Shortly after the CJA survey was released, JCW got wind of a survey commissioned by the AOC themselves. JCW was informed that this survey was sent to both the states’ judges and court executive officers. We never got a copy of this questionnaire and checking with other journalists, some had heard of an AOC survey, some had not heard of an AOC survey, none had a copy of the survey.
Additionally, the CJA sent a letter regarding the CJA memberships’ perceived dissatisfaction with the JC/AOC. The ACJ has been clear on its dissatisfaction with the JC/AOC and has been writing about it for years. While we were all witnessing the struggle for AB1208 over the past month, our esteemed Chief Justice has been sitting on all of this information for over a month.
From what we can ascertain, all of that effort by others to bring attention to this unprecedented leadership crisis appears to gone straight into the circular file without any response from the JC/AOC or our esteemed Chief Justice. By any measure, the efforts made by the CJA and the ACJ to call attention to this leadership crisis and solve the branch’s problems internally are unprecedented and remain unaddressed. And our Chief Justice says that legislation is not required because the branch can solve their own problems. You might remember the words of William Vandiver from another thread.
“Frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I’m from Missouri. You’ve got to show me” William Vandiver -1899
Since AB1208 is currently stalled and the our esteemed Chief Justice is currently sitting on all of this information that would enable any COMPETENT ADMINISTRATOR to act, we have not heard a word from the Judicial Council, the AOC or the Chief Justice about how they intend to address any of this.
A strong majority of this states judges and many judicial branch employees demand some leadership from our esteemed Chief Justice. From what we can ascertain, she hasn’t even acknowledged receipt of this information she requested.
Was all of this feigning of concern simply a charade?
Note: “Isn’t it time” is now JCW’s official theme song for the Cantil-Sakauye Administration.
________________________________________________________________
Apparently, we’re not the only people that share Mr. Vandiver’s sentiments….
________________________________________________________________
June 17, 2011
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye:
On April 8, 2011 following the CJA plebiscite, which revealed significant dissatisfaction with our branchs management, you requested that the trial judges of this state respond to a questionnaire in order to give you additional information in addressing the issues of branch governance, identifying problems with the operation of the AOC, and making suggestions for solutions. It has now been 39 days since that information was given to you and we believe that the judges of this state should now be informed as to the results.
By this letter we respectfully request that you make available the actual verbatim responses as they were provided to you.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Andrew Banks
Tia Fisher
Susan Lopez-Giss
Kevin McCormick
Michael Hayes
Maryanne Gilliard
David Lampe
Daniel Goldstein
W. Kent Hamlin
Jeffrey Burke
John Somers
Steve White
H. Thomas Hollenhorst
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
Judicial Council Watcher 
mrs kramer
June 18, 2011
“we have not heard a word from the Judicial Council, the AOC or the Chief Justice about how they intend to address any of this.” That’s because this is how they intend to address this. SWNV Speak with No Voice. Silence is Golden..Gate Avenue, 455. But my eyes still see!
JusticeCalifornia
June 18, 2011
JCW, the black hole game is going on up at the AOC in more ways than one.
Inquiries made about the AOC’s assigned judges program are going unanswered.
Assigned Judges Information Request PART I:
a. May 7, 2011 information request sent to AOC:
“I am interested in knowing how long Judge Halpin has been serving as an assigned judge on the Shasta bench, including each separate assignment and time in aggregate; the dates; and the amounts he has been paid. I would like a copy of the orders requesting the assignment and re-assignment; the orders granting the re-assignment; and the billing and payment records.”
b. May 12, 2011: The AOC gave the statistics about where Halpin was assigned (Shasta County) the length of his appointment (since January 4, 1994), and the number of days served (2,009) but the question of how much he has been PAID went unanswered. Further, the request for RECORDS about his assignment and payment were met with a statement that these records would cost “a minimum of $2,000” because they were being sought for “commercial purposes”.
c. May 18, 2011: The AOC was assured that the purposes for which the information was being sought were NOT commercial:
“My non-commercial purposes:
1. I am planning to prepare a letter-petition for statewide dissemination urging support for a BSA audit/investigation of all aspects of the assigned judges program. I am not being paid for this. I believe that the way the program has been used is circumventing the Constitution. 60 days is one thing, 18 years is another. These assignments deprive the public of the ability to elect their judges, and report problematic judges to the CJP. It places the sole power of oversight into the hands of the Chief Justice—the very person who assigned the judge. And let me ask this: What are the chances a Supreme Court Chief Justice is going to rule against a trial court decision made by a retired judge the CJ assigned, and kept re-assigning, over the complaints of the public the assigned judge serves—which complaints the CJ may have dismissed? This information will be useful for promotion of that letter-petition. And, this (the request for an audit) is the reason for my non-spoliation request as well. Complaints and documents related thereto should not be destroyed, because the way complaints have been handled by the trial courts, AOC and CJ is a legitimate and important subject of inquiry and investigation by the BSA.
2. I write JusticeCalifornia bulletins for dissemination to the legislature, members of the public and press, and others. Attached is one I did regarding a similar subject—namely court commissioners. I am not being paid for this.”
d. June 3, 2011 AOC response:
“Under rule 10.500, your request is made for commercial purposes. The rule provides that a request for commercial use is one that “furthers the commercial, trade, or profit interests of the requester.” You request the materials in your role as an attorney and a commentator and are not a member of the media. The fact that you are not being compensated for writing JusticeCalifornia bulletins does not negate the commercial purpose of your work—i.e., the benefit of your law firm and other law firms.
Thus, responding to your request will cost a minimum of $2,000.00. . . .”
