“The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body — working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdication, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
–Thomas Jefferson (1821)
Judicial Council Watcher does not get a whole lot of posters commenting on the posts. It probably has something to do with our privacy statement. However, Judicial Council Watcher is gaining a large and fast growing base of readers and links from other sites and sources and is close to cresting a thousand readers.
Thank You.
Success is not measured merely by our ability to spread the message. Success is measured by what action you the reader is willing to undertake to bring about positive and productive change “for the benefit of all californians”
On 11/20 we surpassed 1000 readers
Judicial Council Watcher 
JusticeCalifornia
November 18, 2010
Well here we are. The state of our judiciary. I have been around the block, and seen a thing or two. But this story is right down there with the worst of them.
A Marin Superior Court commissioner was challenged for cause based in part upon an incident that occured in his courtroom (he refused to let a volunteer lawyer substitute in to assist an indigent pro per litigant who had been stripped of all custody of her only child although the Marin Superior court and this particular commissioner actively solicit volunteer lawyers to assist pro pers). The litigant invoked Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii), claiming that a person aware of the facts would reasonably doubt the commissioner’s ability to be impartial. The commissioner refused to remove himself, and signed a sworn statement that included his version of the “facts” about the incident. The CCP 170.1 challenge was denied.
The only problem is, the commissioner’s sworn version of what happened didn’t match the story told by the litigant and the volunteer lawyer—OR THE OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT. The Commissioner’s sworn statement wasn’t a little bit off, it wasn’t even close to the truth. In fact, it was the OPPOSITE of the truth.
The litigant reported the commissioner to the Marin presiding judge, the Commission on Judicial Performance, and others, and filed another CCP 170.1 challenge based on the fact that she now had stone cold proof (the transcript and his sworn statement) that the Commissioner had lied under oath.
Yesterday the Commissioner reportedly denied the second CCP 170.1 challenge himself, struck the second CCP 170.1 papers from the record, and proceeded to commence a two day evidentiary hearing in the case. After berating the pro per litigant for “not having anything nice to say” or words to that effect, he reportedly terminated the proceedings after 20 or so minutes, and vacated the trial without allowing the litigant to present evidence. ( Note: I wasn’t at this particular hearing so this information is second hand. The proceedings were unreported thanks to Marin’s new policy of sending available court reporters to their offices to sit quietly rather than out in the courtroom to memorialize interesting events like the above. Judicial Councilmember/Marin Court Executive Officer Kim Turner has reportedly opined that “court reporters are a pain in the ass” or words to that effect, and indeed, the Marin court has gotten into a lot of hot water in recent years based on transcribed memorialization of Marin court misconduct.)
Let’s see what happens. Would anyone like to venture a guess as to whether ANYONE in the judicial branch will do ANYTHING about the false sworn statement of the commissioner, and/or the fact that he reportedly denied a challenge based on that false sworn statement himself rather than having it sent out for review by an out-of-county judge?
Wendy Darling
November 18, 2010
One good guess, based upon the historical behavior of the California Judicial branch, the Judicial Council, and the AOC, is that they’ll all just repeat the commissioner’s and the Marin Court’s untruthful “offical version” of events, and order an kangaroo “investigation” that they’ll control, orchestrate, and issue a “report” on for the Judicial Council to adopt, clearing the commissioner, the Marin Court, and themselves of any misconduct or even ethical violations. After all, in Marin Court’s, the Judcial Council’s, and the AOC’s twisted view of things, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Especially if fixing it means taking any responsibility.
JusticeCalifornia
November 18, 2010
Well we have an official court reporter’s transcript, and the sworn statements of a litigant and an attorney vs. a patently false sworn statement of a terrifically compromised court commissioner in a terrifically compromised superior court led by a terrifically compromised presiding married judge (ummm….what exactly has been and is his relationship to his court clerk?) and a terrifically compromised Court Executive Officer who is also a terrifically compromised Judicial Councilmember who was selected to create CA court policy by a terrifically compromised Chief Justice who suddenly and unexpectedly retired at “his prime”.
So let’s see how Mary Roberts and John Judnick and the Commission on Judicial Performance and the Marin Court and the Appellate Court and perhaps the Supreme Court and the expensive private lawyers of all of the above members of the judicial branch players spin this baby.
Woo hoo.