A synopsis of a daily journal article by the highly respected and retired San Mateo Judge and former Senator Quentin Kopp.
___________________________________________________
He starts out with Government Code 77001-
77001. The Judicial Council shall adopt rules, policies, or directives which establish a decentralized system of trial court management. These rules shall ensure provide, consistent with statute:
(a) Local authority and responsibility of trial courts to manage day-to-day operations.
(b) Countywide administration of the trial courts.
(c) The authority and responsibility of trial courts to manage all of the following, consistent with statute, rules of court, and standards of judicial administration:
(1) Annual allocation of superior court funding. , including policies and procedures about moving funding between functions or line items or programs.
(2) Local personnel plans, including the promulgation of personnel policies.
(3) (b) Processes and procedures to improve superior court operations and responsiveness to the public.
(4c) The trial courts of each county shall establish means of selecting presiding judges, assistant presiding judges, executive officers or court administrators, clerks of court, and jury commissioners.
(d) Trial Superior court input into the Judicial Council budget process.”
The above is what the code says. The AOC tried to get it amended to read the following:
Section 77001
77001. The Judicial Council shall adopt rules, policies, or directives which shall provide, consistent with statute:
(a) Annual allocation of superior court funding.
(b) Processes and procedures to improve superior court operations and responsiveness to the public.
(c) The means of selecting presiding judges, assistant presiding judges, executive officers or court administrators, clerks of court and jury commissioners.
(d) Superior court input into the Judicial Council budget process.
_____________________________________________________
He then describes that in 1997, the Legislature adopted the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act, transferring funding for the courts from the counties to the state and how he and Calderon were both Senators when the law was initially passed and that the Legislature enacted Lockyer-Isenberg to ensure stable, adequate, and equitable funding for the state’s 58 independent trial courts and that he supported the bill. He or the legislature never dreamed the legislation would be used to convert administration of the courts to a statewide bureaucracy of over 1000 highly paid employees and that in fact, quite the opposite was true. The Legislature made clear its concern about bureaucratic encroachment into trial courts by encouraging the Judicial Council to adopt a Trial Court Bill of Financial Management Rights within a year and that the Council ignored it as being the impetus for AB1208.
He outlines the constitutional responsibilities of the Judicial council found in Article VI, Section 6(d) and outlines a 1960 amendment creates the position of “administrative director of the courts,” not an AOC bureaucracy.
He describes former Chief Justice Ronald M. Georges efforts to amend Article VI to give the Council additional powers and that each attempt failed because it was too much unchecked power in the hands of one person and that the AOC continues to lobby for additional powers and how if legislation fails, the AOC resorts to the Council’s rule-making authority and promulgating its plans in secret, including stripping bench officers of administrative powers and giving them to court execs.
He writes of Huffman’s control over the AOC and its committees spanning 14 years and “an unmistakable circular situation exists whereby AOC staff creates policies; the Council adopts them after planning sessions closed to the judicial branch, and the policies become goals.” Then according to the rules, “the Director’s charge is to accomplish the council’s goals…and he may use reasonable interpretation of Judicial Council policies to achieve the council’s goals…”
He opines that “Such a merry-go-round has no beginning, and apparently no end. There are no limits, no line in the sand for the AOC or the Council to respect.” He states that “The Council is free to create policies, turn them into goals, and instruct the AOC director to implement them by any means he deems legal.”
He describes how this astonishing situation is what produced the 3 bllion dollar CCMS debacle.
He describes the the enemy is the unfettered urge of an out-of-control bureaucracy to accumulate power and that AB 1208 restores balance. He says it does not intrude upon the Council’s legitimate rule-making or trial court funding authority and it will prevent the AOC from raiding the Trial Court Trust Funds, name their own courthouses and hire their own counsel. He speaks to the ferocity with which the AOC opposes AB1208 as a red flag that requires the legislature to step in.
_______________________________________________________
In other news our esteemed, reform-minded Chief Justice has re-appointed Shasta County Superior Court Judge Stephen H. Baker and Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Mary Ann O’Malley to the state Judicial Council for three-year terms beginning Sept. 15.
In these respects we can safely say “the same as it ever was”.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 18, 2011
The “Q” as we call him has it right on point!
“The original justification for creation of the Judicial Council in 1926 were revisited to determine whether and to what extent those early promises were being fulfilled. Was the Judicial Council performing as a ‘board of directors’ for the system? …
The council responded by engaging in an unprecedented endeavor of self-governance, which resulted in an equally unprecedented “Stategic and Reorganization Plan,” adopted on November 9, 1992…
What accounted for this sea change?….And the likely catalyst for confronting these issues and reaching these conclusions was the arrival in 1992 of William C. Vickrey as the new Administrative Director of the Courts.”
From “Committed to Justice – The Rise of Judicial Administration in California” pp.89-90
Again, how did these things happen, because Bill Vickrey convinced the Judicial Council that they had this power and the empire building at the AOC then commenced. There was no change to the Constitution that permitted this change in focus, no legislative mandate, just the will of Mr. Vickrey…
wendy darling
April 18, 2011
And the permission of the Chief Justice, at the time Ronald M. George, and continuing to the present day with George’s hand-picked successor.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 18, 2011
Our apologies about having to provide a brief synopsis to this article.
One of the media companies assisting us attempted to license just the text of the article as the author is required to turn over all rights to the Daily Journal Corporation.
Unfortunately, the licensing of the text is not a service that is offered by Daily Journal Corporation or its exclusive reprint distributor Scoop Reprint Source.
You can however purchase a shiny plaque, a printable PDF or in the bargain basement category, an unprintable PDF for $550.00.
I think the synopsis will have to do.
Since search has feverishly escalated for this article after the licensing inquiry, we’re afraid we will have to remove even the synopsis if anyone (like the daily journal corporation) has any issues with it. So with that being said, if you have any issues with this synopsis, please contact judicialcouncilwatcher@hushmail.com and we will remove the synopsis too if necessary.
Mrs. Kramer
April 18, 2011
Please, if you have an opportunity, call in to this radio program this evening and tell them what you know. Ever since they have been interviewing CA injured workers who have been taken to the cleaners by the CA “legal” system in support of Governor Schwarzenegger’s bizarre concept of workers comp “reform” in which we gave $50 billion to industry while stretching our social disability programs to the limits in the massive cost shifting scheme, their audience has greatly increased.
This is a Special Program tonite. I am going to be discussing Justice Huffman’s and Justice McConnell’s direct roles in aiding with billions in insurer fraud by being a willing participant in a malicious, strategic litigation carried out by criminal means to silence a Whistle blower, me.
Truth Squad Radio: Whistleblower Sharon Noonan Kramer Exposes Government Corruption, Collusion and Fraud
Join us for a special broadcast Monday, April 18, 2011!
Whistleblower Sharon Noonan Kramer exposes government collusion, corruption, and fraud
in the workman’s compensation industry.
Sharon Kramer is a researcher and whistleblower. She exposes how the scientific fraud that “moldy buildings do no harm” marketed its way into US public health policy, thereby allowing the dismissal of injured parties’ insurance claims.
