Going on some two years now, those of us in the press have been sitting back and watching all of these issues unfold in the judicial branch that invite the same consistent response – and that response is to form a committee.
God knows my own skepticism about huffman/vickrey committees is no secret.
In our discussions with other broadcasters and journalists, their skepticism is no secret either, yet in the interests of being as objective and unbiased as possible, those who haven’t been following the JC/AOC have a tendency to grant credibility to a body of people assembled to resolve difficult questions. Those that remain highly skeptical like myself and most of the other media covering the AOC over the past two years either surpresses that skepticism in their reporting or loathe to point out the results of previous committees formed to answer difficult questions or manage difficult problems.
Reporters generally loathe taking on the credibility of a body of work presented by a body of persons. We usually just shake our head at the results produced by these committees and mumble about the JC/AOC being an insular fiefdom that will do anything to protect its own. Tomorrow we will again try to continue to objectively report the news without making a whole lot of enemies on some committee and having our editors hand us our head for all the trouble we created for them.
This restraint that I speak of is fading fast and with ample reason. We all witnessed King George last year proclaim his dedication to transparency and accountability and in this bold proclamation he declared that this committee was being formed to deal with these issues. Yet, the only thing this committee managed was a retroactive pay increase? Excuse my biting cynicism. You’ll note that numerous reporters covering the JC/AOC now have the same skeptical view because the proof is in the pudding. The JC/AOC has given us numerous examples and has been fairly consistent about rotating in largely the same group of players into these key committees formed to find resolutions and adding a few new names we haven’t seen before. But they are dominated largely by the same key group of players time after time, committee after committee.
The latest SEC committee is no exception. We posted “Rocketman” from Sir Elton John to express our biting cynicsm about shuttling these people out to mars to take a good hard look at the AOC’s operations here on earth.
Yesterday, Cheryl Miller allowed her own skepticism to show for the same reasons. We’ve seen the same from courthouse news, metnews and the daily journal. Many of us in media are leary of these bodies of people being formed to meet that produce no – or unexpected- results. Whatever happened to management? The concept that the manager is in charge and is obligated as the manager to look after their own operations? Why even bother to assemble a body of supporters and evangelists at all if you’re serious and you want to come across as being credible?
What concrete steps as an “Accomplished Administrator” has our chief justice undertaken with respect to many of the items denoted on this site? What concrete steps is the SEC committee going to take to understand various AOC operations?
In our mind, Art Scotland’s committee lacks any credibility whatsoever if its first act is not picking up the phone and having discussions with a few whistleblowers as part of the agenda of the first or second meeting.
When the same aircraft falls out of the sky time after time, you don’t hear the FAA bragging about its safety record. You see the FAA immediately undertake failure analysis. Something happened and we need to figure out what happened in order to fix it. This does not appear to be the Judicial Council way. Rather, we will form a committee and never broach the subject of the several two-ton elephants in the room.
Failure analysis starts out with reaching out Michael Paul, Jon Wintermeyer and Paula Negley and several other employees terminated by the AOC and having a complete understanding of their observations before you go view those operations of the AOC.
A failure to do anything less is simply not credible.
Judicial Council Watcher 
wendy darling
March 30, 2011
“When the same aircraft falls out of the sky time after time, you don’t hear the FAA bragging about its safety record. You see the FAA immediately undertake failure analysis.”
Actually, when the same aircraft falls out of the sky time after time, the first thing the FAA does is order the planes to be grounded, and then immediately undertakes failure analysis before allowing the planes to fly again, as opposed to allowing the planes to continue to fall out of the sky, hoping the problem will just resolve itself if enough time passes, while telling the horrified public they’re forming a committee to look into the matter and “it’s time to move on.”
No, here in California we leave that kind of insane management style to the Judicial Council and the AOC, and call it “best practices.”
The last thing the California Judicial Branch needs at this point is another “committee.” Especially one that is formed for the real purpose of just stalling for “more time” in order to get past the current legislative session, and one in which virtually all of the seats are filled with Judicial Council puppets. See any members of the Alliance of California Judges on that committee roster? It’s hard to believe that Judge Lampe, Judge White, Judge Gilliard, Judge Horan, Judge Hollenhurst, Judge Goldstein, Judge Woodhull, and others of the ACJ, were all unavailable. Lipstick on a pig … indeed.
