court Workers Compensation Fund is being raped and pillaged, and that Fuentes knows all about it and should be asked under penalty perjury by law enforcement entities to confirm or deny.
Wendy Darling
April 24, 2012
Not that anyone is going to do anything about it, Justice California.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 25, 2012
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
unionman575
April 25, 2012
Uh huh…
Full steam ahead for the OCCM…
Build them and they will come…It’s buysiness as usual…time for a recall!
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17886.htm
Judicial Council Approves Cost-Cutting in Court Construction
Print
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Teresa Ruano, 415-865-7447
PDF Version
Apr 24, 2012
Judicial Council Approves Significant Cost-Cutting in Court Construction
13 Projects to Be Reassessed; 24 Others Have Construction Budgets Cut
SAN FRANCISCO–The Judicial Council today endorsed a cost-cutting direction for court construction statewide, including the reassessment of 13 projects and further construction budget trimming on 24 projects. The council approved recommendations from the Court Facilities Working Group that are expected to yield significant, long-term savings throughout the $5 billion program.
“Today council’s action sets firm direction for continuing with much-needed court improvements in today’s demanding fiscal climate,” said Administrative Presiding Justice Brad R. Hill of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, who chairs the working group. “We need to ensure we are spending every dollar of the public’s money wisely. At the same time, the council has reaffirmed the responsibility and commitment of the judicial branch to provide equal access to justice in safe and secure courthouses. While we cannot today predict the full outcome of this process, what we do know is that measures approved today will result in significant budget reductions. We believe we will achieve far greater savings as we proceed,” Justice Hill said.
Thirteen projects, with a current combined project cost of $1.1 billion, will be reassessed for significant savings options, including downsizing square footage, undertaking renovations instead of new construction, evaluating lease options, and using lower-cost construction methods where feasible. The reassessment timeline will vary for each project.
Another 24 projects, worth $3.2 billion overall, will proceed with mandated construction budget cuts of at least 2 to 10 percent, over and above the 4 percent reduction directed by the council in December 2011. Seven projects have been designated as models for lower-cost construction methods, such as tilt-up construction. Plan details (see page 11 of pdf). The council also delegated to the Administrative Office of the Courts the ability to depart from council-approved statewide design standards in order to achieve these new economies, subject to approval of the working group.
“The standards were designed to produce the best possible buildings, with the best long-term value for money, “said Justice Jeffrey Johnson, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District who chairs the subcommittee that developed the recommendations and will oversee work with the affected courts. “This change gives staff the flexibility needed to encourage innovative thinking and cost-conscious approaches. We still expect to build efficient, durable, quality buildings. And they will be significantly less expensive.”
Senate Bill 1407 was enacted in 2008 to authorize up to $5 billion in funding for new and renovated courthouses using court fees, penalties, and assessments rather than taxpayer revenues from the state’s General Fund. Since 2009, more than $1.1 billion in funding originally designated for courthouse construction has been borrowed, swept to the state’s General Fund, or redirected to court operations. The 25-member working group was appointed by the Chief Justice in July 2011 to oversee the judicial branch facilities program.
The judicial branch facilities program is responsible for providing local communities in California with safe, secure, accessible courthouses. The infrastructure projects are funded by court users statewide, generate jobs, and contribute to local economies and state tax revenues.
The video shown during today’s Judicial Council meeting highlighting the immediate and critical needs for California courthouse replacement and renovation is now available on the California Courts YouTube channel.
Wendy Darling
April 25, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, April 25, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
CA Court Council Reconsiders Construction
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California’s governing council for the courts voted unanimously Monday to “reassess” the cost of building 13 new courthouses, a move intended to save the cash-strapped judiciary $1.1 billion.
“Many tough and often untenable choices have to be made and they have to be made now,” said Justice Brad Hill, chair of the court construction committee that made the proposal to the Judicial Council.
Judge David Lampe from Kern County raised the ghost of the council’s failed IT project in urging the council to wait on committing any construction funds until Governor Jerry Brown Jr. submits next year’s budget in May.
The council’s decision to reconsider the construction projects comes on the heels of a report from the Legislative Analyst calling for the judiciary to either delay or cancel a number of those projects.
“It’s a new day,” Hilll told the council. “A new economic climate. Business as usual is no longer the order of the day now, and it can’t be at any point in the future. In this economic crisis, with no end in sight, it simply can’t be. While we proceed with the most critically needed courthouses that we intend to move forward with, we need to take a very close look at every project to determine that when we’re able to build them, they’re built efficiently and very economically. And if they can’t be built economically, they shouldn’t be built. They should be cancelled. Pure and simple.”
