Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu’s various writings and commentary on political structure were utilized by James Madison as an integral part of the framing of a document that we know as the U.S. Constitution. It was Montenesquieu’s belief that a separation of powers should exist between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government to ensure that no one branch developed too much power over the other two branches.
It was also Montenesquieu that lofted the theory of checks and balances between the three branches to ensure that the balance of power was held in check. Here in California’s judicial branch, we tend to embrace the separation of powers and set aside checks and balances as an invasion of that separation, stoking the coals as a threat to the independence of the judiciary.
So when the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) a combined audit committee comprised of both state senators and assemblypersons votes to audit what appears to be impropriety, an almost natural course of business takes place wherein the judicial branch steps up and says “We police our own due to separation of powers.”
Obviously, the Judicial Council is not doing a very good job on that policing part. Some would go as far as saying they actually protect criminal activity within the branch, which brings us full circle to Marin County’s trial courts and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee’s audit of family court operations.
The JLAC audit was ordered in mid 2009 in response to numerous complaints to legislators on the incestuous relationships between judges on the bench and they law firms they hold a stake in that work the family court business. Allegations of the person with the deeper pockets winning custody over a less wealthy opponent are commonplace throught california in general, even when the person with deeper pockets has a rap sheet as long as your arm that might include them being classified as a sex offender.
While the AOC makes no effort to investigate such allegations. The judicial council makes little to no effort to enforce the California rules of the court. As a result, there is a loophole that exists that assumes that the judicial body in any given locale actually follows the rules.
If they’re not following the rules there is a marked lack of an accountability mechanism to hold them accountable. Where is one supposed to turn when everybody who sits in front of the bar has judicial immunity or quasi-judicial immunity and no one is following either the rules or a minimal ethical standards? What mechanisms exist to prevent kickbacks? What laws need to be changed to ensure the integrity of the system and eliminate conflicting interests?
What does it take to ensure every california judge or assigned judge files a form 700?
While the Marin JLAC audit would be delayed for nearly a year by court executive and judicial council member Kim Turner pushing off the auditors under some flimsy “privacy of the parties involved” concerns, Kim Turner was simultaneously destroying mediators notes associated with those files, claiming they were not a part of the court records.
Of course, these notes would likely have played an important part in the JLAC’s understanding of what’s going on in Marin. But the separation of powers argument made its way into the matter with report written by Mr. John Judnick that concluded that these notes were not a part of the official court record. Even if they were the basis for the court’s decisions. Last Friday, October 29 this matter was foisted in front of the Judicial Council and they worked out a methodology of accepting reports from John Judnick’s IAD group and distinguishing acceptance from approval of his report. They outlined no mechanism for approval or endorsing the report.
John Judnick is hardly independent and comes to the conclusions that he is instructed to come to. The speed under which he came to and drafted his report to protect Kim Turner’s behavior calls into question why has he not similarly reported or released his findings on the unlicensed contractor debacle, which is a year older than the Turner destruction debacle. I would surmise it has to do with him being directly involved in ensuring the unlicensed contractors became licensed. He was too busy cleaning up the mess and covering it up to objectively write a report explaining how this not only comes about but how it continues unabated to this day. It’s pretty clear that Mr. Judnick’s sole objective is to protect the AOC and Judicial Council members. This is why his department exists as a group within the finance department and not an entirely independent group. This structure allows all the kinks in such reporting to be sanitized and worked out long before the Judicial Council accepts them. It’s also pretty clear that the Judicial Council, by accepting the report of John Judnick, that they are relying on him to be the sole determinant, the producer of conclusions and the investigator that will legitimize improper activity. It matters not that he has no law degree, he has no accounting degree and he is not a certified auditor. As illustrated by both the unlicensed contractor debacle and the Stephen Doyne debacle, credentials do not matter.
Wendy Darling
November 6, 2010
Posted today, November 6, 2010, in The Sacramento Bee, from John Ortiz:
Our story in today’s Bee looks at the deal worked out to allow federally appointed prison medical receiver J. Clark Kelso to keep his state employee status while working at the pleasure of U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson.
The story explains how Kelso is a consultant to the Administrative Office of the Courts for payroll purposes. The arrangement allows him to maintain independence from the executive and legislative branches of government — key to his role as the federal appointee tasked with reforming the state’s prison medical system — while continuing his membership in CalPERS as a state employee.
