Tell me this does not describe the true purpose of CCMS deployed centrally….
The word racket is used to describe a business, syndicate or entity that is based on the example of the protection racket and indicates a belief that it is engaged in the sale of a solution to a problem that the institution itself creates or perpetuates, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage.
That sounds like the perfect description of CCMS to us. The AOC has been engaged in a ten year sale of a solution to a problem that they themselves created and have been perpetuating with the specific intent to engender the trial courts continual patronage. As illustrated by Sacramento, it includes a really expensive shift of funding from the trial courts to the AOC to support those underlying activities. The efforts of running it off a central server are about continued patronage and we’re going to surmise that when our friends at Deloitte got the full monty, the price tag for what the AOC wished to accomplish started climbing dramatically.
The AOC has perpetuated this problem for nearly ten years by discouraging all others from pursuing alternative solutions. They have perpetuated the problem further by shifting reserves that might have been utilized to pay for such an alternative system locally to pay for their grandiose pie-in-the sky that assures them a steady chunk of trial court funding for years to come.
If this is not the objective with CCMS, then the AOC should have no issue giving the application to trial courts to run the application locally. With ten years invested into this plan, they are not about to take their eye off the prize and give you, the trial courts, the application you already paid for. You must sign on to keep on paying the AOC by agreeing to centrally host CCMS or you’re not getting CCMS.
This is one area where, in the upcoming legislative session, we see an opportunity to define this application as the physical and intellectual property of the trial courts, the AOC and the Judicial Council. We believe that eventually the legislature will have to step in and kill the project or order the distribution of this application to each of the trial courts with an appropriate knowledge transfer. We gather that currently, the application trial courts paid for is either the physical and/or intellectual property of the AOC and/or the judicial council.
Demands that CCMS being hosted locally have been made by courts across the state as well as from the Alliance of California Judges. It is only the AOC and the Judicial Council, not anyone else that sees any need to run the application out of the California Courts Technology Center in Arizona. Any deviation from the AOC’s plan cripples this part of their planned syndicated racket.
The case for running the application locally are too numerous to mention. The most fundamental case for a local installation is “building from the foundation up.” The foundation being your local court. The cases that are heard in that local court and your local business processes should drive the front-end application design. The database across the entire enterprise, however should be as close to identical, field for field as possible and this could be achieved via a trial court working group and a knowledge sharing website. The theory behind an identical back-end design is that sooner or later, after all 58 of those foundations are built you can start working on merging data into a single statewide database.
The AOC perceives themselves to be that foundation via the CCTC and has been telling courts that their application drives process and that “a change in process is always difficult because it is difficult to learn something new, people resist change”
The verdict is out with the AOC now going hat-in-hand nine years too late, trying to win the support of small trial courts for central hosting, while the Judicial Council works its minions into Court Executive Officer positions to give them the power to execute on their racket in other courts regardless of impact. If they had any concern about impact, they would have solved Sacramento’s issues instead of covering them up by picking up the tab for awhile, while they closed the sale to other courts.
The impacts of running the application out of the CCTC are currently known by everyone. It is only the JC/AOC and their vendors that are saying anything different. Again, with ten years invested into this plan, they are not about to take their eye off the prize and give you, the trial courts, the application you already paid for. You must sign on to keep on paying the AOC by agreeing to centrally host CCMS. That is the definition of racketeering by any measure. Why are they doing this? Follow the money.
________________________________________________________________
We’re not sure how far back the criminal offenses committed by AOC personnel go. According to information supplied to us the first apparent crime was an embezzlement in the HR department of more than $100,000.00 by an individual by the name of “M” who self-identified himself to other Administrative Office of the Courts Human Resources employees as a “long time friend of Mr. Fuentes”. Most of the employees who expressed knowledge of these events no longer work for the AOC by design. This includes one Paula Negley and another Merilee Fielding and many, many others. In the first hearing with the Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review, Mr. Vickrey was asked about this embezzlement and why no one was prosecuted. Mr. Vickrey would lie to the Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review and indicate that the District Attorney, who is now Attorney General, declined to prosecute (a public corruption case involving a temp? Give me a break.)
One of the critical items required to prosecute a case is that someone must write up a crime report and someone else must submit it to the District Attorney, who at the time was Kamala Harris. Numerous parties have conducted public records searches with the San Francisco Police Department, the CHP, the JPU and the San Francisco Sheriff’s department looking for this crime report that Kamala Harris allegedly declined to prosecute. Not a soul has ever turned up any crime report in connection with this embezzlement of public funds. Questions about this crime report to Mr. Vickrey go unanswered.
