Judicial Council Watcher has established a few trusted contacts in certain larger trial courts and communicates freely with a precious few judicial branch retirees who also wish to see and promote change. We would like to develop contact and communications with others throughout the California Court system and we keep those contacts confidential. Just don’t use judicial branch resources to contact us for your own protection.
We’re very grateful to all of those who make an effort to keep us abreast of the issues we cover from the seats and views that they occupy. We get a wide range of email, most of it of a positive nature. We appreciate you letting us know how we’re doing and how you believe other parties are doing. We do have a few detractors because they know we’re gunning for them and they know we’re primarily gunning to change their corrupt systems.
We have no animosity towards court employees or AOC employees. We view them all as our friends and associates in the league of citizens. We want to get a sense of how the issues affect everyone, from the counter clerk to the presiding judge. Your email and those communications become essential parts of our reporting. Your voice in my private message window or email becomes our collective voice in posts made here.
So its no surprise to us when we hear a range of response with respect to the recent positions taken by the California Judges Association. In some sense, we believe that the California Judges Association may have creatively reached out to us as to avoid becoming the media bullseye that the Judicial Council and the AOC have become. After what we believe was a series of serious mis-steps by CJA leadership regarding a press release that just didn’t jive with the survey results, a kinder gentler release was made and an effort was made to reach out to us and explain this position. We respect that and we respect the tone of the latest press release, though actions my friends speak much louder than your words.
Maybe of the AOC and Judicial Council made a similar effort to reach out and explain things and start answering the “Ask Why?” questions instead of hiding behind this veil of “that is not an administrative record that we can release to you” then they wouldn’t be a target and we wouldn’t have a reason to exist. We’re growing weary of the lack of information forthcoming from the JC/AOC. Specifically, their inability to answer many of the questions we’ve posed here while pretending none of these serious breaches of the public trust ever happened. Specifically, those breaches of the public trust that violate the law.
The AOC fired the people that exposed the crimes. They embraced those who committed those crimes with the full support of a George appointed, Huffman/Vickrey vetted Judicial Council.
This is why a democratic Judicial Council is essential and not just a 27 member puppet show. As long as you continue to deny accountability to the public you serve we will be perpetually turning up the heat. We know we’re not alone in turning up the heat. Others have pledged to do the same. We owe this to the public that we serve. What do you owe that same public you serve ?
In other news reports, the emphasis was made on what the California Judges Association did not do. They did not take a position on AB1208. When someone from this organization contacted me about a recent release that was made, we took a look at it and it’s certainly not a case of “the same that it ever was”. The reason the CJA did not take a position was because there were two passionate sides in the debate over AB1208 with many members vowing to drop their membership if a stand was made in the opposite direction. Frankly, we believe the argument to be more of a case of “Who is willing to acknowledge we have a serious problem” vs “Who is part of the problem” but we’ll give these judges the benefit of the doubt – for the sake of this post.
So exactly what did or will the CJA do? Well, they didn’t go far enough but it’s at least a change of position. We can respect that. 800 judges from across California submitted 120 pages of comments. From those many comments, the CJA developed a few key positions that just two months ago, we’re told they would have never considered. The following is taken from that press release to be followed by a general discussion on these issues. We want you to participate in this important discussion.
In the AOC Report to CJA members, administrators expressed Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s keen interest in the survey results that generated not only a statistical overview, but 120 plus pages of comments regarding the future of judicial branch governance. The CJA Board’s review of the survey resulted in the following actions: The membership will remain neutral on Assembly bill 1208 due to the divided views revealed in the survey. The board expressed its gratitude to Assembly Member Calderon for introducing this legislation and spurring this important debate. Upon review of the over 120 pages of comments from over 800 judges, the CJA board resolved to use the comments to respond to the Chief Justice’s call for specific suggestions for changes to branch governance. CJA intends to approach their membership with the following proposals to enhance branch governance.
1. In order to improve the Judicial Council’s oversight of the AOC, change the charge of the Accountability and Efficiency Committee to include oversight and review of any part of the AOC that the committee deems fit. The committee should have its own staff separate from the AOC. Finally, the Judicial Council should annually approve a specific line item AOC budget.
2. The Judicial Council should promulgate new rules defining the relationship between the Judicial Council and the AOC on the one hand and the various courts on the other. Specifically, whenever statewide initiatives are implemented the consent of the affected courts must be obtained and a detailed Memorandum of Understanding delineating the rights and responsibilities of the parties must be agreed upon between the parties.