Click here to read several documents that informed this story, including the receiver’s employment agreement between the Administrative Office of the Courts and the nonprofit California Prison Health Care Receivership Corp., Henderson’s order appointing Kelso as the receiver, Kelso’s biography and two letters from Henderson to the AOC about the deal.
One of Kelso’s former employees, Linda Buzzini, asked CalPERS to count her employment as a receivership staff attorney toward her CalPERS pension. The fund denied her request. This link downloads CalPERS’ 10-page response, which was copied to Kelso and CalPERS CEO Anne Stausboll.
http://www.sacbee.com
judicialcouncilwatcher
November 6, 2010
Mr. Ortiz shares with the reader but does not point out the obvious; that Linda Buzzini and Mr. Kelso shared many of the same reasons that Linda Buzzini was denied credit.
JusticeCalifornia
November 6, 2010
Judicial Council Watcher–how nice it is to have a place to once again share ideas and news.
I have to respectfully disagree with Judicial Council Watcher’s statement in the initial post that “the judicial branch remains steadfast in their ability to stay on message and promote their own agenda.”
AOC watcher forever exposed the real judicial branch message that has been promoted by certain top members of the AOC and the Judicial Council: “If you mess with us we will destroy you. We do what we want, it’s our way or the highway, the law doesn’t apply to us, just ask ANYONE.”
If you ask me, I predict certain out-of-control top leadership branch bullies are going to implode, dragging their protectors down with them.
I have lots of updates, and look forward to communicating with my old AOC watcher friends.
Where to start? Hmmmm. This weekend I will preview some of the MANY brewing scandals I anticipate will rival the Kim Turner/AOC child custody evidence destruction debacle. In so doing, I invite you all to consider how many millions the judicial branch has spent on lawyers, spinmeisters, shredders and “cleaners” (did you know that is what Mr. Judnick is called by AOC employees?) to cover up Judicial Branch misconduct.
Brewing Scandal number one:
Notwithstanding the Judicial Council claims of continuing financial hard times, Judicial Councilmember Kim Turner’s Marin County Court has been appointing minor’s counsel for children of certain well-connected multi-millionaires– at taxpayer expense (the parents are supposed to pay if they can afford it—see Family Code section 3153).
At the same time, the Marin court is saddling financially challenged litigants in other cases with backbreaking orders for payment of minor’s counsel’s fees.
Naughty, naughty Marin court. Again.
According to AOC Office of General Counsel Mary Roberts, this has “been referred to the AOC’s Internal Audit Services pursuant to policy.”
judicialcouncilwatcher
November 6, 2010
….and Mary Roberts is drafting what John Judnick/IAD will be saying about these matters, which will be something to the effect of “move along folks, no story here, nothing to see” Welcome back to the “other watcher” Wendy Darling and Justice California.
JusticeCalifornia
November 6, 2010
My thought is this. OGC lead attorney Mary Roberts, our current Chief Justice Ron George, and our future Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye must, to the extent possible, be personally and promptly apprised of all compromising third branch information. Forget John Judnick and other superfluous players.
What the old and new Chief Justice(s) and AOC OGC do with the information is up to them, but they must know they are being closely watched.
Once informed they cannot say they did not know. And to the extent they then make or encourage administrative, legal and/or policy decisions that a) purposefully perpetuate known bad/illegal behavior, or b) purposefully keep known bad actors on the judicial branch payroll, or in advisory positions, and/or c) purposefully spend taxpayer money covering up known bad (and many say illegal) judicial branch behavior, well, that is up to them– they cannot say they did not know.
Re Roberts: if she is going to delegate the task of giving official Judicial Council/AOC legal opinions to non-lawyer/AOC cleaners and spinmeisters, and purposefully induce public and trial court reliance on incomplete and misleading AOC non-lawyer/cleaner’s “reports” at the expense of the public the third branch is supposed to serve, it is her bar ticket on the line. She knows better.
So do those on the Judicial Council.
Let’s put the responsibility for the corruption going on unabated in our judicial branch where it belongs: on those “setting policy” for the judicial branch of the State of California. The Judicial Council. What is that old saying? “Monkey see, monkey do” (Per Wikipedia: the act of mimicry, usually with limited knowledge of the consequences).
Judicial Councilmember Kim Turner is presently a very dangerous and compromising policy-setting Judicial Council monkey. No one on the Judicial Council or in the AOC can say they do not know that.