She has been published in medical journals, such as the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, and has given numerous interviews exposing this deceit. She was also involved in causing a federal audit of the issue, that is helping to reshape policy on a federal level.
Sharon is a Whistleblower who has been faced with corruption in the California judicial system at the highest levels that works to keep the fraud going in the private sector health policy on behalf of the affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce.
Tonight, Sharon will discuss the fraud, how it came to be policy, as well as who was involved and what it has cost her and her family for daring to speak the truth in California.
6:00 pm PST
8:00 pm CST
9:00 pm EST
Call-in Number: (917) 388-4520
URL: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/marti-oakley
************
Is there news in your area no one is reporting? Want to be a guest?
Give us a call on SKYPE: 320-281-0585 or email us at truthsquadradio@gmail.com
GMOs? We don’t need no stinkin’ GMOs!
Barbara H. Peterson
http://farmwars.info
********************************************
The gloves are off!
Judicial Council Watcher
April 18, 2011
Agreed, it is important in the context of Quentin Kopp’s article as it goes to the extent of which the AOC/JC will go to usurp authority it does not already have.
Jim Hightower used to end his radio show with this saying and perhaps it might be Mr. Bill’s motto over at the AOC.
“And just remember, sometimes it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to request permission”
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 18, 2011
It’s a good thing I suffer from OCD and can get by on about 4-hours sleep a night. There is so much to do and so little time. I feel like I’m back driving cattle at the Battle of Long Island. Thanks to JCW, and the repeated efforts my buddies: “Lando”, Chuck, MaryAnne Gilliard, Steve White, Tony Maino, so many other judges, court staff, AOC and concerned citizens we have finally awakened the Legislature and maybe even the public to the danger posed by the seemingly unchecked power of the Chief, Judicial Council and AOC.
I have never seen anywhere throughout modern history, at least since 1800; in which an individual and/or entity has subsumed such power when clearly established as one of an advisory role. Even the most totalitarian regimes at least passed laws to justify their actions, even if they were ex post facto. HRH George, Mr. Vickrey/Overholt simply declared things to be true and powers to have been created without a scintilla of constitutional or statutory authority for their actions.
HRH George, the Judicial Council and AOC should be examined by an interested political science student and/or professor; whom could clearly produce a tremendous thesis or book that would not onl be a best seller, but would make a profitable movie (with sequels.)
wendy darling
April 18, 2011
Or, alternatively, HRH George, the Judicial Council and AOC should be examined by an interested, independent, and dedicated law enforcement agency, that could produce a thorough investigation and indictment(s) which would not only be an important public service, but would serve as a warning and example to other public agencies (with trials and convictions) that no one is above the law.
Long live the ACJ.
courtwatcher
April 18, 2011
When established, the Judicial Council’s primary function was to oversee the administration of the appellate courts and the the state Supreme Court. In addition, it established rules for practice and procedure, e.g. the maximum number of pages for a reply brief. It does not seem unreasonable to give one person (the Chief Justice) the authority to appoint the majority of the voting members to a board with such a limited charge.
However, when Trial Court Funding was passed in 1996/97, the JC suddenly became responsible for allocatiion of the entire trial court appropriation from the legislature, which now amounts to more than $3.0 billion. The potential for abuse must have been apparent and hence the directive to establish the Trial Court Bill of Rights, which was never done. The only other alternative was to seek a constiutional amendment to the provisions governing appointment to the JC. Given that the AOC was pushing for trial court funding, they were not going to seek a constiutional amendment that limited the CJ’s power. Therefore, they agreed to the bill of rights, hoping the legislature would never follow up on whether they actually performed as agreed.
The JC, through a rule-making process that occurred in the dark of the night, delegated almost complete control over to the AOC and its Administrative Director. As noted in Judge Koop’s editorial, this set up a circuitous process whereby, the JC directs the AOC to implement policy based on recommendations made by the AOC or by advisory committees whose agendas are prepared by the AOC and then subject to approval by the JC.
The governance rules provide the JC to give the appearance that the AOC is only carrying out its policy directives. This is where it is important to remember that the policy is based on recommendations from AOC staff. To the extent policy directives or rules are adopted based on advisory committee recommendations, advisory committees can only make recommendations based on items included on a committee’s annual agenda. The annual agenda is prepared by AOC staff . Once approved by the advisory committee, the agenda is sent to the JC (usually E&P) for final approval. The JC can remove any agenda items not consistent with its policy without further consultation or input from the advisory committee.
It is a rigged game that allow the JC to claim its process is open and transparent.
courtwatcher
April 18, 2011
I apologize for the grammatical errors in the previous post.
A final comment on the JC Governance policies. If an item is not included on an advisory committee’s annual agenda, i.e., not approved by the AOC and JC, the advisory committee cannot inlcude the item in its annual work plan. No AOC resources, including staff, will be devoted to on an item not in the work plan and there will be no discussion of the item at committee meetings.
JusticeCalifornia
April 18, 2011
And once AOC policies and goals are approved and in place. . . . .how to make the trial courts fall into line?
From the 2009 article penned by Dunn, Vickrey and Kelso:
“However, the most savvy trial courts recognized that budget requests aligned with Judicial Council themes, values, and goals were more likely to be favorably received,
and immediately started following the Judicial Council’s strategic planning processes much more closely.”
In other words, “savvy” trial courts understand that he who has the gold, rules.
And this has proven to be a problem for the public. The 2005 Praxis report commissioned by the Judicial Council revealed that fairness and diversity ranked lowest in study about AOC and trial court objectives. Less than one-half of one percent of the trial court objectives fell into the “fairness” category, and less than one percent fell into the diversity category.
It all makes such sense. . . . why on earth would fairness and diversity be promoted by a CJ/Judicial Council/AOC that has given a big thumbs up to an elite, insular, non-democratic power structure, and the use of a reliable (if ethically compromised) cast of characters to enforce same?
This is truly movie material.
In light of what has happened in the past, does anyone know the status of the AOC/JC shredders? An imminent change in the governance/spending structure would likely entail a whole lot of track-covering activity. This may may be why some of Marin’s most ethically challenged document destroyers/audit survivors have become our cj’s best buds.
This is another reason why they want two years. . . . . .bodies have to be buried. . . .
lando
April 19, 2011
Judge Kopp is a man of great integrity and intelligence. His historical understandings are of key importance in this discussion. His commentary regarding then CJs George’s attempts to consolidate further power under the guise of article VI are very revealing about the long term plan envisioned for the JC and AOC and how it would control the trial courts. Thanks Judge Kopp for giving the whole AB1208 discussion a reasonable perspective. Ultimately this is all about restoring a balance which recognizes that no one ever intended the JC and AOC to dictate and control the constitutional functions of the trial courts.
versal-versal
April 19, 2011
Thanks Judge Quentin Kopp for caring enough about all this to write an awesome editorial opinion re AB1208.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 19, 2011
Here is a new video from the Alliance of California Judges that explains the need for AB1208. Another great idea from the fastest growing judges association in California.
http://alliancejudges.org/4_13_2011/
Edited to add – take a look around the new alliancejudges.org site. They’ve remodeled a bit and it looks good. 🙂
wendy darling
April 19, 2011
Judge Lampe rocks!