3. Change the method for choosing members of the Judicial Council to ensure broad democratic representation including regional and court size representation and give trial courts input in that selection process. .
With respect to item number one, given your choice of two candidates, one being Michael Paul and the other being John Judnick as dedicated staff, who do you believe will get more done to get to the bottom of the issues at hand? Who do you believe, out of these two choices, our chief justice would choose? Is that good enough to make this committee credible? What form should this committee take? Should it continue to be made up of appointees who won’t consider the truth or should it also be staffed by critics who demand accountability? (Think about this in these terms – the Assembly Committee on accountability and administrative review relies on a former investigative reporter – not a ‘cleaner’.)
With respect to item two, that spans a myriad of issues. Some courts have already used these MOU’s with borg executive officers to usurp authority previously the purview of the trial courts. So how do you get the cat back into the bag so to speak?
With respect to item number three: Really, only the voting members who are constitutionally called for need to be of broad democratic representation. They’re the people with the juice.
In short, we don’t believe that these modest proposals go far enough or get there fast enough, so we remain avid supporters of AB1208 and encourage the chairs to push the bill forward without further delay.
When you consider the uncounted ACJ membership that are not CJA members who never participated in this survey, reality may become starkly different for the JC/AOC. We would encourage the ACJ membership to ask the same questions that the CJA asked, maybe make your comments of a more public nature and release them to us and other media. We would encourage you to omit the push question. Then we can re-tally results and get a more representative view of the real voice of the judiciary as opposed to just a sliver of it or one that is watered down. We feel that there are lots of serious issues exposed in those 120 pages of comments from those 800 or so judges.
The public deserves to know what the judiciary sees through the judiciaries own eyes. The media deserves to know the concerns that they need to act upon. Sunshine serves as the best of disinfectants in the public policy arena. Help us help you.
Another angle on the story from Courthouse News. Chief committed to control of admin, opposed to AB1208.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 13, 2011
On an unrelated matter: JCW is getting word that there is a PJ survey being commissioned apparently at the behest of the Judicial Council. If your PJ is conducting a survey of a nature similar to that of the California Judges Association please contact us and let us know what county you’re from and what the questions are.
There is at least, an effort to ask the questions now, though they’re not sincere about it. Their house is on fire. They’re calling for more gasoline to put out the fire and asking you if there are any problems that you see.
wendy darling
April 13, 2011
Posted today on Courthouse News:
Chief Committed to Control of Admin, Remains Opposed to Bill, By MARIA DINZEO
So much for “change” at the AOC and the Judicial Council.
Mrs Kramer
April 14, 2011
“While Cantil-Sakauye clearly supports an overhaul of the administrative office, she is staunchly opposed to a bill introduced in the state legislature that would require a change in the balance of power between local courts and the centralized bureaucracy….’I think a bill introduced 47 days into my administration because of 25 years of discontent with George is not fair,’ Cantil-Sakauye said.”
Concepts perceived from statements made:
“Yes, I know the AOC is out of control. Yes, I know that there has been a 25 year abuse of power and conflicted interests with the AOC being a primary vehicle used to further those special interests.
However, I am not interested in seeing oversight or transparency of the use of AOC at this point in time. As the new absolute monarch of the California judicial kingdom, I think I can do a better job than King George.
I am in power now and I want to keep that power without my subjects, the judicial serfs, being given a legislated legal method to challenge my decisions or disrupt my potential to promote any special interests of my own, should I so desire.
Give me a chance to prove to you that your new queen is a good queen”…overseeing the largest judicial system within a democracy where, good or bad, there should not even be a queen at all.
Nothing personal meant to the new Chief Justice. But it has been repeatedly demonstrated that oversight and tranparency of decision making processes of the AOC/JC is required to be legislated into CA policy at this point in time. This is necessary for the future protection from the potential of special interests having the unchecked ability to adversely impact our judicial system in a manner that is not in the best interest of the people.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 14, 2011
Along the lines of your current post we recently received a note that asked how many pairs of shoes our current chief justice aspires to own. This was a comparative reference to Imelda Marcos who earned her 3000 pair shoe collection by heading the largest kleptocracy in the free world. The longer this charade plays out, the more comparisons will be made.
antonatrail
April 14, 2011
” … ’I think a bill introduced 47 days into my administration because of 25 years of discontent with George is not fair,’ Cantil-Sakauye said.”