Let’s see what happens.
SF Whistle
November 7, 2010
I am honestly curious about your thoughts here—
Do you feel that Mary Roberts and the “CJ’s” actually do not know what’s going on? Is Kim Turner really a “policy-setting” player, or is she a functionary.? In Turner’s situation it seems like she was installed in Marin to keep a lid on one of the worst courts in the State. It strikes me that her rise in rank to the Council is a payback for loyalty, services rendered etc.
When you write of “personally and promptly apprising” Roberts and the CJ’s—-?–How do you propose to do this?—I suggest preparation of a comprehensive package that outlines all “compromising” behavior….”known bad/illegal behavior” as well as the players identified for bad acts. Prepare such a package and deliver it to the AOC in a very public fashion—a large group of concerned persons and media in attendance hand deliver the package. Placing them “on notice”, I believe, should be an act that is memorable and includes a call for reform and a demand for a response, rather than giving them the opportunity to treat the information as they wish—
As hard as this fact is to process—–these people actually are employees of the State of California. I realize they do not believe they are accountable—-but the longer we permit them to ascert their invincibility and deflect any efforts to demand accountability, the more we enable them.
My summary: Yes—prepare a comprehensive list of all known sins of commission and omission and present it to the AOC at a media event. We should not simply put them on notice—we should demand that the media pay closer attention to this tragic malignancy growing and festering in the branch.
JusticeCalifornia
November 7, 2010
San Francisco Whistle,
Why report directly to George, Cantil-Sakauye and Roberts?
1. Chief Justice George must remain informed because he is responsible for what happens until he is replaced. I personally believe that Chief Justice George is intimately familiar with the details of the corruption in the CA court system, and that he has at different times engineered, facilitated, and covered it up. This belief is based on personal observations and experiences, all extraordinarily well-documented, and many of which were discussed on AOC watcher. They include but are not limited to the blueprint to attain unfettered, entrenched judical power revealed at the November 2006 Judicial Summit; judicial campaign contribution issues and the CIC; the development of the Bench/Bar coalition, which creates patent conflict-of-interest situations like the Nava/Ulmer shakedown; the orchestrated handling of CCP 170.1’s which always seem accompanied by extraordinary procedural irregulaties; the mafia-like system of threats, rewards and punishment going on in the third branch (think Richard Fine as an extreme example); the violation of the public trust and laws by members of the third branch, which clearly offend public sensibilities and undermine the trust and confidence in the bench (there are too many examples to name but SBX 211 and the Marin document destruction are a couple); the appointment of clearly inappropriate individuals with obvious problematic pasts to key positions (think Kim Turner and Fuentes) for pretty obvious reasons–to do dirty deeds; and so much more.
2. To be clear: I do NOT put Justice Cantil-Sakauye in the same category as Justice George in terms of culpability in engineering, facilitating and covering up court corruption. As far as I am concerned she has presently has a clean slate. I know others disagree.
She must be given the information she needs to evaluate what is truly going on in the branch. Then, what she does when she takes the reins in January is her responsibility. She will earn her own reputation.
3. Re Roberts: After watching, up close and personal, non-lawyer, non professional “investigator”/cleaner John Judnick a) write a cursory, incomplete and misleading report that purports to give legal advice and that encourages statewide trial court destruction of important child custody evidence; b) wait until the Judicial Council meeting to reveal that his legal advice supposedly came from OGC; and c) lie to the Judicial Council about whether new issues about the document destruction had been raised since his report had been written, I personally believe that the best way to deal with problematic legal issues is discuss them directly with Mary Roberts. If she, with full knowledge of the facts, endeavors to mislead her clients or the public she serves in any way, she will then be directly responsible.
As for Kim Turner, I believe she has helped engineer and is an integral part of the corruption that has taken place in Marin County and now the state as a whole. She is leading the Judicial Council down her well-traveled “garden path” and as such she is very effectively destroying the Judicial Council’s reputation. It is only going to get worse as new bad acts surface. Her bad acts should be and will be viewed as having Judicial Council blessing and setting official Judicial Council “policy”. Chief Justice George and everyone at the Judicial Council are going to have to take responsibility for her. The longer she stays on that Council the longer the entire branch will viewed as supportive of her behavior, and all will be painted with the same brush she is.