As already observed, it’s just another reiteration of The Emperor’s New Clothes.
At this point, here’s a good rule of thumb: if the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC are endorsing it or supporting it, head as fast as you can in the opposite direction; if they’re opposing it or fighting against it (outside investigations, legislation, audits), that’s probably a good direction to head for and support. Right now, that direction appears to be Sacramento and the State Legislature. Otherwise, the Judicial Council and the AOC wouldn’t be so afraid of it.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
March 31, 2011
If the FAA ran their business like the Judicial Council runs their business, planes falling out of the sky would be a daily occurrence.
I’ll let you know if Justice Scotland calls. I’ll also let you know I won’t be holding my breath or standing by the phone waiting.
JusticeCalifornia
March 31, 2011
I listened to the CJ’s latest radio propaganda endeavor, and thought– oh my lord, she is either incredibly naive and inexperienced, or???
She advises litigants who have concerns about judicial bias to first write to the judge in question (ex parte contact that will surely inflame the judge and everyone involved in the case), and then the presiding judge (now who will that judge listen to– a “disgruntled litigant” or a fellow bench member), and then the Commission on Judicial Performance – (which, the CJ assures the public, is staffed by lawyers and members of the public, without any mention of the three judges appointed by the Supreme Court). She never mentions CCP 170.1 relief. . .
In her radio propaganda piece the CJ opines about judicial prejudices/biases/personal opinions — found at minute 20:25 above, she states:
“I believe that in my 20 years I have not ever seen a judge be influenced by his or her personal beliefs on the matter.”
Yeah right.
For years Marin litigants have been complaining about Marin court cronyism and misconduct, to anyone and everyone— only to be shut down each and every time, and forced to watch carefully orchestrated coverups take place at the highest levels. For example, a CCP 170.1 ethical challenge of Marin Judge Verna Adams was assigned by Ron George to a judge who had been publicly admonished by Commission on Judicial Performance (and there are darn few of those) for backdating an order and lying about it. An ethical challenge of Marin Judge Lynn Duryee was assigned by Ron George to one of Duryee’s close colleagues on the California Courts magazine. Brad Campbell, of the AOC’s assigned judges program, explained this obvious conflict away by saying the AOC didn’t keep a conflicts list.
Marin court crimes were reported to the sheriff’s office, who refused to take a complaint, saying “it is a judicial council matter”. Marin Court misconduct is reported to the Commission on Judicial Performance, which (unbeknownst to the public, because this isn’t stated anywhere, but was stated at a Judicial Council meeting) won’t act while the case is pending before the problematic judge, and rarely acts anyway.
And check out the oh-so-political membership of the CJP, headed by Judicial Council loyalist McConnell (who was the one who reported to the JC that the CJP doesn’t take action while a case is pending before a judge). http://cjp.ca.gov/index.php?id=19
Among other things, McConnell served as a judge on the embattled San Diego County Family Court.
Erica Yew is the newest member of the CJP, from Santa Clara County. I don’t know anything about her, but can I just say this? Five or six years ago, I witnessed a year or so of amazing Santa Clara County Family Court misconduct that was carefully documented. In the last week, I was informed of heightened retaliatory activity related to that documented year of misconduct. It was therefore interesting to see that concurrently, Santa Clara County has now appeared as having over 30 bench members signing on to oppose court reform.
The Santa Clara family court was subject of a blistering family court report by Karen Winner (as were the Marin and Sacramento family courts), and the Santa Clara Court (as a whole) and Marin Family Court have been subject of ongoing complaints and protests over the years.
As a side note, did you all hear? Now the California Judge’s Association has started a PAC so it can enlist active sitting judges to raise money to support judges charged with incompetency during retention elections.
I have three points to make.
First, there is virtually no oversight in the branch.
Second, brutal third branch oppression and coverup of judicial misconduct has done nothing but trash the branch’s credibility, eliminate the public’s trust and confidence in the branch, and increase the resolve of the oppressed. Look around. Activists are organizing, and getting LOUDER.
Third, the world is learning that this same oppression and coverup of misconduct is taking place within top leadership and the AOC.