I can’t believe a California judge said this, much less a chief justice. One of my most simplistic memories of the courts is a judge sentencing a defendant to a well-deserved term of imprisonment. The defendant exclaims, Your Honor, that just ain’t fair! And the judge replied, Well, sometimes life just isn’t fair. And various themes of this scenario were replayed in my experience over and over in the almost three decades I worked in the courts. How long does she claim she was a trial court judge? Wow!
wendy darling
April 13, 2011
Posted yesterday (4/12) on Metropolitan News Enterprise. Apparently, there will soon be an election for a new President of the CJA. You might want to read the article to see who the players are:
Metropolitan News Enterprise, Tuesday, April 12, 2011:
Judge House to Face S.D. Jurist for CJA Presidency, By SHERRI M. OKAMOTO, Staff Writer
Mrs Kramer
April 14, 2011
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/cja041211.htm
The article states, “A release from the CJA said that its board has reviewed over 120 pages of comments from over 800 judges and intends to approach the membership with three proposals regarding branch governance.”
What are the CJA board’s “three proposals regarding branch governance”?
Judicial Council Watcher
April 14, 2011
The three proposals are contained inside my post above, numbered 1,2 and 3
Delilah
April 14, 2011
I thought the exact same thing, AOaT. I wonder if she stomped her little foot (in one of her 300 pairs of shoes) when she said it.
(Just wanted to come out of lurker status and rejoin the ranks.)
Long live JCW and the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 14, 2011
Welcome back from lurker status Delilah. There’s more of you lurkers out there. Don’t be shy.
courtflea
April 13, 2011
wow, JCW kinda kicky new site, very punky, video game like too. whatsup with the new format?
wendy darling
April 13, 2011
Posted today, Wednesday, April 13, on Courthouse News: Strange Times
By BILL GIRDNER, about the CJA and the CJA survery results. Worth the read.
wendy darling
April 14, 2011
Like this format, except for the dark background.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 14, 2011
We’re experimenting with template changes. Feedback is appreciated and yes, the Bill Girdner article “Strange Times” is a good read. http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/13/35755.htm
antonatrail
April 14, 2011
I just miss the time a post is done.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 14, 2011
We’ll be looking into that. Keep the comments coming-
Judicial Council Watcher
April 14, 2011
This template does not have a time of post option. As Michael Paul has pointed out, unless you click in the lower righthand corner of internet explorer where the magnifying glass is, the small font size can be hard on the eyes. This is a problem with most of the wordpress themes we’ve found, save the theme we were using. The theme tested overnight had similar font size problems.
Majority rules here. We can keep this theme or go back to the old theme. If you want to suggest a theme for testing, we’re open to that as well.
antonatrail
April 14, 2011
This Girdner fellow gets it. Thanks for the link to courthousenews. I hope all judges in CA read it.
wendy darling
April 14, 2011
Like this format; the other one, not so much. This is much easier to read, and the page layout reads great!
Long live the ACJ and JCW.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 14, 2011
Admittedly we jumped into making the template changes without getting any feedback from the social networking advisors – who were quick to criticize the last template as ‘alienating to readers, optimized for firefox and best viewed in internet explorer at 125% of normal size’.
We’ve not gotten their feedback on these changes yet but we would appreciate your continuing feedback. 🙂
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 14, 2011
Whoa Nellie! I’m sure my grandson would love this site! Got to put on my good reading glasses to see this one. Not all change is good, but what the heck, play with it. Working on some good information, hopefully I’ll have it by the end of the week.
Michael Paul
April 14, 2011
If you are viewing in internet explorer, clicking the lower right corner where it has what appears to be a magnifying glass and says 100% will enlarge the font and make it easier to read. Optimal viewing on my high resolution monitor appears to be 125%. While I like the look of this the best, the font size is an issue. Unless you can get everyone to click to enlarge….
Michael Paul
April 14, 2011
This is the best yet regarding templates.
Mr. Girdner shares the view of so many of us. “One of the things about a great story is that it just keeps on giving.” and giving and giving…
I liked this tidbit too.
“A former presiding judge and member of the council told me of the time the administrator in charge of the IT project told the Judicial Council that another $100 million had been signed off to Deloitte Consulting on the IT project.
In answer to audible grumbling among the judges, the administrator commented, “It’s like I tell my husband, you just don’t know the price of shoes these days.” And with that, the money went out the door.”
Most of the media gets it. What is reported is substantially less than what has been documented. Hence, “the story that keeps on giving” .
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 14, 2011
Well they are trotting out “new faces” to do their bidding. Today’s Daily Journal has an “editorial” from Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow of San Francisco. Karnow is trying to rile up the lawyers to oppose AB 1208; alluding how local control will make it hell for lawyers because they will somehow adopt different rules of practice in every county, making their lives difficult like it was in the bad old days.