How to report bad acts to the Roberts, George and Cantil-Sakauye? Well, this is what the AOC report on Marin tells us: VERY CAREFULLY and perhaps anonymously. (Or, as you suggest, and if it is possible, publicly with the support of — or through– a group.) If you give your name you may a) be publicly “outed” which may bother those who (unlike Barbara Kauffman) are not already publicly visible court critics; and b) be given AOC whistleblower treatment (which is apparently to be targeted for harassment, discredited, and fired.) And keep copies of everything because your communications may very well end up in a published AOC “report”, and they may be edited.
For example, on July 2, 2010, Lynn Holton said this, in an e-mailed response to claims the Marin Court had destroyed custody mediation files:
“In response to your e-mail below, please be advised that no Superior Court of Marin County custody mediation files have been destroyed by the court. It appears that Marin Family Court Services mediator Meredith Braden misspoke during her deposition when she testified that the mediators were “no longer keeping files. They were all destroyed.” In the past, handwritten notes—not court files—used by the mediators to prepare the official court reports were not retained after the reports were prepared; the official reports then became part of the court files. My understanding is that the court’s current practice (since the beginning of this year) is to maintain the handwritten notes. Please be assured that no court files have been or are being destroyed.
Lynn
CC: Chief Justice George and Assemblymember Dave Jones”
That erroneous e-mail denial was edited out of the e-mail chain that was attached to the AOC Judnick report, which report admitted that in fact a) normal Marin practice had been to KEEP mediation handwritten notes and files for five years and b) after the state audit commenced entire mediation working files had been destroyed, with AOC approval. Another Holton e-mail was also edited out. The AOC/Judicial Council flip-flopped on the issue before the Judnick report came out admitting the document destruction.
Makes you wonder what was edited out of the Turner/Adams/AOC/Marin Family Court Services e-mail chains. . . . .
judicialcouncilwatcher
November 8, 2010
A gunney sgt once told me that when he wants my opinion, he will give it to me. Mr.Judnick has no opinion that is not given to him.
SF Whistle
November 6, 2010
Speaking of “checks and balances”—-an issue that bubbled to the top of the sewage in San Francisco elections is all about “checks”. I am attaching a link to an article about SF Superior Court former Presiding Judge McBride, Justice Kline and “other judges” ordering Past Bar Association Presidents and representatives of most of the largest law firms in the City to a meeting at Pillsbury, Sutro…..the meeting is now described as a financial “shakedown”—–a demand for “checks”—this article forms a fine statement about the quality of our judiciary. Do you suppose that if John Judnick was requested to “investigate” this situation he would find anything improper?—I have personally submitted a complaint to the CJP asking them to ascertain how many Judges were at this meeting, how much money was raised from whom—and if per chance any of the attorneys ordered to the meeting ever-ever have cases heard by any of these Judges…..?
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-10-29/opinion/24545598_1_judges-independence-judiciary
SF Whistle
November 7, 2010
JusticeCalifornia–
Thanks for elaborating your strategy on documenting and reporting—-I heartily agree that a delivery to CJ’s and Mary Roberts is a very appropriate step. I do again, suggest that this delivery is made a public event….If the media will not participate we can make the same delivery upon media. I understand very natural concerns about judicial retaliation and perhaps a safer delivery strategy should involve persons that don’t have a bar card at risk—Ms Kauffman does not need to become emblematic and it would be great to involve others. It seems to me that this package could be a jointly prepared project. As example, Michael Paul has been so strong in articulating all that he has witnessed….I am aware there are other complaints about the AOC regarding embezzlement, the monies paid Judges beyond salaries that Mr. Fine reported and sacrificed so much to surface…the document destruction in Marin—-Can this package be a collaborative work—-This could provide a great opportunity for a coordination of efforts and energy—-there really is strnegth and power in unity of purpose and will–
Wendy Darling
November 7, 2010
San Francisco Whistle wrote: “As hard as this fact is to process—–these people actually are employees of the State of California. I realize they do not believe they are accountable—-but the longer we permit them to ascert their invincibility and deflect any efforts to demand accountability, the more we enable them.”
Not just “employees of the State of California”, or even just “any” employee of the State of California — many of them are also officers of the court. such as judges and attorneys, including the attorneys in the AOC’s Office of General Counsel, all of whom have a sworn duty not to just uphold the laws of the State of California, but also a sworn and affirmative duty to uphold and enforce them.