Hill’s group formed the Courthouse Cost Reduction Subcommittee late last year to look out how courthouses might be built for more reasonable costs, around the time the judiciary was facing scrutiny from the Legislature for spending enormous sums on both IT and construction.
At Monday’s council meeting, Hill stressed the need to spend tax payer money wisely. But, he added, “We will need to be ready to explain to the public why we have taken this approach. If indeed there’s a security breach caused by inadequate facilities resulting in injuries or death to the public, or court staff, we need to have an explanation. Or if there’s an earthquake that pancakes one of our seismically insufficient buildings, we have to have a good explanation for why we made these decisions today or in the future.”
The 13 projects include courthouses in Los Angeles, Riverside, El Centro and Inyo counties in the south, to Kern County in Central California, to Mendocino and Nevada County in the North. The council accepted the committee’s recommendation to look at how reduce building size and cost, and renovating or leasing buildings instead of building new ones.
A slew of 24 planned courthouses will go forward, but are expected to be built for two to ten percent under budget.
But there remains the problem of maintaining the courthouses once they are built.
Judge David Wesley of Los Angeles raised that concern before the vote. “Can we maintain all these new courthouses that we’re constructing? To maintain them once we build them?” he asked “Do we have a budget for janitorial services that is commensurate with the building program, do we have a budget with security, do we have a budget for furniture? Or are we going to build courthouses that we can’t staff with security, put furniture in, or maintain in the future?”
Hill replied, “I agree that we need to make sure we have maintenance budgets that cannot only take care of our existing facilities, but new facilities. And one of the ways that we can do that, hopefully, is if we save considerable sums of money over the coming years in the building program. And you indicated you would like to see some of that money in maintenance and we will make every attempt to do so and make those recommendations to you.”
Judge David Lampe of Kern County Superior Court, a director of the Alliance of California Judges, urged the council during a public comment period to reconsider going forward with new courthouses the judiciary can’t afford, at least until Governor Jerry Brown releases his revised budget in May.
“We do not minimize the state of disrepair and inadequacy in many state courthouses,” Lampe said. “What we’re urging those that at this time we must preserve maximum flexibility, and we should not encumber or commit funds now without knowing the total budget picture.”
Lampe also called for the council to bring in an outside investigator to reassess the building projects.
“The reported high cost of construction have met with skepticism from judges, legislators and the public,” he said, adding that the judiciary did not want its construction project to come under the same scrutiny as its Court Case Management System, a court IT project recently cancelled by the council, but not after over a half billion dollars was spent on it.
“We all have acknowledged that there were mistakes made with the CCMS project, including the lack of early cost benefit analysis. And those mistakes caused an excoriating report by the auditor. No one wants to look back at similar criticisms of our construction management,” Lampe said.
“It would be helpful to have an independent consultant look at the program. We are doing that now,” Hill said. “We are engaged in a top to bottom review of Office of Court Construction and Management, and we will a report to you by the end of the year as to their findings and any recommendations that we have.”
The council also voted 14-2 to give El Dorado Superior Court a bailout of $169,000 for the next two fiscal years to meet security costs at its remodeled juvenile court. Presiding Judge Suzanne Kingsbury said it made her “uncomfortable” to beg for money from the council, but the court was left in a lurch after it did not receive money promised by the council and its staff agency, the Administrative Office of the Courts. Kingsbury said her discomfort stems from her position on the Strategic Evaluation Committee, a group appointed by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to review the AOC.
“This is difficult for be being on the SEC to come to you and beg for money. It makes me really uncomfortable to come and beg for money to run our court because I know there are people out there in the world thinking if you give money it’s because it’s my role on the SEC. You have no idea how uncomfortable this makes me. And the impact on the court- it is significant. It is very, very troubling for me to do this,” Kingsbury said. “And I think it’s troubling to have a council make representations and the AOC make representations and renege on those.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/25/45941.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 25, 2012
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/25/45941.htm
Business as usual…
A slew of 24 planned courthouses will go forward, but are expected to be built for two to ten percent under budget.
More business as usual…
“It would be helpful to have an independent consultant look at the program. We are doing that now,” Hill said. “We are engaged in a top to bottom review of Office of Court Construction and Management, and we will a report to you by the end of the year as to their findings and any recommendations that we have.”