First, Mr. Karnow hasn’t been long enough to let his coffee get cool enough to drink, having been appointed by Schwarzenegger in 2005. He may have practiced for a while, but he knows nothing of what it was like to work in the courts 20 years ago. But he has served on many important Judicial Council Committees in recent years, like the Civil and Small Claims Committee that has made some of the most inane changes to the rules in last 10 years that has made everyone’s life difficult.
By the way Mr. Karnow, I’m not aware of any “internecine” rivalries going on within our branch…other than those being fostered by the JC/AOC toadies.
His editorial is based upon the exact false premise that demonstrates why AB 1208 is needed. Mr. Karnow expresses that the Judicial Council sets policy and disseminates it to the local courts. Last time I looked, that’s not what the California Constitution says, that’s what Mr. Vickery and the Judicial Council said one night at a dinner in 1992.
Many of us are only concerned with serving the public that has been kind enough to retain us in office every 6 years. Should someone disagree with the way we do business, we can be replaced by someone else at the ballot box. Unfortunately, we cannot do the same with members of the AOC or apparently the Judicial Council. I’m not saying that things in our courts were perfect back when Deukmejian was Governor, but it was certainly more “user friendly.” Our constituents have expressed increasing concerns over the years in they way we do business in certain areas. When we explain that it has been caused by the State “mandates” they often shake their heads in disbelief and ask “why?” I don’t have an answer for them…maybe Mr. Karnow can tell them…
JusticeCalifornia
April 14, 2011
I was web-surfing last night and found this great ACJ news story from early 2010– the current cj is featured, and it cannot be said that she is “new” or displays any inclination to change things. In fact, in the story she is one of the judges described as “bristling” at the criticisms leveled at the Judicial Council. That is precisely what she did exactly one year later, in February, 2011, at the Marin County Bar Association general meeting/luncheon when the issue of a change in governance was raised.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/assignment_7&id=7298861
Incidentally, Joe Dunn is scheduled to speak at this month’s Marin County Bar Association general meeting/luncheon. (Lots of interesting speakers passing through our way).
“State Bar Executive Director Joe Dunn called Vickrey ‘simply the best public entity CEO in the country’”
April, 2011 California Bar Journal
Perhaps I will send him some historical info about Marin County before his visit. . . .
Judicial Council Watcher
April 14, 2011
Uh-huh. Look at these commendations and accolades heaped upon another historical figure.
Joe Dunn must be wandering into the tenderloin too much.
_____________________________________________________
Anti-Defamation League—Torch of Liberty Award
Beta Theta Pi (National Fraternity)—Oxford Cup
Brunel University (London)—Honorary Doctor of Social Sciences
Child Advocates—Super Hero Honoree Award
Episcopal High School—Campaign Fundraiser Award
Gas Daily—Man of the Year Award
Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans—Annual Membership Award
Houston Area Women’s Center—Honoree
Houston Children’s Chorus—Honoree
Houston Community Partners—Father of The Year
Kenneth Lay Day—Proclaimed by Kathryn J. Whitmire, Mayor of Houston, Texas
Kiwanis Club of Houston and the Greater Houston Partnership—International Executive of the Year
March of Dimes—Award of Distinction
NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet—Mickey Leland Humanitarian Award
National Conference of Christians and Jews—Brotherhood Award
Oswego State University—Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters Degree
Phi Beta Kappa—Outstanding Alumnus Award
Private Sector Council—Annual Leadership Award
Stanford Business School Alumni Associations—Houston Business Man of the Year
Texans For Lawsuit Reform—Award
Texas Association of Minority Business Enterprises—Texas Corporate Partnering Award
Texas Business Hall of Fame—Inductee
Texas Navy Admiral—Commissioned by William P. Clements, Jr., Governor of Texas
Texas Society To Prevent Blindness—Man of Vision Award
The Brookwood Community—Honoree Award
The Rotary Club of Houston—Distinguished Citizen Award
The Wall Street Transcript—Chief Executive Officer Award
United States Energy Association—United States Energy Award
United States Navy—Navy Commendation Medal & National Defense Service Medal
University of Colorado, College of Business and Administration—Ben K. Miller Memorial, International Business Award
University of Houston—Distinguished Alumnus Award
University of Houston—Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters Degree
University of Missouri—Honorary Doctor of Law Degree; The Hebert J. Davenport Society Benefactor Award
Volunteer Houston—Honoree Award
The YMCA in Cinco Ranch in unincorporated Harris County, Texas was named after Ken Lay. Following the collapse of Enron, his name outside the building was made 70% smaller. Ultimately, the YMCA was renamed the “Katy Family YMCA” after the city of Katy.