And Justice California wrote: “As for Kim Turner … she is leading the Judicial Council down her well-traveled “garden path” and as such she is very effectively destroying the Judicial Council’s reputation.”
One can only lead others where they are willing, if not eager, to follow. And as for “destroying the Judicial Council’s reputation,” there isn’t really anything left of that worth being concerned about.
JusticeCalifornia
November 7, 2010
I said I would give a preview of upcoming Judicial Branch debacles this weekend (as I did with the Marin document destruction issue on AOC watcher, many months in advance).
Here we go:
A. As previously reported, Judicial Councilmember Kim Turner is still sending available paid court reporters to their offices to sit quietly, instead of to family law courtrooms to do their jobs, thereby depriving litigants of transcripts of key family court custody and financial proceedings unless the litigants can afford to hire their own court reporters. Or, Turner is sending available trial court reporters to non-essential court reporting courtrooms, thereby requiring litigants to hire (if they can afford to hire) private court reporters for essential civil trials and proceedings.
B. The Marin Superior Court is denying indigent pro per litigants the assistance of available volunteer pro bono representation in certain “political” cases, while soliciting volunteer pro bono representation for litigants in other cases. Yes it is true. A Marin lawyer offered to represent a financially disadvantaged pro per litigant but was told by the trial court that she could not, and then, the trial court judge lied about the incident under penalty of perjury after the litigant challenged the judge pursuant to CCP 170.1. Luckily, the litigant had requested a court reporter for the proceedings during which she was denied representation. Without a transcript, she could never have proven the judge lied, and she was telling the truth. Oh, those pesky transcripts. God bless our court reporters. . . .
C. Two longtime employees of Judicial Councilmember Kim Turner (Marin Family Court Services recommending mediators Braden and Wu) have been caught red-handed telling a litigant during her child custody mediation that her mediation working file was intact, when in reality it had been destroyed. And these mediators are the same “professionals” who have provided “evidence” THEY believe is “relevant” in thousands of child custody recommendations—which recommendations have been and are routinely rubber-stamped by Marin trial judges.
D. Rumor has it Judicial Councilmember Kim Turner has borrowed a page from the AOC playbook (which she helped write?) and told Marin Superior Court clerks they can no longer talk to each other during work hours. I assume the Marin Superior Court clerks are now on standby for other reported (on AOC watcher) oppressive AOC employee control techniques, to wit: having secret cameras installed to watch their every move; having their cubicles and private belongings searched; having keystroke monitors installed on their computers.
E. And here’s the real bombshell– and this affects a whole lot of lawyers and litigants and others out there who ought to be sitting up and taking notice. I hear and have personally observed that certain court personnel and courts have implemented special unofficial and prejudicial “procedures” regarding various issues (say, pesky CCP 170.1 challenges) or pesky pro per litigants or lawyers or others who are on the wrong side of a case and/or are not following the “party line”. Marin has been doing it for a long time (thank goodness some of us have been faithfully reporting procedural irregularities to the Commission on Judicial Performance for years now– so when this issue blows there is already a nice supporting record)–but San Francisco seems to be trying to make up for lost time. . . .2009-2010 were big years, as far as I can tell. Secret “blacklisting” in the judicial branch, such that the branch purposefully rewards those who tow the party line, and secretly and prejudicially harasses, hinders and/or punishes those who don’t, opens a mighty interesting and ugly legal can of worms. Can you say “RICO”?
JusticeCalifornia
May 30, 2014
“If you ask me, I predict certain out-of-control top leadership branch bullies are going to implode, dragging their protectors down with them.” –JusticeCalifornia, 11/6/2010
AND SO IT BEGINS, for Marin Court Executive Officer/former Judicial Council Member Kim Turner and Marin Commissioner-turned-Judge Beverly Wood.
I predict it’s going to be a long hot summer for these two.
Issuing certified copies of a court register of actions and an unsigned minute order that were falsified to make it look like a minute order of Wood was entered on a day it wasn’t, when the date of entry is of pivotal importance in a case, seems to be a pretty serious offense, as far as I can tell. At least in other states.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/houston/article/DA-still-could-indes-5464447.phpict-Pratt-if-new-evidence-aris
http://www.fox19.com/story/24416327/grand-jury-indicts-judge-tracie-hunter
Being told by Former Judicial Council Member/Marin Court Executive Officer Kim Turner that the falsified records were all that were needed appears to be an aggravating factor.