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 19, 2011
ANOTHER new committee! This committee works real fast, in that it is going to issue its first report at the April 29 JC meeting. The Merry Go Round goes round and round. . .
Hot off the CA Courts press release presses:
“Chief Justice Appoints New Judicial Council Internal Committee to Oversee Case Management System
San Francisco—Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye today announced the appointment of a new Judicial Council internal committee that will oversee the council’s policies on the California Court Case Management System (CCMS). It will also oversee the council’s recently established CCMS governance and advisory committees.
“The new committee will be responsible for ensuring that council policies are complied with and the project proceeds on schedule and within budget,” said Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye. “This oversight committee and the new governance structure of CCMS will help ensure that the case management system will bring court technology into the 21st century and deliver great benefits to the justice community and the public.”
“This new internal committee will ensure that the Judicial Council is not only kept informed and up-to-date on the case management system, but that the deployment of CCMS is completed in a way that is consistent with the policies and priorities established by the council,” said William C. Vickrey, Administrative Director of the Courts. “This reflects the importance of CCMS and provides the council with the time and attention that this project merits for the next 5 to 10 years.”
The 10-member committee will seek reports and recommendations from the CCMS Executive Committee and the Administrative Director of the Courts and will ensure that reports to the council are clear, comprehensive, and provide relevant options so that the council can make effective final policies about CCMS. The committee will advise the council on CCMS policy decisions and report on CCMS at Judicial Council business meetings, which are open to the public. Like other internal council committees, the panel will be made up of Judicial Council members, as follows:
Chair: Judge James E. Herman of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County;
Vice-chair: Assistant Presiding Judge Ira R. Kaufman of the Superior Court of Plumas County; Associate Justice Harry E. Hull, Jr., of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (Sacramento);
Assistant Presiding Judge David S. Wesley of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County;
Judge Stephen H. Baker of the Superior Court of Shasta County;
Judge Teri L. Jackson of the Superior Court of San Francisco County; an advisory member of the council;
Ms. Edith R. Matthai, an attorney who practices law in Los Angeles;
Mr. James N. Penrod, an attorney who practices law in San Francisco;
Mr. Michael M. Roddy, court executive officer of the Superior Court of San Diego County, an advisory member of the council; and
Ms. Kim Turner, court executive officer of the Superior Court of Marin County, an advisory member of the council.
The new committee will make its first report on CCMS at the next business meeting of the Judicial Council on Friday, April 29.
CCMS is an integrated court and case management system designed to eventually support trial courts of all sizes on a statewide level. Its development was triggered by the actions and business demands of superior courts that found themselves with failing or inadequate case management systems that needed replacement in order for courts to continue operations.
Earlier this year, a new governance structure was established for CCMS. That structure is overseen by the Judicial Council’s CCMS Governance Executive Committee, chaired by Associate Justice Terence L. Bruiniers of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District (San Francisco).”
wendy darling
April 19, 2011
A Committee to oversee another Committee . . . in the face of the worst ethical and fiscal crisis in the California Judicial Branch as far back as anyone can remember, current branch administration and the Office of the Chief Jusitice responds by … adding yet another layer of self-approval, self-validation, non-accountablility, and non-transparency.
Nomination for Quote of the Day:
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.”
Long live the ACJ.
wendy darling
April 19, 2011
From Cheryl Miller, posted late this afternoon, April 19, at 4:08 p.m., on The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw. The article is subscription accessed, so maybe a JCW reader out there with subscription access to The Recorder could share a synopsis of the article … ?
Judges Wondering Why They Couldn’t Block Realignment Bill, By Cheryl Miller | 4/19/11 4:08 PM
Some Judicial Council leaders like S.F.’s Katherine Feinstein wanted to oppose it, but the message didn’t get to Sacramento in time
Mrs. Kramer
April 19, 2011
Katherine Feinstein recently stepped down as a member of the CJP, vice chair under Justice McConnell. Everyone knows that her mother is US Senator Dianne Feinstein. But does everyone know that Dianne’s husband, Richard Blum, is a Regent of the University of California?
From the Regent’s website:
Richard C. Blum Appointed March 12, 2002 to a term expiring March 1, 2014 (by Davis); B.A., University of California, Berkeley; M.B.A, University of California, Berkeley; Chairman of Blum Capital Partners, L.P.; Co-Chairman of Newbridge Capital, LLC.
Does everyone know that when physicians of the UC testify as expert defense witnesses for the insurance industry when denying workers comp claims under SB899, the Regents keep over half of the money generated for these services? Cumulatively, it is a substantial dollar amount of income for the Regents.
Does everyone know that the Governor is always President of the Regents and that SB899 brought ACOEM into CA write the workers comp guidelines under Regent/Governor Schwarzenegger’s concept of “reforming” the workers’ comp system?
I sent Katherine Feinstein a letter addressed personally to her as a CJP vice-chair, of McConnell’s involvment in aiding the fraud of ACOEM to continue in CA’s workers’ comp policy over the mold issue while the Regents of the UC profit from the fraud by promoting the “environmental” science of the US Chamber of Commerce/insurance industry.
This was sent, April 2010, before I could also clearly evidence Huffman’s involvment in September 2010. http://freepdfhosting.com/2ea637d61d.pdf
It is no surprise to me that Katherine Feinstein would support keeping centralized control of the judiciaries of California.
courtwatcher
April 19, 2011
Wasn’t the Judicial Council supposed to be overseeing CCMS for the last 10 years? $400 to $500 million has been spent on the project and now you decide to provide some oversight? The simple fact the CJ felt it was necessary to appoint a JC oversight committee to monitor the the largest, most controversial JC project at this late date, speaks volumes to the issue of AOC/JC Governance and is the strongest endorsement for passage of AB 1208 yet. Didn’t the CJ just admit the AOC failed in the past to provide adequate project management? If so, why are the same people in charge and why does the JC continue to listen to them? The AOC screwed up CCMS from the very beginning, but the ACJ and CCMS critics remain on the outside looking in. Unbelievable.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 19, 2011
Regarding the “mother of all CCMS oversight” oversight committee:
To properly emphasize that the Judicial Council and the AOC don’t know which way is up and are quickly running out of supporters that will assist them in re-arranging the titanic’s deck chairs, we respectfully submit the following:
In this release, Mr. Bill opines that “this is the kind of oversight that this project needs for the next 5 to 10 years”. From where I come from we call that chutzpah. If this does not serve as a baseball-bat like clue where this bag of hot air is going with this, consider the following:
This oversight committee has at least FIVE members (Herman and Baker, Kaufman, Truner and Roddy) that are tasked in other CCMS oversight committees. In essence, this collection of true believers with rubber stamps is rubber stamping their own oversight!