____________________________________________________________
You probably guessed by now that these were all accolades heaped upon one Kenneth Lay of Enron fame.
JusticeCalifornia
April 14, 2011
CA State Bar Executive Director Mr. Dunn is a proponent of using bar members as judicial mouthpieces.
From a 2009 article co-authored with Mr. Vickrey:
“Legal professionals and bar associations can help courts in the
political arena by articulating the judiciary’s objectives without
exposing the judicial branch to political manipulation. Indeed,
lawyers and bar associations make up the judiciary’s natural
constituency and should be encouraged to view themselves this
way.”
I am glad Mr. Dunn is interested in Marin County, and look forward to speaking with him about how Marin’s decades old bench/bar collaboration (and use of lawyers as judicial mouthpieces) has made Marin County the poster child for bench/bar conflicts of interest.
antonatrail
April 14, 2011
Wasn’t Joe Dunn a cheerleader for the AOC at the legislature’s transparency and accountability hearings?
JusticeCalifornia
April 14, 2011
It is so great to have access to history online, via AOC Watcher.
To wit:
Tony Maino | July 4, 2010 at 8:24 am |
Well, here we go again. The AOC has entered into a contract ( agreement number 1020654) with former Senator Joe Dunn. The purpose of the contract is that the Senator will provide strategic advise and assistance to the AOC about legislative and budget priorities. The contract runs from March1, 2010 to August 31, 2010 and pays $65,000.00.
http://aocwatcher.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/aoc-spending-discussion-thread/
courtflea
April 14, 2011
ok, is it just me, I can’t take the new black background ?
Judicial Council Watcher
April 14, 2011
We can flip it around to black on white. Stick around and let me know what you think in 5 minutes.
…
Anybody else reading: Please drop us a note at https://forms.hush.com/judicialcouncilwatcher or post in-thread.
wendy darling
April 14, 2011
I agree with ‘flea – not a fan of the black background. Stick with the white background. Otherwise, like this new format.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 15, 2011
Like the new look!
For a few yucks if you haven’t seen it, check out this posting on CCMS from California Courts News on YouTube. They just cannot get their story straight. It changes every time they open their mouths.
Be sure to listen to their claim about how much time it will take to recover the costs of this system.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 15, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/user/CaliforniaCourts?blend=9&ob=5#p/search/2/m99rPHua57A
Sorry, forgot to post the site, hee, hee, me bad.
Mrs Kramer
April 15, 2011
Press Release: Justice Judith McConnell re-elected as the Chair of the CA Commission on Judicial Performance.
Does this mean everyone is now allowed to use crimianl perjury to make up a needed reason for malice when strategically litigating to silence whistle blowers of billions in fraud? Or only those who write policy for the US Chamber of Commerce?
http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/presiding-justice-candidate%C2%A0judith-mcconnell-nine-subordinate-san-diego-judicuariesassisting-with-strategic-litigation-by-criminal-means-by-an-author-of/
JusticeCalifornia
April 16, 2011
Mrs. Kramer, I spent a little time this morning reading about you and your case. As far as I can tell, a highly paid governmental “expert” testified under oath that you were a malicious liar, and as proof of malice he swore under oath in detail that he had testified against you in your own case in 2003, thereby ruining your dreams of getting your house remodeled.
Except that his sworn testimony is false, and in fact he DID NOT testify against you in 2003 in your own case, which had already been settled in your favor.
So he used perjury (that damaged your reputation) to prove his malice case against you, and McConnell and Huffman and various others went along with this.
Is that right?
I am curious, and would call for someone, anyone to DISPUTE what Mrs. Kramer alleges. If what she says is true, we should all be concerned that this appears to be a case of whistleblower retaliation.
Mrs. Kramer’s complaints have an uncomfortably familiar ring.
I have several times alluded to Patricia Sepulveda’s interesting unpublished family law appellate opinions. After reading her opinions, I was moved to study the concept of judicial “intellectual dishonesty”. Sepulveda’s “creative writing” headed off what could have been a disaster for the Marin and California Courts, because the issues she “creatively” wrote about (170.1s, Family Court Services’ failure to follow state law; and the characterization of minor’s counsel’s fees as a form of child support) affected so many parents and children throughout the state of California. As a matter of fact, a petition for review of one of Sepulveda’s “creative” opinions about Verna Adams and Marin Family Court Services was pending before the CA Supreme Court precisely when the AOC/Verna Adams/ Kim Turner directed Marin Family Court Services to engage in a mass destruction of damning Marin child custody mediation files that included police reports, medical reports, mediator’s handwritten notes of reports of abuse, and photographs of children’s injuries. And of course, the state audit of the Marin Family Court and Marin Family Court Services was also pending. . . .