IMHO, the new CJ, with her selection of SEC members, has once again delivered a stunningly arrogant and out-of touch public performance, as she did during the Marin County Bar Association general meeting. Her message:
“I may be inexperienced, but it makes me really mad when someone tries to give me advice, because no one is going to tell me what to do, other than those who brought me to this wonderfully unexpected position of absolute power that I am clearly not equipped to handle”.
The status quo is not working. It will not be tolerated. So very many people, inside and outside the branch have been harmed.
And if status quo loyalists think SB 1208 is going to upset their apple cart, it should consider what the CA judicial branch as a whole is courting (no pun intended)—in ignoring the blazing red flags, flying everywhere, that corrupt third branch business as usual is simply not acceptable to the public anymore.
If the branch won’t clean itself up, and if the new CJ and her Ron George minions continue to thumb their noses at those in the executive and legislative branch, then the branch will face the wrath of the public, and THE DEMOLITION OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. California blazes new trails (the current branch disintegration is a case in point), and I do believe if things continue as they are, it will blaze this one.
Don’t you all get it yet? Oppression will not be tolerated here. The public will ultimately make sure of that.
SF Whistle
March 31, 2011
Here’s the scoop on the CJP—and Hon. Judith McConnell–
http://www.noethics.net/News/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=663:is-justice-judith-mcconnell-of-san-diego-an-enabler-and-apologist-for-judicial-misfits-yes&catid=34:judicial-misfits&Itemid=55
Michael Paul
April 2, 2011
I followed the Chief Justice’s advice before she ever gave it and wrote her directly JusticeCalifornia.
The reply I recieved was not from the chief justice but William Kasley, Assistant Director of the Office of Government Counsel instructing me to limit my contact to just John Judnick if I had anything to report.
I was taken aback by her advice having tried it myself.
Our Chief Justice is disingenuous and sadly, not credible.
SF Whistle
March 31, 2011
Bravo-BRAVO—JusticeCalifornia…..
CJ George carefully constructed a new Judicial Branch that demands total conrol–
Court tactics are now all about RETALIATION AND INTIMIDATION–
Systems are well-established to immediately silence any litigant or attorney with the nerve (or foolhardy enough) to challenge Judicial conduct—
The CJP is a total joke—-a silly little place for complaints to go and die—-LOOK at the “Pending Cases” page on the CJP website—-IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE THAT NOT A SINGLE CASE HAS BEEN FILED IN 2011???? YOU WILL NOT FIND ONE CASE OPENED IN 2011………..
170.1 Challenges are a larger joke—-a silly little mechanism that exists in the code—however the dirty little secret is that all 170.1 challenges are assigned by a single person in the AOC—-and what a coincidence—-a challenge is almost always referred for review by a Judge with a troubled history—-
It is time for meaningful organized opposition—It is time for a California State Initiative that imposes the reform we vitally need —-or do we remain a banana republic with a theocratic iron-fisted rule???
Judicial Immunity must be limited—The JC must be a democracy–not comprised of sycophants —170.1 challenges should be properly assigned—THE CJP NEEDS TO BE A REAL—HONEST–FUNCTIONING AGENCY—
Tim Fall
March 31, 2011
Dear SF Whistle:
I have received several assignments to decide 170.1/170.3 challenges over the years. I have known a number of other judges who have also received those assignments. Your implication that those assignments are meaningless is as far off base as can be imagined. The work I do in deciding these challenges meets the same standards I employ in my other judicial duties. Unless you have solid facts to back up your suggestion that these are by and large corrupt proceedings (not innuendo and not speculation, but a large body of evidence concerning a large number of cases), this type of smear on the judges deciding 170.1/170.3 matters is unhelpful.
Tim Fall
Judge, Yolo Superior Court
SF Whistle
March 31, 2011
Judge Fall,
I write this as no smear on Judges—
My question to you is how many times have you received a 170.1 complaint for review since Brad Campbell assumed the role of directing where complaints are assigned?—-I do have information that would cause anyone to be persuaded that there is a clear pattern of recent assignments being directed to Judges that have themselves been challenged or a “troubled history”…
I do not believe that anyone can make the case that the 170.1 system as it exists today is meaningful….