Note to self: When re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and ordering the band to keep on playing, it probably isn’t a good idea to abandon the lifeboats and get everyone back on deck because, really, the ship is unsinkable.
courtwatcher
April 19, 2011
Judge Ira Kaufman
antonatrail
April 19, 2011
Thank, JCW, for providing the name of this newly formed committee! The oversight of the oversight committee! The AOC usually seems to love naming these confounded things and I look forward to learning what they will call this one. This could be humorous if it wasn’t so doggone tragic!
JusticeCalifornia
April 19, 2011
Talk about top leadership being unclear on the concept. . . .. it is almost morbidly fascinating to watch this go down.
It is very lucky for the trial courts and the public that the ACJ founders were paying attention back in 2009.
Senator Kopp’s brilliant editorial clearly and concisely lays out the issues, most particularly the Judicial Council/AOC power grabs.
The ACJ video provides more information (nice 1-2 punch, ACJ). I personally especially liked the redlined version of the proposed JC/AOC modifications to the Government Code 77001, found at minute 10:36 of the video, which graphically illustrates top leadership’s naked intent to strip the trial courts of the rights that were promised to them in 1997. I also like the e-mail from AOC spokesperson Philip Carrisoza accidentally copied to a news reporter, found at minute 4:15. This e-mail illustrates the Judicial Council/AOC’s intent to hoodwink trial court judges into believing top leadership was trying to protect, rather than eliminate, promised trial court rights.
These two documents reflect the compelling need for AB 1208 to protect trial court independence and judicial branch integrity.
With respect to top leadership’s tired one-ring circus, Judge Lampe is correct when he states that the public is ultimately going to hold local judges accountable for actively or even passively supporting failed and in some cases corrupt JC/AOC policies and leadership on the public dime. After all that has been exposed, the public will not understand or believe anyone who continues to support the broken status quo, claiming “the Judicial Council made me do it”.
Top leadership has shown everyone, repeatedly, unequivocally, that it is not to be trusted. Those who nevertheless choose to place their eggs in this basket are therefore doing so with their eyes wide open.
courtwatcher
April 19, 2011
Judge Kaufman, Mike Roddy and Kim Turner are all on the CCMS Governing Committees.
JusticeCalifornia
April 19, 2011
I already know about the tarnished wall of shamer CEOs, especially Marin’s chief villian /document destroyer/child endangerer Kim Turner — minimimi’s new best friend and close advisor– is there a down-low on Judge Kaufman?
wendy darling
April 19, 2011
Since when does the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the Office of the Chief Justice “follow the rules”? Rules only apply to others, or, if they might apply to the council and the AOC, well then, rules were made to be broken. And heck, when those pesky “rules” become inconvenient, the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC/Vickrey just send the desired revisions/re-writes over to the “Rules” committee, and get the rules revised/rubber-stamped, even retroactively if necessary. It’s one of the perks of having a self-validating, non-transparent, not accountable to anybody, system. After all, it’s good to be King. Or Queen, as the case may be.
Which is why, once again, all roads lead to Sacramento.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 20, 2011
Minimimi ought to keep it simple and make JCW’s April Fool’s post a reality.
Returning to the point so wonderfully made by Senator Kopp and the new ACJ video. . .
AB 1208 is not a luxury. It is a long-overdue promised basic necessity.
versal-versal
April 20, 2011
Hmm Did I miss something? The State Auditor released her devastating report on CCMS and then the JC and AOC created 4 new committees to save CCMS. J.Bruiners was placed in charge.As observed earlier the CJ’s choice to put J Bruiniers in charge of CCMS was questionable in light of the fact that he was the lead JC/AOC insider to lobby against the CCMS audit. In February J Bruiniers proclaimed that CCMS was a “final product” “ready for use in the trial courts” subject to “confirmation testing”. So why just a few months later is the CJ creating a new 5th committee to oversee J.Bruiniers and the other 4 above described committees? Could it be that CCMS isn’t ready to be be deployed ? All the committees in the world will not save this billion dollar failed project. The bottom line is that CCMS represents whats wrong with having the JC determine policy for an entire branch of government with no authority and no democratic checks and balances.
lando
April 20, 2011
The Titanic at 455 Golden Gate is in a state of panic. Their answer is to create yet another “Committee”. The problem is the new boss is the same as the old boss. This latest CCMS “Committee” is made up of many of the same “insiders” who are on the JC or on the previously created four CCMS review “Committees”.So much for giving the new Chief Justice an opportunity to create real change and reform. CCMS is a complete failure and it is exhibit one in why AB 1208 needs to reform and rebalance the California court system.
JusticeCalifornia
April 20, 2011
“Upon graduation from law school in 1984, Cantil was unable to find a job in law, so she became a blackjack dealer in Reno, Nevada.” (Wikipedia)
Every gambler knows the secret to surviving, is knowing what to throw away, and knowing what to keep, because every hand’s a winner, and every hand’s a loser. . .
wendy darling
April 20, 2011
Great video.
Too bad the folks at 455 Golden Gate Avenue don’t know when to fold ’em, when to walk away, or when to run.
Speaking of videos, hey JCW … how about another cartoon ala “Show Me the Money”. Maybe one titled “The Mother Of All Committees” … starring the Ministry of Truthiness, overseen by the Executive Office of Obfuscation and Imperial Denial, and reporting to the Master Committee of Non-Accountability and Non-Transparency, which, in turn, chairs The Ministry of Truthiness.
Long live the ACJ.
Mrs. Kramer
April 20, 2011
“The Titanic at 455 Golden Gate is in a state of panic…. CCMS is a complete failure and it is exhibit one in why AB 1208 needs to reform and rebalance the California court system.”
And as exhibit two, is the case of Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer D054496, Fourth District Division One with unpublished opinions rendered Nov 2006, by Chair of the CA Commission on Judicial Performance, (anti-SLAPP based on CCP 425. 19) and Sept 2010 by the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Council (CYA for the 2006 anti-SLAPP rendered under CCP 425.19).
I don’t think you all are understanding why I keep insisting that the CJP’s role in the debacle also be included in what you are attempting to achieve to re-instill integrity and democracy in our judicial system.
McConnell, Chair of the CJP & Huffman, Chair of the ExComm JC, have been WILLING participants in a malicious, strategic litigation carried out by criminal means over a matter involving billions of dollars of insurer fraud by the US Chamber of Commerce et. al.
In both 2006 and 2010, CJ Ron George signed the Supreme Court denial to review their opinions while also being evidenced by uncontroverted evidence of these justices rewarding a US Chamber author/plaintiff’s use of criminal perjury to establish needed reason for malice in a strategic libel litigation over the first public writing (mine) of how it became a fraud in US public health policy that it was scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm.