By the way, I hear that the AOC itself has sent out directives to the Superior Court Family Court Services departments, advising them how much time they should spend on each child custody case. I also hear that after the Marin County Family Court Services debacle, the AOC sent out directives to other Superior Court Family Court Services departments advising them to destroy their own child custody mediation files as well. And since the AOC supposedly doesn’t make policy, but simply carries out Judicial Council’s directives, I suppose we should conclude the Judicial Council (chaired by the Chief Justice) advised county courts and/or their FCS departments to limit FCS time spent on child custody cases, and to destroy FCS files. I invite the Judicial Council and AOC to publicly dispute that the AOC has advised counties (including counties other than Marin) to limit Family Court Services time spent on child custody cases (including those involving domestic violence, substance abuse, mental illness, criminal convictions, and child abuse), and to destroy Family Court Services child custody mediation files.
Judges and court employees/appointees at all levels reading this should pay attention, because they are going to be blamed for implementing/following Judicial Council/AOC policies /procedures that are unethical, illegal, harmful and even potentially very dangerous to those passing through or coming into contact with their courts.
That is another good reason to democratize the Judicial Council and implement appropriate oversight/accountability measures.
Mrs. Kramer
April 16, 2011
That is part right, but it is much worse than what you write. In March of 2005, I was the first to publicly write of how it became a fraud in US public health policy that it was scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm. This was done for the purpose of staving off financial liability for stakeholders of moldy buildings (insureres, employers, etc) The authors of the fraudulent policy sued me for the writing claiming the use of my phrase “altered his under oath statements”, was a maliciously false accusation of perjury. Nothing else about the US Chamber, ACOEM, think-tank money, etc has ever been challenged as incorrect. The author of the fraud is a professional witness who depends on this fraud in science as his bread and butter.
But, in my case, he is not a professional witness. Just a plain ole plaintiff claiming defamation for the word altered. In libel litigation you have to establish reason for malice. He committed criminal perjury to make up a reason for my purported malice. McConnell rewarded the perjury to estalbish malice when denying the anti-SLAPP. She also ignored the evidence that this guys business partner was an unnamed party to the litigation on the Certificate of Interested parties (among other errors). His business partner is a retired Deputy Director of CDC NIOSH.
She backed the wrong horse. I was able to get a Federal audit that knocked their fraud out of Federal policy. BUT..Huffman, Benke and Irion did a CYA for McConnell and also directly refused to acknowledge the impact of her rewarding CRIMINAL PERJURY in a strategic litigation over public health. Now, they are trying to use fraudulent documents that were submitted to the courts of a judgment never entered as a reason to gag me. I HAVE DIRECT EVIDENCE (that’s D-I-R-E-C-T evidence) THAT THEY KNOW THEY AIDED WITH NO LESS THAN $25M IN INSURANCE FRAUD by aiding with a strategic litigation carried out by criminal means. I am not on my computer and do not have my files with me.
When I get home Monday, I will try to explain this better to you while linking to the evidence. It is very bad. I can evidence they are willing participants in malicious litigation to defraud the public on behalf of the financial interests of the affiliates of the US Chamber.
Mrs. Kramer
April 19, 2011
Justice California,
Rather than post many docs to explain what naughty children Justices Huffman and McConnell have been, I am going to link to an audio. Its from an interview I gave last evening for Truth Squad Blog Talk regarding the fraud in policy over the mold issue involving the US Chamber that translates into billions of interstate insurer fraud; and what Justice McConnell and Justice Huffman have done to aid with a strategic, malicious litigation carried out by criminal means that aids the fraud to continue.
Below is a link to the interview. I start discussing McConnell rewarding criminal perjury in 2006, used to establish malice in a libel litigation by an author of policy for the US Chamber at minute 99:50. Got a little bit in about Huffman covering for McConnell in 2010; and how they are now, in 2011, trying to use fraudulent documents of a judgment never notices as entered in the case to try and shut me up of what they have done to aid the fraud.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/marti-oakley/2011/04/19/ts-radiosharon-kramerwhistleblower
Please let me know if this makes it any clearer for you, that I can DIRECTLY evidence these two have no business overseeing any money or who goes unpunished for ethics violations in the CA judicial system. Rewarding a plaintiff’s use of criminal perjury in a litigation involving public health and billions of dollars is no minor infraction of law, by two of the most influential justices in the state of California.