Kim Turner, 11/8/2013, 4:05 p.m. to litigant/mom’s lawyer: “The court is under no obligation to respond to the litany of questions about who entered minutes, on what date, at what time, whether the minutes were amended, what orders have been served, by whom, and other like inquiries. The minutes pertaining to the hearings and ex parte proceedings in the above matter are in the public register of actions. All judicial orders are also in the register of actions. All documents filed and proofs of service, when filed, are in the court file. The register of actions and the documents contained in the court file provide you with answers to those questions to which you are entitled to answers.”
Wood’s subsequent refusal to promptly act on the litigant/mom’s formal request — made first via ex parte proceeding and then noticed motion –for an official endorsed filed Notice of Entry of Order reflecting the date the minute order was entered would appear to be an aggravating factor. Instead the hearing on mom’s request was set almost six weeks out, and then taken under submission by Wood.
90 days came and went, no ruling on the submitted request for Notice of Entry. . . . .but in the meantime Wood issued pages and pages of other orders accusing the litigant/mom and her lawyer of being paranoid and “obsessed with procedural minutiae “. Seems like an aggravating factor.
Can it get any better? Yes. This happened in a case where dad, a multimillionaire, is a former client of Wood’s infamous law firm, Freitas McCarthy. Dad’s former Freitas McCarthy lawyer, Ali Quam, now works at the Marin Family Law self-help center and he can get free advice there. He doesn’t have or need a lawyer. He has repeatedly gone to Wood ex parte, on non-emergency matters, without notice to mom’s attorney or opportunity for mom to be heard, and gotten secret orders from Wood that were not served on mom or her lawyer by the court or dad for weeks after the fact. The orders were unavailable to mom in the court records department because Wood had sequestered the file. Dad invariably prevails in Wood’s courtroom although he doesn’t have to serve proper moving papers, file responsive papers to Mom’s proper motions, appear at hearings, or follow Wood’s orders. When he defiantly told Wood he would not give notice and serve mom’s lawyer with his third secret ex parte application, instead of sending him packing Wood continued the hearing one day and had her court clerk provide service and notice for this millionaire dad, on the public dime. Seems like aggravating factors.
It gets better. The falsified order in question? After five prohibited ex parte proceedings/communications between Dad and the Court, Mom filed a CCP 170.1 request to disqualify Wood for depriving her of her Constitutional due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Wood orally struck the disqualification herself the day it was served, but entered no order at all until 25 days later. The problem is, a) she should have deferred the issue of her disqualification to someone else, and b) having undertaken to strike it herself, she was supposed to officially act within 10 days of service of the disqualification, and an order isn’t valid until it’s entered in writing. . . .
No problem. The certified minute order and register of actions were backdated 25 days to make it look like the minute order was entered on the day Wood was served with and orally struck the disqualification.
Turner and Wood dare not do anything now. If a Notice of Entry of Order with the correct date Wood’s order striking the disqualification is issued, the order is arguably void on its face because it was untimely entered— not to mention it would provide an official court document proving the prior date entries in the certified register of actions and certified minute order were falsified. If Wood issues a Notice of Entry reflecting the falsified date. . . . .well, time to pack her judicial robes because there is written proof it was not.
Does it get better? Yes. Wood was reported to the Commission on Judicial Performance on 3/23/10 by another lawyer in another case for having her clerk retroactively, without notice, substantively alter a minute order to fix a little due process problem Wood had.
You saw it first on JCW. This current extraordinarily well documented record of misconduct by Wood and Turner has been a grueling year in the making, without breathing a word here on JCW or to oversight entities (to embolden these two into thinking they were untouchable.)
Yep. It’s going to be a long hot summer. Rumor has it that lots of people up at the Marin Civic Center think Wood and Turner have gone off the grid. One has to wonder if Wood and Turner will quietly resign right now or force another John Montgomery type Marin scandal. (Oh yes. Remember that one-half of the Marin Court employees signed a petition asking that Turner not be hired by the Marin bench to replace Montgomery as Court Executive Officer after he was indicted on multiple felony counts of conflict of interest?) One thing for sure– prior to this latest evidence tampering debacle, complaints and concerns about these two have been made to the Governor, the Legislature, the Attorney General, the JNE commission, the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Judicial Council, two Chief Justices, the CJP, the Marin presiding judges and so many more. Those in power are not going to be able to say they didn’t know and were not warned. . . .
Cheers.