Please! I implore you! Listen to the last minutes of the below audio of an interview I gave the other night , starting at minute 99:48, to understand that these justices have been and continue to be willing participants in the crimes of rewarding perjury and suborning of perjury. They are evidenced to know their actions aid with the continuance of billions of dollars of insurer fraud, intrastate and interstate. (They are directly evidenced to know that their actions of aiding with a strategic litigation directly aided with $25M in insurer fraud in one case in Az involving two infant deaths and the fake science paper of the US Chamber):
Audio, starting at 99:48
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/marti-oakley/2011/04/19/ts-radiosharon-kramerwhistleblower (if you want to hear the whole sordid tale, I start speaking at minute 30)
Now, they are trying to use a lower court, Judge Thomas Nugent, Dept 30 of the North San Diego County Superior Court, to gag me from writing of the criminal actions of these justices and the fraud of the US Chamber et al., that they willfully aided to continue by their rewarding of a plaintiff’s perjury used to establish needed reason for malice.
The US Chamber authors and their “legal” counsel are using a fraudulent document that was mailed to me from the courts in Jan 2009 of a judgment that was never entered. There is no Notice of Entry of Judgment found anywhere in the court file of Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer after amended rulings in the case 12/12/08. Although one would never know this from the opinion rendered by Huffman, Benke and Irion in Sept 2010. But one would, if they looked at the appellate briefs.
You cannot gag a person if you have no legal judgment against them. C’est la vie. They are trying by hook or by crook!
The fraudulent document of a judgment that was never really entered was mailed to me from the courts in 2009 (after I started asking questions) to mislead a stupid Pro Per that a judgment had been properly entered and the lower court had lost jurisdiction to hear a motion for reconsideration. This fraudulent document mailed to me from the court, has now been submitted back to the court, Judge Nugent, by the US Chamber policy authors/plaintiffs in Nov 2010.
Judge Nugent is currently the most powerful judge in CA. He is sitting in the position that he could instill integrity to our courts and rid corruption, with one swipe of his pen. He has two choices and only two choices:
A. Gag a never impeached whistle blower of a fraud in policy — based on a known fraudulent document submitted to him by the authors of the policy for the US Chamber of Commerce;
or
B. Roll over on McConnell, Huffman, Benke and George for being willing participants in a malicious litigation carried out by criminal means to silence a whistle blower of billions in insurer fraud.
The documents are here:
http://freepdfhosting.com/a5b7f3458f.pdf
To quote from the above linked document:
“ONE JUDGE issuing an order acknowledging the defendant’s irrefutable evidence presented to him of the plaintiff’s criminal perjury used to establish false reason for malice while strategically litigating and now trying to conceal crimes by an injunctive relief motion in this judge’s court, will forever change the world and the California judicial system for the better.”
I am just waiting to see what Judge Nugent signs as a judgment of a temporary injunctive relief order. I specifically told him in oral argument of Thursday, April 14, 2011, “I am so sorry, Your Honor, but on behalf of the health and safety of the American public, I cannot abide by any injunctive relief order you may grant.”
He seems like a nice man and has a reputation as an honest judge. So we shall see which direction he chooses to take – while the future of the CA legal system, JC and CJP hang in the balance.
In summary, AB1208 is great and much needed. But nailing influential justices for rewarding criminal perjury in a malicious litigation on behalf of the financial interests of the US Chamber of Commerce goes a long way, too!
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 20, 2011
Gee, the new Chief Justice sounded a little whiny in this morning’s article in The Recorder. Cheryl Miller wrote a piece titled: “Judges Wondering Why The Couldn’t Block Realignment Bill. Many judges expressed that the AOC and its team of lobbyists did not do enough to stop AB 109. As one would expect, Steve White’s quotes were direct and on point.
The Judicial Council and AOC took the following approach.
1. Chief Lobbyist Curtis Child claims he and his staff warned the governor’s office courts would have “major concerns” with this legislation, only problem is those “concerns” don’t seem to have been well documented.
2. The AOC called a meeting of the TCPJAC (Presiding Judges) in March, where they were first informed of the existence of the bill. Many PJ’s were incensed they hadn’t been previously notified. They voted unanimously to oppose the bill. (Too late! Already enroute to the Governor)
3. The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommended that the Judical Council take “no position on AB 109. The Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee wanted to accept responsibility for parole revocations, as long as the State allocated money. The Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee decided to draft a letter to the Governor and Legislature expressing concerns about the costs of the bill and parole revocation duties. The Committee was still reviewing their draft when the Governor signed the bill on April 5th.
Curtis Child claims the bill was “in print” for only 48 hours before both houses approved it.
HRH Cantil-Sakauye said: “We can listen to people through the collaborative process, or we don’t have to,” “Either way, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Personally I prefer the process.
============
Hey Chief, here’s a thought for you. You want to know what is wrong with the administration of the AOC and Judicial Council? Exhibit “A” is contained within this article. How many committees does it take to change a light bulb, let alone oppose legislation that fundamentally changes the duties of a trial judge!
Curtis Child’s claim that the bill was “in print” for 48 hours is horse cr_ _. AB 109 was introduced on January 10, 2011, sent from the printer and read for the first time. The final version was passed and enrolled by the 22nd of March and the Governor signed it on April 4th. More importantly, members of legislature had been seriously talking about the concept of AB 109 for over a year.
=======
The Crystal Palace at 455 Golden Gate Avenue is starting to crumble. Watch as more and more people begin to be thrown under the bus. The new Chief is both way in over her head and clearly not interested in making any significant changes to the Judicial Council or administration of the AOC. She is showing herself to be politically naive and not too terribly bright. In addition, when she is remotely questioned or criticized she goes off. Remember Chief: “Be long of fuse and thick of skin.” You should have known the job was dangerous when you took it. (apologies to Super Chicken and Fred)
These latest appointments to all these “new and improved” committees are, as JCW noted, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Most all of them are the most ardent supporters of HRH George and the status quo. Many are uniquely unqualified to make any decisions about technology.
Keep the heat turned up high! Remember, Mr. Bruiniers said that CCMS is complete and undergoing final product testing. On February 8th he claimed it would be deployed within 60 days in the three early adopting counties. I wonder, are they each going to get the same $50 million system in addition to CCMS that Orange County got so that “CCMS” will work? Why aren’t they talking about San Diego, where the system is an abysmal failure and the probate judges were told by then Presiding Judge Kenneth So not to say anything because it was a political issue. How about LA, doesn’t seem to work in the one courtroom there. Fresno? No word there. Doesn’t work in Sacramento, we know that. The only place it seems to “work” is Orange County where the CEO Alan Carlson knows it isn’t CCMS running the system. Ventura is the only county for which I have no information other than three judges claim the criminal component works, but I don’t know what that means. If anyone has specific information about Ventura, please post it.
wendy darling
April 20, 2011
Judge Nathaniel “these are the facts” Woodhull, your posts are the best! And Judge Steve “keeping them honest” White – you rock right up there with Judge Lampe!
Long live the ACJ!
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 20, 2011
No sooner than you post on one article, another one pops up!