This embezzlement and the protection racket established to ensure no prosecution for this offense took place is alleged to have intentionally been orchestrated by AOC’s senior management as to avoid any outside investigation.
The reason?
The work that “M” was hired for was to make a big hole in a budget disappear and is alleged to been worth more than double the underlying embezzlement. The difference is that this hole alleged to be needing filled in was one created by executive management and “M” was the right person to bury the discrepancy. A criminal was alleged to have been hired to conceal one crime against the state and committed another one against the state in the process. This might explain why no one was ever charged, this explains why there is no crime report, this might explain why there was neither an arrest, nor an investigation. The “first responders” at that time were the JPU who has a significant presence in the building. To better cover their proverbial butts in the future, the JC/AOC has hired “court security coordinators” to take care of matters in the manner in which they are told they will. No law enforcement agency has any record of any crime report and most of the CHP in that building are alleged to be avid readers of JCW. (Thanks ladies and gentlemen)
_______________________________________________________________
In somewhat about the same time frame of these events above, three contractors were selected to maintain courthouses throughout the State of California. In Southern California, it was Jacobs Facilities, Inc that was awarded the contract. From day one, Jacobs subcontracted their contract to the “licensed to clean up a construction site” company of ABM and the two entities did business together under the DBA “Team Jacobs”. In the Bay Area/ Northern California region, it was a company named EMCOR and in NCRO it was Aleut Global Solutions that were awarded maintenance contracts.
From the onset of the contracts, there was discussion amongst OCCM personnel of one party taking over the whole statewide contract. Within a short time, the AOC quietly canceled EMCOR’s contract and replaced them with Team Jacobs. The whisper was that EMCOR was being terminated by the AOC for invoiced for work never accomplished. During this same period of time however, similar complaints were rolling in from SRO about “Team Jacobs” doing the same thing. The difference was that “Team Jacobs” was alleged to be even bolder than Emcor about it. Not only were they alleged to have been submitting invoices for work never completed but the cost of that work was off the charts anything remotely considered as value. This piqued the suspicions of many other people who work for the AOC that one contractor, where relatively small cheating was being conducted, was being replaced by another contractor whose reported cheating was on a grand scale. The issues weren’t limited to cheating though. Complaints were rolling in from the courts about the vendor in SRO. The AOC facilities management people across the region were writing them up for these complaints.
It got to a point where the service was deemed so bad by the facilities management administrators in the SRO region that the facilities management administrators across the entire SRO region wanted the vendor out. There were just too many problems, too many complaints and prices that were wildly unrealistic for services rendered.
All of this activity, including the SRO vendor themselves, was being shielded first at the Facilities Management Administrator’s boss in SRO, the JFI/Team Jacobs contract manager, one Ken Kachold. He ran SRO with an Iron Fist and as far as he was concerned, JFI could do no wrong, regardless of what the reports from the field were. He knew the reports because he required weekly meetings to go over the reports in detail. Mr. Kachold developed a protectionist / apologetic attitude towards the vendor and instructed his Facilities Maintenance Administrators to downplay widespread reports of dissatisfaction. In the face of all of these complaints, the AOC mysteriously cancelled Emcor’s contract and quietly awarded the BANCRO region to Jacobs. The complaints in BANCRO would then proceed to escalate dramatically about the same issues denoted in SRO. There was a different regional manager serving BANCRO and this is where FMU’s senior management from Sacramento (Stetson, Pfab and Willoughby) began “regulating” complaints against the vendor in Northern California.
During this entire time, Aleut Global Solutions, LLC had been performing work out of the NCRO region. While there was complaints about costs, there were very few complaints about the quality of their work. Much later into the contract, management issues at AGS turned into management headaches for the AOC.
It was in late 2006 that Michael Paul started making his inquiries as to the license status of “Team Jacobs”. In December of 2006, a subcontractor to Team Jacobs on the Larson Justice Center named AirMetrx out of Walnut, California approached Michael and indicated that he was working for and accepting payments from an unlicensed contractor who was ABM. The role of “Team Jacobs” was clarified as being an unlicensed joint venture at the time, with ABM having only a license to clean up a construction site. They had no legal authority to issue AirMetrx any contract for the building management system as this would be working outside of the scope of their janitorial license. Furthermore, the joint venture, purported to be Jacobs Engineering Group of Pasadena, California and ABM – had no joint venture license whatsoever. Yet as you can tell by the business cards and proposals posted on this site, they were operating precisely in this manner.