I am able to provide you with personal history that would cause anyone to cringe—
With the greatest respect for your opinion I would also welcome learning from you if you feel that the CJP has any relevance…or shread of integrity? How does one explain the FACT that through 3 months of an entire year they have not filed ONE complaint?
Tim Fall
March 31, 2011
I’m still getting assignments.
TLF
JusticeCalifornia
March 31, 2011
Dear Judge Fall,
As a whistleblowing attorney who has “made the record” of judicial misconduct for years, I have prepared and filed, and/or consulted regarding many 170.1’s, and have the records of the amazing machinations and irregularities that have gone down in so many (but not all) of them. The machinations/irregularities have often occured at the AOC and/or the challenged judge’s trial court rather than in the reviewing court — but they have also at times occurred in the reviewing court. Really, really, amazing, amazing, machinations and irregularities. Have my 170.1’s been treated differently than others? Perhaps. I certainly know Brad Campbell via e-mail and telephone, and have had numerous discussions with him. At this point I monitor the challenge and assignment carefully because I have found it the rule rather than the exception that litigants are not timely notified of or served with important information regarding the challenge — particularly the judge’s response, and notice of when and to whom the challenge has been assigned. Of course, without this information, the litigant is unable to respond to the judge’s claims. Regarding the last challenge I was involved in, within a 24 hour period the case was assigned by the AOC to a tiny far Northern county; the substantial pleadings were faxed; the challenge was reviewed, denied, signed, and sent back down all within a 24 hour period. In your experience how often has that happened?
Another issue is when trial court judges deny their own 170.1’s and strike them from the record. The litigant is left with only one (usually unattainable) remedy: file a writ within 10 days. But we all know that at least 95% of writs are summarily denied, without discussion of the facts or law. So the judge has, at worst, a 5% chance of getting called out for denying his or her improper denial of his or her own challenge. They are then free to engage in brutal retaliation against the litigant. . . .which may include vicious and defamatory orders, sanctions, and vexatious litigant designations — all designed to undermine the credibility of the complainant.
I would be happy to meet with you, and present you with records spanning years of 170.1’s. Your experience is undoubtedly very different than mine.
But I am certain we are both proponents of court reform for very good reasons.
Respectfully, JC
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 31, 2011
Knowing nothing about 170.1’s but seeing that there may be a problem with some assignments, what are the eligibility rules for such assignments? Are there any?
antonatrail
March 31, 2011
The presiding judge usually makes the assignments from the master calendar. You can see how naughtiness could evolve when the AOC wants to make the presiding judges their underlings. When I worked for the courts, when a judge was papered (170’d), he/she didn’t necessarily like it or exude warmth for the attorney doing the papering, but the motion for another judge was routinely granted. The litigants will run out of 170 motions though.
Michael Paul
March 31, 2011
I don’t know anthing about these challenges either. Nonetheless, it seems like a real common complaint amongst litigant attorneys and not just on this blog – and perhaps in some cases the system is being gamed by the AOC. This seems like an area where making a database that automatically makes an assignment based on some “next available” name kinda makes sense rather than pick and choose… make it a blind assignment?
SF Whistle
March 31, 2011
Ant—
Respectfully—-you are mistaken…..
A 170.1 challenge is packaged up and sent to the AOC for assignment. There is ONE person there that funnels them out. This person is Brad Campbell…..Again, with all respect to Judge Fall, Brad Campbell typically assigns a challenge to a Judge that has been challenged, or has other such “history” such as perhaps “admonishment” by the CJP…..(very rare, but it has happened)
There are also recent cases where a challenged Judge makes a ruling himself—just tossing the challenge aside.
The process truly is a joke—Judge Fall should investigate further….
Judicial retaliation is alive and well—-in the same way that the AOC has dealt with whistleblowers or anyone that does not track the party-line our problem courts such as Marin, Santa Clara, San Diego—San Francisco take care of any litigant that does not accept Judicial misconduct. Judicial retaliation takes many forms….stripping parents of custody, sanctions, deny fee motions, most often all efforts to leave a litigant without an attorney… etc…Abusive Judges have all the tools to rid their courts of any litigant foolish enough to not accept the abuse…
antonatrail
April 1, 2011
SF Whistle,
Thank you. I’ve been out of it for years. So in all 58 counties the AOC manages any 170.1? Wow. Let the naughtiness begin! What a nightmare!