This morning’s Daily Journal article by Emily Green discusses the conflict of interest of on the persons “selected” by HRH to sit on the AOC comprehensive review committee. Mary C. McQueen, President of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) was put on the committee as a nonvoting advisory member. Problem is, The NCSC received $645,000 in contracts from the AOC in 2010 and the Judicial Council has already paid $552,648 in “annual membership dues” to the NCSC in 2011.
The NCSC also receives big bucks from the same consulting firm (Deloitte) that came up wsith CCMS. HRH seemed quite upset that anyone would question her selection of Ms. McQueen, whose appointment she still stands behind.
Remember, this committee was formed overnight by HRH and is comprised of the usual suspects whom will undoubtedly report that everything within the AOC is “just fine”.
Why did she even bother to form this committee?
wendy darling
April 20, 2011
“Why did she even bother to form this committee?”
Answer: She needed to add another chapter to The Emperor’s New Clothes.
JusticeCalifornia
April 20, 2011
minimimi is forming committees because she is in way way over her head and has no idea what else to do.
She is not equipped for this job. She does not have the skills, temperament, experience, presence or– most importantly– the desire to clean up, reform,and ultimately mend the fractured branch.
She is thumbing her nose at anyone who dares criticize the status quo, and knowingly and purposefully surrounding herself with many despised branch baddies, all the while patting herself on the back for being “strong”. As such, she is alienating almost everyone except those conflicted branch baddies and sycophants who, out of self-survival, are encouraging her to be “strong”.
I do not believe she realizes just how bad things can get as she continues with her footstomping childish “lalalalala I can’t hear you” tactics. People who have experienced the fallout from RG’s appalling and oppressive status quo have zero tolerance for that garbage.
I daresay the combined experience, will and force of the ACJ, outraged branch victims, governmental/legislative members, and members of the press who understand what has gone down dwarfs that of minimimi and her remaining “true” supporters.
Oppression will not be tolerated here.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 20, 2011
Well the hits just keep on coming!
The AOC’s General Counsel sent out a ten page analysis, plus attachments, of the effects of AB 109. For a group that claims not to have known anything about the existence of AB 109, they sure got out their analysis quickly….hmmm?
I am completely relieved, because according to AOC lawyers, implementation of this legislation will require 85 to 122 new judgeships throughout the State. What? How could they possibly know this so fast?
HRH has anointed the following group to work on an implementation plan for AB 109: Members of the Council’s Policy Coordination & Liason Committee (PLCC); members of Trial Court Presiding Judge Advisory Committee (TCPJAC) Criminal Law Committee (CLC); Collaborative Justice Courts (CJC) and Court Executives Advisory Committee (CEAC). This group will: “…review the bill, identify concerns and possible solutions, and suggest alternatives for the Adminstration’s consideration. I feel so much better knowing that this group will be deciding how local courts will administer their programs. (sarcasm)
The AOC analysis of the bill notes: “When and if AB 109 becomes operative, it will, among other things, implement sweeping changes to the current parole procedures, including a shift of parole jurisdiction and most supervision responsibilities from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to courts and local county agencies.”
Parole has historically been considered an exclusive function of the Executive Branch. There is no way this turkey should pass Constitutional muster, however the persons deciding this will include Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye. I’ve got a real sense that this is all part of a “deal” between the Chief, Governor and key members of the Legislature to shift the burdens from the State (to solve their deficit) onto the counties. It is a great opportunity to expand the size and scope of the AOC. Let’s see if we can’t hire a few hundred or thousand new AOC employees and create five or ten new Judicial Council committees.
It’s about time to leave California!
Judicial Council Watcher
April 20, 2011
Judge Horan unofficially annoints the newest CCMS committee as “the mother of all committees”
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/ccms042011.htm
wendy darling
April 20, 2011
Published today, Wednesday, April 20, at 12:50 p.m., on Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Calif. Court Backs Judicial Self-Policing Bill, By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – As judges throughout the state remain split on a bill aimed at giving local courts more decision-making authority, the head judge of one of the Bay Area’s larger courts has sided with the legislation’s supporters.
In a letter disseminated yesterday, Presiding Judge Beth Labson Freeman said her fellow judges in San Mateo Superior “have overwhelmingly agreed” to back AB 1208, introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon (D-Montebello) in February.
Read the rest of the article at http://www.courthousenews.com.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 20, 2011
San Mateo endorsed it on Monday, Los Angeles backed the measure today.
Delilah
April 21, 2011
Where is the confirmation that Los Angeles backed it on 4/20? Did their bench write an open letter a la San Mateo? Confirmation of this fact would certainly prick up the ears of a large number of judges.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 20, 2011
“I think there is room for improvement,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “The AOC needs some tightening up.”
“It has to be stressed that the AOC is a service entity, not a control agency,” she continued. “We need to revisit the concept that the AOC serves the trial courts. If that means the Judicial Council needs to provide greater oversight, I endorse that.”
Excuse me, the AOC is a “service entity” not a “control agency”….since when…5 minutes ago?
courtwatcher
April 20, 2011
“I think there is room for improvement,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “The AOC needs some tightening up.”
My nominee for understatement of the year.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 20, 2011
If they are not a “control” agency, why does the AOC care about AB 1208? If in fact they were a service agency, none of this should matter…
antonatrail
April 20, 2011
I’m not an accountant so please forgive any misstatements, BUT shouldn’t the services provided by the AOC be held up to the costs incurred by said “service agency” in a cost-benefit analysis? From what I’ve observed, California taxpayers and the courts would be best served by the complete elimination of the AOC. The JC could be put on probation for a said period of time. After all, the council didn’t come into being until the wild and roaring 20s.
courtflea
April 20, 2011
Wow! Lots happening! Great video ACJ.
What I know about Judge Kaufman is he presides in Plumas County (Northern CA) and he has a mega desire to be the first 2 court judge (that may not be a historical fact, that is just what I hear) to be appointed to the Court of Appeals.
And yes Justice California, this is rather morbidly fasinating to watch. Just like watching a car wreck, you can’t tear your eyes away from watching it, nor can you believe what is happening. I have always felt that one day the JC/AOC mess will collapse on itself just by the shear weight of its own load of crap. Hopefully we are headed in that direction.
The behavior of the AOC/JC should and continues to insult the intellegence of anyone with half a brain. That whole part of this continuing debacle never ceases to amaze me. Again, thanks for the super heroes of the ACJ for continuing to put that out there and reminding folks that getting tossed the occassional milkbone should not divert them from keeping in mind the AOC/JC’s true intent: absolute power and yes Virginia, you too can be thrown under the bus to acheive that goal.
I think that the Turner Roddy team need to be voted off the island.
wendy darling
April 20, 2011
Nomination for Song of the Day:
If I Only Had a Brain
I could while away the hours, conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain.
And my head I’d be scratchin’ while
my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain.
I’d unravel every riddle for any individ’le,
In trouble or in pain.
With the thoughts you’ll be thinkin’
you could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain.
Oh, I could tell you why The ocean’s near the shore.
I could think of things I never thunk before.
And then I’d sit, and think some more.
I would not be just a nothin’ my head all full of stuffin’
My heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be a ding-a-derry,
If I only had a brain.