These matters, known by the entire management staff of the Office of Court Construction and Management, went absent any resolution for three years. When the AOC did do something about it, they called upon the AG’s office to rush out and file laswuits that lacked any meat whatsoever on the allegation bones to prevent and to be able to control any outside investigation. Initially, they filed lawsuits claiming the total paid the unlicensed contractors was 14 million. Since everyone knew that to be untrue, they upped the ante to 42 million and made “Team Jacobs” vanish off the face of the earth.
The problem here is that the AOC paid the unlicensed contractors somewhere north of three hundred million dollars according to our sources within the AOC. So why is the AOC declining to pursue $258 million dollars, especially when everyone knows that all monies were a result of gross overcharging? Part of this money paid the unlicensed contractors came from the trial courts, yet the contracts for work and contract maintenance and supervision, the responsible managing entity remained the AOC.
How much would you have to be paid to look the other way at overpaying an unlicensed contractor with state funds over a three year period?
How much would you have to be paid to allow even a licensed contractor to grossly overcharge you over that same period, while protecting the entity?
In short, we believe these affairs to be part of an elaborate kickback scheme involving members of the AOC and members of the judicial council, run over a period of years and consists of yet another element that we call racketeering.
Again, follow the money. Similar to the AOC bleeding trial courts dry on CCMS funding, the AOC has been bleeding trial courts dry on building maintenance, remodeling, modifications, etc as well as services provided to the trial courts by the vendors. As illustrated by both Jon Wintermeyer and Michael Paul, beating the vendors pricing by leaps and bounds was simple, but not in the best interests of those skimming from the public trough. This is why both of these gentlemen had to go as does anyone that agrees with them and comes to the same conclusions.
________________________________________________________________
The California Courts Technology Center was founded by the AOC to provide centralized datacenter services and technical assistance to the states trial courts. It is where the AOC has chosen to host Sustain, CCMS, Phoenix, CAFM and a host of other services like e-mail. Initially, this contract was let to Siemens and they operated a datacenter in Union City, California. When the contract came up for renewal, the AOC put it back out to bid and selected SAIC. Right after the selection of SAIC, Siemens personnel attached to the old CCTC started becoming managers, senior managers and assistant directors within the AOC information services department. A reorganization conducted at about the same time as the contract renewal added an extra layer of management called “Senior Manager”, a whole bunch of people throughout the AOC were then promoted to “Senior Manager” and all of those Siemens people suddenly had jobs open up for them in the AOC that did not exist prior to their Siemens departures. Yes, in AOC Information Services, they actually created positions for four individuals that did not previously exist, with one individual filling a slot vacated by a retirement.
Just like the prices for other services, the prices of services from the CCTC are and have always been off the charts from both Siemens and SAIC. Those people who would have known this best all got management jobs within information services. Is this just a mere coincidence that all of this happened or was giving these people high level jobs within the branch a way of keeping them quiet? As we’ve said many times before, we’re not a believer of coincidences when it comes to the AOC and their operations.
_________________________________________________________________
The destruction of court mediation records in Marin County was conducted while a BSA audit was pending to look specifically at this information as well as the case files for a certain number of cases within the courts. For nearly a year, the AOC, the Judicial Council and Court Executive Officer/ Judicial Council member Kim Turner pushed off BSA’s audit with flimsy excuses. Meanwhile they had turned on the shredders in Marin County, started removing mediation files from case files and started shredding them as these files were incriminating.
John Judnick, the resident judicial branch cleaner was sent up to Marin County to bless this destruction. And bless it he did. He chose to take the position that files that are an instrumental part of custody decisions are not part of the court case file and it was okay to destroy this incriminating evidence. This report would later be accepted by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye as the legal standard. It is okay to destroy court mediation records because they are not part of the court’s official file (even though they are instrumental in the judges decisions)
This racket is a trade of favors. Kim Turner was involved in her boss extraordinaire’s steering of contracts to a live-in girlfriend and managed to keep her mouth closed about it. This is a quality valued by the Judicial Council so this put her on the fast track to leadership.
She had been competently protecting boss extraordinaire’s butt for years so she was the perfect choice to continue to protect the Marin judges and the Judicial Council.
_______________________________________________________________
Patrick Missud is a lawyer-litigant that has a bend for a company named DR Horton that he and many others accuse of bait-and-switch mortgages. DR Horton is what we call a “frequent flyer” in legal circles. While they build houses and provide mortgages, their other calling is preserving their gains by allegedly retaining arbiter companies that consistently rule in their favor and against construction defects and mortgage fraud. Since these are settled in Arbitration, you never hear much about their activities but quite a lot of activity they have.
If these arbiter companies didn’t consistently rule in DR Horton’s favor, then DR Horton wouldn’t be choosing them, so says the allegations made in a federal RICO complaint against San Francisco Superior Court and ADR Services, Inc.