JusticeCalifornia
June 18, 2011
Assigned Judges Information Request PART II:
e. June 4, 2011 reply to AOC:
“What are you talking about? How did you reach that conclusion? The JusticeCalifornia bulletins are written to inform legislators and others about what is going on in the branch. Members of the legislature are the primary recipients of these bulletins. And, as Lynn Holton is well aware, some of the information in the bulletins was first published in a local Marin newspaper, namely, the “Coastal Post”.
http://www.coastalpost.com/06/11/01a.html
http://www.coastalpost.com/06/12/02a.html
http://www.coastalpost.com/06/12/02.html
http://www.coastalpost.com/06/11/01a.html
http://www.coastalpost.com/07/01/03a.html
And JusticeCalifornia bulletins have been published as well:
http://www.coastalpost.com/09/07/06.html
Regarding the assigned judges program, many believe the CJ/AOC have usurped public power and violated the CA Constitution via the manner in which the assigned judges program has been implemented. Judges are supposed to be appointed by the Governor, or elected by the public, and they are supposed to be subject to oversight by the Commission on Judicial Performance.
Is the Chief Justice aware of the position you are taking? Does she support it? What about branch transparency?
In any event, while you further discuss this, I have more general information requests that do not require a production of documents.
Here are my new information requests:
1. How much has Judge Halpin been paid, each year, to serve as an assigned judge in Shasta County. (The answer I am seeking would be in this format if possible: 1994: ___ dollars. 1995: ___ dollars.)
2. For all assigned judges serving as of December 31, 2010:
a. What are their names
b. Where were they assigned?
c. How long had that Judge served, in total, in that assignment? (The answer in Judge Halpin’s case was since January 4, 1994)
d. How many days did the judge serve, in total, in that assignment?
e. How much was the judge paid, each year, for serving in that assignment?
f. Did any of these judges continue to serve in that assignment in 2011? If so, i) for what time periods; and ii) did they serve pursuant to assignments approved by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye?
I believe the Chief Justice should be aware of these inquiries, and the answers to these inquiries. Please continue to make sure they are forwarded to her. She ultimately will be held responsible for the assignments she makes after these issues have been brought to her attention.
Thank you.”
f. AOC June 4, 2011 Response:
“Your e-mail has reached the Public Access to Judicial Administrative Records Project at the Administrative Office of the Courts. California Rules of Court, rule 10.500 provides that in ten days we provide you with a response as to whether we have the information requested.”
g. CURRENT STATUS OF PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST:
In violation of Rule 10.500, the AOC has provided no further response.
The AOC clearly has the information, as evidenced by the fact that it quickly provided information (except payment information) about Jack Halpin. The AOC is simply refusing to provide the information.
mrs kramer
June 18, 2011
“You request the materials in your role as an attorney and a commentator and are not a member of the media”.
Perhaps having a “member of the media” mail them the request for production of documents. One (named Michael) who may also be interested in obtaining the information & writing on the subject.:)
Michael Paul
June 18, 2011
The charge is for research behind the request. Regardless who asks for anything that needs to be researched and not readily available, they charge. They want to charge me for the Jacobs contract and the 600 contract amendments – but will not give me a price. The rule of the court must go. The judiciary treats their public information as the feds would treat state secrets.
JusticeCalifornia
June 18, 2011
Michael, it’s a press of a button to get the information. The AOC has to compile the information and prepare reports on the assigned judges– I have seen them.
In any event there was no charge for the basic Halpin information– the charge was going to be for the compilation, copying and redaction of the DOCUMENTS regarding Halpin’s appointment and payment.
Meanwhile check out this interesting story about one of minimimi’s newly “assigned” Santa Clara judges who has a very nasty retaliatory attitude about judicial oversight:
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_18195305?nclick_check=1
Michael Paul
June 18, 2011
All they need to do is copy the Jacobs contract as well. Yet they indicated that they needed time to review all of the documents before turning them over and told me it would be a “substantial charge”. When asked, I never got what the “substantial charge” was.
What should be of concern to every citizen is that my request was being made pursuant to the false claims act and was not supplied.
mrs kramer
June 18, 2011
Judge Carr sounds an awful (and I do mean awful) lot like San Diego District Attorney, Bonnie Dumanis. Bonnie is running for mayor. She is a pioneer sister with McConnell in The Lawyers’ Club, an advisor to Kamala Harris and sat on the State Bar governing committee.
Long history of boycotting judges who speak out of indiscretions in the DA’s office:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/28/boycotting-of-judges-is-nothing-new-to-da/
mrs kramer
June 18, 2011
Maybe you could find some unlicensed contractor to make the requests. When it comes to money, the AOC/JC seems to cut them alot of slack on the rules and law.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 18, 2011
Part of our own inquiry was previously addressed by the ACJ in a letter to the Chief Justice appended below our post-
JusticeCalifornia
June 18, 2011
Do we see a pattern here?
Problematic behavior
report/complaint about problematic behavior
retaliation against those reporting problematic behavior
receipt of significant additional irrefutable data evidencing problematic behavior
notice of possible or actual official inquiry or remedial action re problematic behavior
delay
orchestrated damage control (call in the indentured troops) regarding the problematic behavior
alteration and/or destruction of documents regarding the problematic behavior
reported missing records regarding the problematic behavior
official misrepresentation of data regarding the problematic behavior
official denial of any wrongdoing (but thank you for informing us of this alleged problematic behavior ) coupled with
false promises of reform.
and then, the pattern repeats itself.
And the taxpayers are paying for all of this garbage, instead of the “access to justice” they have been promised.