If only . . .
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 20, 2011
Thanks to the efforts of a lot of judges, AOC staff, JCW:) and concerned members of the public, the light is finally starting to be shone upon the underbelly of the beast; that is the Judicial Council and AOC. Congratulations to Los Angeles County Superior Court, the largest court in the World, for having the courage to unanimously vote to support AB 1208. The only abstention was Mike Feuer’s wife, and one has to wonder how someone with so little experience is even on the Executive Committee, but so be it.
For those of us that saw this behemoth rising almost a decade ago, we have had to suffer the slings and arrows of being called “shrill and uninformed” and “ants on a trail.” Respectfully, whether it takes a day, week, month, year, decade, century or millennium, truth and justice will prevail!
I have given this issue a tremendous amount of thought since 2004, when I first became aware of the efforts to create an undemocratic system within the Judicial Branch. I’ve been blind-sided, knee-capped, and subjected to unbelievable name-calling. Yet like the old Timex commercial, “It takes a licking but keeps on ticking.”
The Judicial Council is something of Constitutional creation. At this point, the Chief Justice still controls the majority of the appointment upon that Council. The AOC however is an entity of statutory creation. The Administrative Director of the Courts was created by statute in 1960 and the Administrative Office of the Court was created by statute in 1961. MY REQUEST TO ALL OF YOU IS TO CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS. The way to control the AOC, and even the undemocratically appointed Judicial Council, is to control the funding to the AOC. As an entity of statutory creation, the Legislature can specifically de-fund the AOC.
Contact your Legislators! Demand that the AOC be examined by a completely independent body, who will be able to see the excesses and examples of seven layers of managers within one group. FUNDING IS THE KEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AB1209 is being viewed as a victory by HRH as she expects it will result in another 144 judges throughout the State and an unimaginable increase in the size of the AOC staff to support these new functions being performed by the Superior Courts of California. It is self-evident that HRH will not find that AB 1208 violates the Constitutional separation of powers, which is clearly does, because that would mean she cannot grow the size and length of corresponding tentacles of the AOC
Please…contact your local elected representatives in the Assembly and Senate. Suggest that they critically evaluate the need for the existence of the AOC, or at the very least the extent of their existence.
Please everyone, keep up the good fight, I don’t know how much longer I can continue…
JusticeCalifornia
April 20, 2011
Judge Woodhull, I have so enjoyed your posts. I have found that many long-haul court reformers have each, individually, at different times, for years wondered how long they can continue. . . . .but every day is a new day! After 12 years, I have found that it is kind of like a relay race– you run, pass the baton, rest (yeah, right), pick up the baton, etc.
It is wonderful that the conditions for a perfect storm have presented themselves so that many different people have been able to participate in what is transpiring– and that is, history being made as the “largest judiciary in the western world” undergoes a massive and necessary change.
The vision, focus and determination of the ACJ — wow. The court employees and members of the public who continue to say it like it is. . . .wow. The phenomenal voice given to so many by AOC Watcher, and JCW–wow. And the fact that our elected officials are listening, and have stepped up to protect their constituents, and safeguard the integrity of the branch– wow.
One thing about your above post. You said:
“AB1209 is being viewed as a victory by HRH as she expects it will result in another 144 judges throughout the State and an unimaginable increase in the size of the AOC staff to support these new functions being performed by the Superior Courts of California. It is self-evident that HRH will not find that AB 1208 violates the Constitutional separation of powers, which is clearly does, because that would mean she cannot grow the size and length of corresponding tentacles of the AOC ”
I think you meant to say “AB109” rather than AB 1209 or 1208. I don’t want anyone to misquote you. . .accidentally on purpose.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 20, 2011
You are correct, me bad. Problem with stream of consciousness without proof-reading.
courtflea
April 20, 2011
Loved it Wendy! how bout this?
When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen’s “off with her head!”
Remember what the dormouse said;
“Keep YOUR HEAD”
“Keep YOUR HEAD”
Thank you White Rabbit/Jefferson Starship
Hang in their NW, the force needs you.
lando
April 20, 2011
Wow it has been a remarkable two weeks. The CJA polling results sure told the story about how concerned the trial Judges of the state are about the JC and AOC. AB 1208 gained some huge momentum with the public support of the Los Angeles and San Mateo County Judges. AB 1208 has now earned the support of large, middle and small sized courts which represent a true cross section of our state. Judge Quentin Kopp’s detailed and powerful editorial recounting the history of the JC and AOC’s attempts to control the trial courts without constitutional authority further galvanized support for AB 1208 and the need for meaningful change.No longer can calls for reform be marginalized as the anti-democratic and insular empire created by former CJ George and J Huffman is crumbling. Incredibly the response of the CJ/JC and AOC is to call for surveys and to appoint new “Committees” with the same “insiders” “selected” to now oversee their own failed policies and programs. The vast majority of the hardworking and concerned trial Judges have spoken in a clear and consistent way. It is time for significant and positive change. Is the CJ listening?
wendy darling
April 20, 2011
The CJ isn’t listening, but the State Legislature apparently is.
Posted late today, Wednesday, April 20, on The Recorder, from Cheryl Miller: L.A. County Superior Court Backs AB1208. The article states that the opposing views on AB 1208 have “set up a legislative showdown next week ,when the bill is scheduled for its first hearing in the Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee.”
All roads lead to Sacramento. Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 20, 2011
Many of the most dedicated, vocal CA court critics have been and are the biggest believers in truth, justice and democracy.
After experiencing RG’s oppressive and punitive CA Courts empire, they looked around, compared notes, didn’t like what they saw and asked:
Upon reflection, they realized they were traveling down the road to to hell in a handbasket, a place where very few aspire to descend.
The rest is history in the making. . . .
wendy darling
April 20, 2011
The latest departure in the AOC’s HR Division – next Friday, April 29, will by the last day at the AOC for the HR Division’s “Budget Analyst” Patrick Farrales.
One can only wonder what Director Fuentes is going to do without his “money guy.”
versal-versal
April 20, 2011
I don’t mean to be cynical or jaded but this last “Committee ” now the fifth “Committee” to oversee CCMS has me convinced no one in authority at the 455 Golden Gate palace is getting it. Woodhull is right. The AOC is a creation of the legislature and to reign it in ,the solution is to reduce their budget. That it turn limits the CJ and JC from intruding on the constitutional authority of the trial courts.
JusticeCalifornia
April 21, 2011
New Recorder article:
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202490926678
I do believe, in my JCW discussions about Joe Dunn, I called this play (using lawyers as judicial mouthpieces, which is straight out of RG’s favorite playbook):
“The Consumer Attorneys and the California Defense Counsel, in a letter sent to Calderon dated April 19, called the bill “misguided” and said it “threatens to return California to an earlier time when civil litigants were subject to wildly inconsistent standards in our 58 counties, and even within counties.”
Consumer Attorneys President John Montevideo and CDC President Peter Glaessner wrote that Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye should be given more time to respond to criticisms of the branch and its management.”