Something must be done to stop this rampant, incestuous corruption and power grabs by the conflicted and unworthy that have been permitted to control our courts. Enough!
courtflea
April 15, 2011
JCW, thanks for the white background! The blind can now see 🙂
courtflea
April 15, 2011
NW, No I had not seen that amazing video. OMG. My fav quote “the product is gold”! And everyone saying over and over that the system “works”. I could easily see the fear of Stalin ala Trotsky exiled in Mexico, in some of their faces.
Expecting to recoup billion dollar costs is frickin unbelivable. Management 101 says you hope to eventually realize effiencies and other benefits (such as state wide info sharing) from a computer system, but expecting to recoup tons of $$ for the project is insane and to make that claim is not sound business sense or common sense for that matter. AND THEN to blame legitimate complaints regarding the system on court staff not liking change, learning curves, etc. Well, that is a crock of unmitigated crap as we all know. the courts will have this crappy system shoved down their throats, and these idiots presume to run the courts, well excuse me for saying..it just makes me want to bitch slap them all.
lando
April 15, 2011
Thanks Woodhull for the youtube link. To be honest I had to watch that video twice to fully grasp all the spin contained therein. The video was made on February 25 and if I heard right J. Bruiniers was claiming that CCMS was a” final product” and that “subject to confirmation testing ” “was ready for use in the trial courts.” Sound familiar? You really can’t make this stuff up . The CJ apparently wants to hear from everyone about how the JC and AOC can be improved. Fair enough. Lets start with CCMS. It is not deployed and I doubt it will be any time soon. If Orange County or anyone else wants to keep it great. But for the rest of us including the 80% of Judges who voted they had no confidence in it , we should stop funding CCMS now and divert the funds allocated to it back to the trial courts so future court closures and layoffs of our hardworking employees can be avoided.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 16, 2011
Spending a little time watching the YouTube – California Court’s Channel, you will soon come to the sad conclusion that any of us who hoped that Tani Cantil Sakauye would somehow reform things within the Judicial Branch are sadly mistaken. Thursday, AB1208 was removed to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Mike Feuer. Watch the presentation for the award given to Mr. Feuer by the AOC in 2010. Any questions… By the way, how much does this multi-media center run by the AOC (full television and radio) cost and why are California’s paying for PRAVDA?
http://www.youtube.com/user/CaliforniaCourts?blend=9&ob=5#p/c/7029614F84DC0F93/4/cGo7Bvm0_hM
antonatrail
April 16, 2011
I echo your sentiment about Californians paying for PRAVDA! I suspect their internet scrubbing is also financed by the beleaguered CA taxpayers ironically restraining everyone’s right to know the truth.
wendy darling
April 16, 2011
I guess everyone has already forgotten that during his tenure as the Legislative representative to the Judicial Council, Feuer attended either only one or zero meetings of the council. So much for hoping there would be a “fair hearing” on AB 1208.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 16, 2011
We have not bothered to find out how long she sat on the Judicial Council. The cold, hard facts are that as a council member she knew the many allegations being leveled against the AOC, most of which have been substantiated by auditors and media alike, yet as Chief Justice they are as invisible to her as when she was a council member. Way back in November after we did some research we came out and indicated that this charade would continue to be perpitrated into the mini-mimi administration with the sincere hope that she wouldn’t be the fall gal for all the obstruction of justice under her nose.
She’s going to have to live with her choices. Make no mistake, they are her choices. It has nothing to do with the amount of time she has been in office. It has everything to do with her value system.
Court Broom
April 16, 2011
There certainly was a lot of fantasy to be said and bull—- spread in the video by those from CC Court representation by both CCMS Leader Justice Bruiniers and Judge O’Malley. Missed their CEO Kiri Torre who also sits on the CCMS committee to hear all of her glowing remarks.
To all you non-believers, why can’t you grasp that the CCMS program as presented by the AOC is right up there with the Easter Bunny, Tooth fairy and Santa Claus, it has to be the Truth, the CJA says so !!!
Time For Change
April 16, 2011
The Chief is truly making some odd choices. She continues to act as if it’s all about her–she calls AB1208 “unfair” because it was introduced near the start of her term. Odd perspective, that, especially since the bill was first presented to the legislature in the last session. Of course, she offered zero “reform” until is was introduced–up until it got traction, she was simply saying the same old things we heard from the former Chief. Stubborn is not the same is strong. She simply needs to catch up with the state’s judges, who have shown their support for the bill. It’s time to stop complaining, and take a look at the bill. If she succeeds in stopping the first reform in years, she will bear that albatross forever. It would be just a disastrous course, immediately alienating well over half the judges in the state–for what? Pride?