Recall Tani.
unionman575
April 25, 2012
Delilah
April 25, 2012
http://banning-beaumont.patch.com/articles/cost-cutting-on-state-court-construction-won-t-affect-banning-justice-center#video-9717525
Delilah
April 25, 2012
http://www.redding.com/news/2012/apr/24/state-cuts-shasta-county-courthouse-budget-by-10/
v=http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/judi042512.htm
unionman575
April 25, 2012
Yeah for all those out there wondering…it is full steam ahead on the construction projects.
We have work to do while the JC “reconsiders” the projects and gets back to everyone by the end of the year. YEAH RIGHT!
RECALL TANI!
JusticeCalifornia
April 25, 2012
Again at the risk of being redundant I will post this:
http://www.nlarch.com/portfolio/cj_mercedcourt.html
And ask why the Banning courthouse is going to cost so much more.
“The total estimated project cost for the six-courtroom, 68,399-square-foot Banning Justice Center is $63.2 million, which includes land acquisition, architectural design, construction, and other costs, Ruano said.”
I am a construction layperson, so I invite someone, anyone, to explain why the 6-courtroom Banning courthouse will cost well over 4x as much as Merced’s 6-courtoom courthouse.
I haven’t seen a single AOC courthouse construction project that costs as little as the Merced courthouse. The AOC was fully prepared to spend $26 million (twice as much as the Merced court house cost) on a one-courtroom courthouse in Markleeville.
unionman575
April 25, 2012
Note to JC/AOC, you can reassess this: My middle finger.
Delilah
April 25, 2012
RICO. Follow the money. If no one will stand up to investigate and follow the money, it is because they are in the path of receiving the money, or a judicial appointment, or a quid pro quo favor. As I’ve said before, this is a microcosm of what is going on all over the country. There is a class of people who are rich and powerful enough (corrupt) — be they the masterminds or the sycophants — who will never be held accountable for anything, feel handcuffs around their wrists, or see the inside of a jail cell, at the same time whistle-blowers and honest workers lose their jobs and face financial and professional ruin. “Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.” You know which one goes to jail. The AOC has robbed the trial courts blind, and no one will ever be held accountable. More than anything, I hope to be proved wrong.
Which leads me to ask JCW, or someone here, to keep us all posted as to the happenings in the AOC vs.Jacobs trial.
unionman575
April 25, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/sb1407projectlist.pdf
Funny how none of the projects have been scrapped.
It’s time to “reassess” Tani’s office that she holds: Recalll Tani.
unionman575
April 26, 2012
It’s all graft Justice.
AOC Tracker
April 26, 2012
In this comment thread, Mr. Dydzak implies that prominent attorneys and some judges have reaped personal financial rewards directly related to the AOC’s misappropriation and mismanagement of money. I share this view. I am confident that favored AOC judges were treated to newly redecorated chambers and remodeled courtrooms not to mention new courthouses. In an effort to gain the upper hand, particularly over the Los Angeles County Superior Court who Ron George and Vickrey perceived as a threat to their meglomaniacal ways, the former Chief and Vickrey strategically placed judges from smaller counties on the Judicial Council and showered them with financial favors through backroom deals in an effort to ensure their loyalty and votes. Other than giving these judges extra benefits, like new furniture, carpet and light fixtures, how else were these favored judges rewarded? Mr. Dydzak, can you be more specific?
courtflea
April 26, 2012
AOC Tracker: making these judges feel important,acting like their opinions matter, hinting at possible appointments to appellate courts, etc. When you are a judge in a small county who has the same qualifications as any other judge in the state, I think the lure of participating at the state wide level (and an assumption of some type power of that goes with it) is intoxicating to some. It can be understood when you are usually ignored and made to feel like you and your court/county don’t matter at all in the grand scheme of things. I don’t really think that they were rewarded with landscaping and kitchen remodels
Wendy Darling
April 27, 2012
Things like landscaping and kitchen remodels, along with padded expense accounts, Grey Goose, caviar, lobster, and overnight hotel stays just blocks away from the AOC’s front door, paid for at the public’s expense, were, and are, the rewards for loyal AOC puppets and henchmen in the AOC’s executive ranks.
For judges, the Office of the Chief Justice and the AOC know to hold out the carrots that judges they want to influence really want – power and self-importance. Or at least the illusion of it. It is also useful to know things that people, including judges, would rather keep secret.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 27, 2012
It’;s old school: carrot and stick.
JusticeCalifornia
April 27, 2012
Branch members that tow the corrupt top leadership party line also get something that is absolutely invaluable. And that is protection at the very highest levels.