Now, this is really ironic. I daresay if Mr. Montevideo and Mr. Glaessner polled out-of-county lawyers in their organizations who had ventured into the Marin County courts in the last 10 or 15 years, most specifically those run by Michael Dufficy, Verna Adams, and Lynn Duryee, they would be told that the law and rules of court simply don’t matter there. The Marin Court is famous for “hometowning” out of county lawyers, and rewarding in-county lawyers that protect and give money to the bench. It is also famous for doing whatever it wants to, to whom it wants, how it wants to, whenever it wants to. It is famous for having incomplete court files, and unavailable court files, and all kinds of court proof of service mishaps. This has never changed, notwithstanding vocal public outcry, because for some reason, the Commission on Judicial Performance, RG (who assigned out CCP 170.1 challenges), the AOC, and certain members of the Courts of Appeal have carefully protected this bad behavior. In the last couple of years, Marin’s worst offenders have been appointed to top leadership’s advisory and oversight “committees” and “commissions”. Currently, Marin’s most notorious and despised document-destroying, child-endangering, rule-breaking duo, Verna Adams and Kim Turner, are the darlings of cj minimimi, and have been hand-selected by her to serve in oversight/advisory positions.
It ain’t just Marin, either. Anyone reviewing the April 6, 2009 Elkins Task Force tape of the public testimony given by litigants, court professionals, lawyers and advocates from all over the state will see this.
The fact is, party liners who violate the law and ethical canons have been and are rewarded by the CJ/JC/AOC under the ultra-political “tow the party line and you will be just fine” policies put in place by Ron George and perpetuated by Cantil Sakauye.
So how does this benefit lawyers and the public? It doesn’t. How has this benefited the branch? It hasn’t. The branch is in a state of utter disgrace.
No offense to Mr. Montevideo and Mr. Glassner, but I would rather look at the Judicial Council’s own research to see what lawyers and court users REALLY think about the branch under RG’S STATUS QUO.
According to the Judicial Council’s own research, under George’s reign, victims and litigants, and ATTORNEYS who used the courts most, had the least confidence in and most negative opinion of the courts (p. 46 of the 2005 Praxis report.).
Further, under George’s reign, according to the statistics on page 32 of the Judicial Council’s 9/25/05 Trust and Confidence Report, 73% of those surveyed believe judicial decisions are influenced by politics.
The details and links are referenced here:
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/jc-4-15-092.pdf
As far as I can tell, the integrity and public opinion of the branch can go nowhere but up once AB1208 is passed.
wendy darling
April 21, 2011
All Roads Lead To Sacramento: The Trial Court Bill of Rights of 2011 – AB 1208 – has been set for hearing on April 27 at 9 a.m., Room 437, before the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review.
This information was provided directly by Samuel Chung and the office of Assembly member Jeff Gorell.
This is a public hearing, with public comment.
JusticeCalifornia
April 21, 2011
If you cannot go, call or write in support of AB 1208.
Committee Members
Committee Members District Phone E-mail
Roger Dickinson – Chair Dem-9 (916) 319-2009 Assemblymember.Dickinson@assembly.ca.gov
Martin Garrick – Vice Chair Rep-74 (916) 319-2074 Assemblymember.Garrick@assembly.ca.gov
Marty Block Dem-78 (916) 319-2078 Assemblymember.Block@assembly.ca.gov
Joan Buchanan Dem-15 (916) 319-2015 Assemblymember.Buchanan@assembly.ca.gov
Paul Cook Rep-65 (916) 319-2065 Assemblymember.Cook@assembly.ca.gov
Nathan Fletcher Rep-75 (916) 319-2075 Assemblymember.Fletcher@assembly.ca.gov
Shannon L. Grove Rep-32 (916) 319-2032 Assemblymember.Grove@assembly.ca.gov
Curt Hagman Rep-60 (916) 319-2060 Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov
Alyson Huber Dem-10 (916) 319-2010 Assemblymember.Huber@assembly.ca.gov
Bonnie Lowenthal Dem-54 (916) 319-2054 Assemblymember.Lowenthal@assembly.ca.gov
Holly J. Mitchell Dem-47 (916) 319-2047 Assemblymember.Mitchell@assembly.ca.gov
Richard Pan Dem-5 (916) 319-2005 Assemblymember.Pan@assembly.ca.gov
Anthony J. Portantino Dem-44 (916) 319-2044 Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov
wendy darling
April 21, 2011
The word from Sacramento is that AB 1208 is supported in the Assembly. Daryl Steinberg, over on the Senate side, however, apparently wants to block the bill from enactment in the Senate, and is putting political pressure on Senate democrats to block or oppose AB 1208.
JCW readers and the public at large might want to keep in mind that Steinberg was/is a big fan and supporter of HRH Ron George, and also the current CJ – they went to law school together and also worked together before the CJ went to the bench, so their relationship goes back a ways. Steinberg appears to be more dedicated to preserving/protecting his loyalties to Ron George and the current CJ, than to his obligations to the public regarding the integrity of the judicial branch. So, along with writing or contacting the members of the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review, people would also be well advised to write to members of the Senate, especially Mr. Steinberg, and let each of them know they need to honor their obligations to the public regarding AB 1208, and set aside whatever personal loyalties, relationships, or friendships regarding this matter.
Our recently departed Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger commuted the sentence of Estaban Nunez, the son of his political buddy, Fabian Nunez, from 16 years to 7 years, the night before Schwarzenegger left office. Estaban Nunez received that sentence following his conviction for Nunez’s involvement in the stabbing death of a college student. Recently, Schwarzenegger admitted he did this “to help a friend.” The public doesn’t need this kind of “help.”
What the public does need is a judicial branch in which the public can have some measure of integrity and confidence. Let Steinberg and the members of the California Senate know that they will be held accountable if they permit AB 1208 to be twarted or defeated because of political convenience, personal loyalities, relationships, or to “help a friend.”
These are public officers, answerable to the public who votes to put them in office, and to the public for the integrity of the judicial branch. Let them know that and that AB 1208 should be enacted. It was very clearly the stated intent of the State Legislature 13 years ago that the Trial Court Bill Of Rights be enacted. The Office of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC failed to take care of this responsibility, and apparently did so knowingly and intentionally. They had their chance and they chose not to do so. AB 1208 represents a promise to the people of the State of California to protect the integrity of the judicial branch and the autonomy of the trial courts guaranteed under the State Constitution that is 13 years overdue. That promise needs to be honored. The members of the Senate, including Steinberg, need to step up and fulfill their obligation and promise to the voters and the public, and enact AB 1208.
If they don’t, 2012 is an election year, and many members of the Senate are up for re-election. People might want to remind the Steinberg and the members of the Senate of that reality, and that they will be held accountable.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
April 21, 2011
Oh pleeze, the Bar needs to let go of that old chestnut about inconsistent standards in courts. If the JC is truly doing its job constitutionally, that would not happen. Stuff like that is what the JC was intended to work on, not trying to run the court system from the death star.