Opposing AB1208 will not prove that she is strong, only stubborn. We need change. Even a jury is told, immediately before deliberations, that it is rarely productive to stake out a strong initial position because then one may hesitate to change that position, even if convinced it is wrong. Pride goeth before a fall. A strong Chief must admit that her initial position was wrong, and walk with with the state’s judges, not the bureaucracy. What a hero she would be! For the first time in many years, we would have a true leader, not an opponent. All of that energy now being expended fighting one another would be focused on moving forward as a branch. It’s up to her, though. No one can do it for her.
versal-versal
April 16, 2011
Woodhull I would like to thank you for all the great historical information you provide. Time for Change I would like to thank you for such a great insight. If I were the CJ I would have started by asking everyone for their ideas and ventured out to the trial courts to hear in a positive way what everyone had to say. By supporting CCMS and opposing AB 1208 before hearing everyone out the Chief is sadly doing all this backwards. The Sacramento Appeals Court is one of the best in the state and I hope the CJ gets some of their Justices involved in looking at these issues. I am very optimistic about having retired Justice Scotland getting actively involved in JC AOC policy issues .We can only hope the CJ takes an open and fair approach as Time for Change suggests.
lando
April 17, 2011
All in life in keeping things in balance. What CJ George and J Huffman did was to arbitrarily centralize too much control in an entity ,the JC and AOC which has no constitutional authority to dictate to the trial courts. AB 1208 is a modest and helpful attempt to rebalance that power back to local trial courts. Given the recent survey of the CJA along with the fact that the Alliance membership continues to grow , our Chief Justice needs to make a huge decision- does she embrace change and reform or will she hold fast to holding the line to preserve the power of the insular anti-democratic JC .
Mrs Kramer
April 17, 2011
Its not just the combination of George of the Ca Supreme Court (where it is ultimately determined what cases will be reviewed that often times set established Ca case law) and Huffman of the Judicial Council (where all allocations of monies and policies of the Ca courts are determined). There is a third piece that goes with establishing ultimate control. That is McConnell of the Commission on Judicial Performance, (where it is determined which judiciaries will not be punished for ethics violations or blatantly disregarding the law in their judgments and opinions).
Between the three of them, they controlled:
A. the established laws of the land; and
B. the lower courts’ ability to act without interference of policy established from above; and
C. which judges would not be punished for using the courts to practice politics – not law.
It is not a good sign that Justice McConnell is re-elected to continue as the Chair of the CA Commission on Judicial Performance. When I get to my files on Monday, I will show you the direct evidenced of what the CJP knows of what she has done, and SHE knows what she has done, to aid with billions in insurer fraud on behalf of the affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce, by being a willing participant in a malicious, strategic litigation carried out by criminal means over a matter of public health policy. What is deeply concerning is that the new Chief Justice is evidenced of knowing this, too.
wendy darling
April 17, 2011
Or … does she publicly posture the illusion of embracing change and reform while nonpublicly holding fast to preserving her unfettered power and the maintain insular anti democratic JC . . . as JCW has put it “re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.”
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
April 17, 2011
I forgot to mention re:the video on CCMS. how many public agencies have been suckered in by what you see at a “demo”? What many do not know, in reality when you put the system into your court, you find out what is really needed to make it work. Armies of IS staff to do programing that needs to be done to make the “demo” real. These guys sell you the concept, and gee wiz, later you find out they don’t provide the programing, except at huge additional costs. Oh, and the time line to do so will take forever, because they are not into programing, they are into selling a fantasy and cutting out as soon as possible afterword. A lot of the courts that participated in the first versions of CCMS had to because the vendor they used for a case management system, did the exact same frikin thing and they were desperate to have something in hopes that it would work. Well it did not, ask Fresno about trying the first version of CCMS for criminal and traffic.
See the AOC wants all of us with a history in the courts to forget about that. While individual courts may have made this mistake and were berated horribly by the AOC, the AOC now goes ahead and does the same thing and expects those that know the history to repeat it!
Is there a song for this JCW? all I can think of is a quote from P.T. Barnum: there is a sucker born every minute”.
JusticeCalifornia
April 17, 2011
courtflea, how about this? “Good Money After Bad”
courtflea
April 17, 2011
Perfectamundo JCW!