JusticeCalifornia
March 31, 2011
The process is murky for litigants and lawyers with respect to 170.1’s (challenges for cause), which are different than 170.6’s (peremptory challenges that are routinely granted, although usually a litigant will only get one, barring reversal on appeal). Litigants are free to jointly select (with their litigation opponent) a judge to hear a CCP 170.1 challenge but many people are unaware of this– including trial court judges and personnel.
My experience generally has been that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (also chairperson of the Judicial Council) will assign an out-of-county trial court judge to determine a 170.1 challenge.
However, when Brad Campbell was questioned about AOC statistics he had provided that indicated that NO challenges had been made against Marin judges within a certain time frame (and of course there had been many) he said this could be a result of the fact that many counties have “reciprocal” agreements, such that County “A” judges will hear challenges of County “B” judges, and vice versa. Respectfully, I do not believe this. (I am virtually certain every single court keeps track of every single 170.1, and so does the AOC.) But if it is true, that would invite a “you scratch my back, I will scratch yours” thought process: if I grant this 170.1 challenge against a judge in County “A”, and then I am challenged, will a County “B” judge grant a challenge if it is made against me?
Getting back to JCW’s question, which is a very good one, it would be great to know a) what the eligibility rules are for 170.1’s; b) whether, when and what conflict of interest checks have been put in place regarding assignments; c) the total number of 170.1s filed versus those granted; d) the number of writs filed regarding those decisions, and then e) the number of writs granted. You see, CCP 170.1 decisions cannot be appealed, so if the writs are not granted, there simply will not be an appellate discussion of the merits, facts and law regarding challenges of a judge based on alleged judicial misconduct. In other words, litigants who challenge judges do not have appellate oversight generally available to most litigants involving other issues. A tiny fraction (writs granted) of a tiny fraction (writs taken regarding CCP 170.1’s) of a tiny fraction (those who know about, are brave enough to, know how to, can afford to and do, file 170.1) of cases involving judicial misconduct allegations will ever see the light of day.
This is an uncomfortable topic for ALL judges, no doubt. Horribly, terribly, awfully uncomfortable because judges are obvious daily targets for criticism– just and unjust. I personally like to believe that most judges in most counties mean well and do the best they can under the circumstances. But some do not. And for litigants in juvenile, family, probate, and other non-jury proceedings, the power of the assigned judge is phenomenal. The most important, pivotal aspects of your family and financial life can completely depend upon the immense, almost limitless discretion vested in the individual judge deciding it–which is why lawyers routinely file 170.6’s if they know that a judge routinely rules for or against certain types of litigants, or receives contributions from certain individuals, or has certain investments, or has familial/collegial/other ties to an opponent or his/her lawyer. This is not news to most of those reading this blog.
It is an uncomfortable dilemma for all concerned, but it must be faced.
Implementing effective, neutral judicial performance evaluations as REPEATEDLY recommended to the Judicial Council by its own experts (Bert Brandenberg of Justice at Stake, and also the 2005 Praxis report) would be helpful. A beefed-up, better funded and less timid CJP would be helpful. Never allowing a judge to determine his or her own challenge would be helpful. Using an ethics-oriented screening process for judges eligible to be assigned to determine a challenge would be helpful. A blind assignment process, and a reliable conflicts-check system, would be helpful. Appellate access must also be improved.
Something has to be done. If people are repeatedly brutalized by truly corrupt judges, without reasonable and effective oversight and redress, they will eventually and necessarily take more drastic measures (like a focused, well-publicized attack on judicial immunity.) A few bad apples can and will spoil it for the whole branch.
Nuff said.
Just a journalist
April 5, 2011
The cynicism expressed by this article is genuine. Not all of us have the freedom to write or report on what we can plainly see. Bloggers have no editors or advertisers.
We also don’t deliver news with music videos themed in some way to the story being told. That unique quality of stimulating the readers’ other senses causes readers (like me) to play a video and read the whole page. I’ll contribute where I can and I would encourage others to do the same.
justajournalist