When corrupt branch members can count on absolute protection/promotion provided by the CJ, JC, AOC, and certain appellate justices/courts, no matter what, that is power, baby. Lots of people can and do get very rich off of that kind of third-world power. Who needs the AOC to provide kitchen remodels when, as a protected corrupt branch member, you can engineer huge fee awards to lawyer/family members, or steer lucrative court or other business to your friends and family, while at the same time using the power of the branch to destroy and/or eliminate the competition, the whistleblowers, and those who know where the bodies are buried?
anna
April 29, 2012
hear!hear!
courtflea
April 26, 2012
PS AOC Tracker I forgot to add that these judges, like any judge from any court wants to try to obtain and do what is best for their courts.
unionman575
April 27, 2012
Sort of pork barrel politics.
lando
April 27, 2012
The reality is that while judges in California are sadly divided over policy issues , there is no question about their honesty and integrity. I don’t buy into the concept that there is some murky financial conspiracy that has led to branch related problems. Three things are at work here. 1. An increasing number of judges have honest concerns about the lack of constitutional authority of the JC/AOC to dictate to them and the local trial courts., which has led to wasting valuable taxpayer dollars through badly failed programs like CCMS. 2. CCMS represents just a symptom of what is wrong with an out of control anti- democratic insular structure that HRH 1 and Mr Vickrey created . Democracy ( what a novel concept) needs to be created at the highest levels of the brach. 3. Judges loyal to HRH 1 got seats on the JC, and elevated to the higher courts. Some were appointed or reappointed to the JC and CJP repeatedly. Despite my policy differences with some in this third group, all are honest and not corrupt. None are financially corrupt or profited personally from any of the JC/AOC policy failures. We need to keep focus on the problem and that is the lack of democracy that pervades the JC and AOC.We need to democratize the JC and recall the CJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 27, 2012
Lando, I have watched well-documented financial/familial corruption and cronyism on the Marin bench and in Marin administration get protection and promotion at the highest levels of the branch. That corruption and cronyism could not survive but for that high-level protection and promotion.
Central figures starring in these documented financial/familial corruption/cronyism scandals have been handpicked by the last two chief justices to serve in leadership positions. Kim Turner was placed on the judicial council and on multiple committees. Lynn Duryee was selected to sit on the CIC. Verna Adams was selected to sit on the SEC. A lot of people have called what these three have done in Marin (including but not limited to document destruction/file manipulation/coverups/patent cronyism) a lot of things over the years, but I do not believe “honest and not corrupt” are on the list.
Marin may be extreme, but the fact is, what has gone on in Marin unabated for years gives the entire branch a bad name. The fact that Turner, with her disgraceful professional record– documented in part by the AOC, for heaven’s sake!!!– sits on the judicial council and many, many high level leadership committees gives the branch a bad name.
Clearly, a lot of people have strong opinions about other branch members who have served for years in top leadership positions– Justice Huffman, for example.
It matters not if we disagree with respect to certain members of the branch serving in top leadership positions, Lando. The bottom line net result is the same. Top leadership must be democratically selected.
anna
April 29, 2012
Lando,
All one has to look at is the private discipline meted out by the CJP, and connect the dots. San Diego, has got to be the worst. The corruption of Ron Burkle, with HRH the 1st, and Girardi and Keese is indisputable.
The black robe of silence regarding the outright corruption, of the judiciary is no longer going to cut it.
San Diego makes Marin County look like a picnic. [Sorry Justice Cal] Verdicts are bought and paid for there.
Lando, if you want to have credibility, then the judiciary has to accept the responsibility for the carnage these cretins have left in their wake. That includes the lives they’ve ruined for whistle blowing, and the attorneys they’ve jailed, and disbarred, for taking them on.
Otherwise, you’re no better, you just want a power shift.
Wendy Darling
April 27, 2012
Not all judges on the California bench are honest and not corrupt. Many of them, yes. Most of them, probably. But all of them? No. Some of us have sat in meetings at 455 Golden Gate Avenue and personally heard certain members of the executive and OGC ranks talk about how useful it is to have “dirt” on judges, or members of their families, in order to control and manipulate those judges into doing what the Office of the Chief Justice and the AOC wants done, no matter how unethical, or just plain wrong, it is.
Exhiibt number one that not all judges are honest and not corrupt: the most recently departed Chief Justice. His hand picked “replacement”? As the saying goes, the apple does not fall far from the tree.
And Justice California you are correct; “protection” at and for the highest levels of judicial branch administration and the AOC is a higly valued reward at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, and is still being practiced daily, just as it was under the last Chief Justice.
Where is Justice Scotland’s SEC report? And why are Bill Vickrey and Ron Overholt still coming to “work”?
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
anna
April 29, 2012
Thank you Wendy, couldn’t have said it better myself.