________________________________________________________________
We’re not lawyers. However, all of the activity listed above calls into question the legitimacy of California’s judicial branch of government. Most especially it calls into question the legitimacy of many acts undertaken by the Judicial Council and the AOC.
Is there a shadow syndicate at the JC/AOC hiding behind the robes of the judiciary?
JusticeCalifornia
June 20, 2011
Great post, JCW.
And here is the engine powering the third branch money-go-round:
“it is engaged in the sale of a solution to a problem that the institution itself creates or perpetuates, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage.”
Billions of dollars, no oversight, judicial immunity. You scratch my back, I will scratch yours. woo hoo. Yes, follow the money.
Michael Paul
June 21, 2011
From: Michael Paul [mailto:michael_paul@michaelpaul.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:25 AM
To: ‘pubinfo@jud.ca.gov’
Subject: A copy of the crime report for the embezzlement
According to various sources, an embezzlement of over 100K involving a perpetrator named M*** **** happened in the HR department. This embezzlement was a subject that was brought to Mr. Vickrey’s attention by the Committee of Accountability and Administrative Review. Mr. Vickrey indicated that the district attorney declined to prosecute.
1. Who was the agency that this crime was reported to?
2. Who was the officer that this crime was reported to?
3. Where can I get a copy of the crime report that shows that this was actually reported by law enforcement?
4. What is the assigned case number of the reporting agency?
Michael Paul
June 21, 2011
From: Pubinfo [mailto:Pubinfo@jud.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:25 AM
To: michael_paul@michaelpaul.net
Subject: Thank You for Contacting AOC Public Information – Your Message Has Been Received
Greetings,
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.
This e-mail verifies that your request has been received and that we will respond promptly. For more information about the Public Access to Judicial Administrative Records Project and a link to the applicable rule of court, please visit http://www.courts.ca.gov/13260.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en.
Thank you for your interest in the judicial branch.
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
Public Access to Judicial Administrative Records Project
Executive Office Programs Division
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
pubinfo@jud.ca.gov
“AOC: 50 years of service to the courts and the people of California, 1961–2011”
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2011
New article published today, Tuesday, June 21, from Bill Girdner and Courthouse News. Seems Mr. Girdner recently had a meeting in Bakersfield with a few judges . . .
Bakersfield
By BILL GIRDNER
http://www.courthousenews.com
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 21, 2011
It’s not at all a difficult issue. I am glad to see Bakersfield willing to work on it.
Sam
June 22, 2011
executives at SAIC (the AOCs useless and overpaid contractor for CCTC) are being charged in NYC with corruption and fraud. http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/21/37559.htm
Judicial Council Watcher
June 22, 2011
You could probably swap names and see the same thing. The beautiful difference between New York City and the Judicial Council/AOC is that no one but the cleaners from internal audits are permitted to investigate at the AOC.
Since the impropriety happens with his divisions direct involvement, one will never, ever find fault with the AOC. After all, the AOC hired the best in the business at making things disappear.
sharonkramer
June 22, 2011
SAIC was founded in San Diego. I remember when they only had about 800 employees. Its an employee owned corporation. http://www.saic.com/about/
Does this sound like a familiar scenario? http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=3128
Accused of leaking information that uncovered high-level corruption at the Pentagon’s electronic intelligence satrapy, Drake is charged with serving as a source for a series of articles published by The Baltimore Sun that provided rich details on cosy relations between NSA officials and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
According to investigative journalist Siobhan Gorman, three years and $1.2 billion after choosing SAIC as the primary contractor for a failed digital communications project called Trailblazer, “SAIC did not provide computer experts with the technical or management skills to complete the project.”
In subsequent reporting, the Sun revealed that “six years after it was launched, the Trailblazer program consists of little more than blueprints on a wall.”
Drake’s revelations of high-level cronyism at the agency which cost taxpayers billions of dollars were further amplified by other reporters. Writing for CorpWatch, investigative journalist Tim Shorrock disclosed that NSA “is the company’s largest single customer, and SAIC is the NSA’s largest contractor.”
Shorrock tells us that “the company’s penchant for hiring former intelligence officials played an important role in its advancement.”
Ron Branson - National J.a.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
June 23, 2011
Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.)
(California Initiative – Ver. 2-7-07)
Preamble. We, the People of California, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; that when judges abuse their power, the People are obliged – it is their duty – to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding the following provisions as Sec. 32 to Article I, which shall be known as “The J.A.I.L. Amendment.”
1. Definitions. To avoid absurd results, words shall be given their plain, ordinary and literal meanings; and where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural and vice-versa. For purposes of this Amendment, the following terms shall mean:
Judge: A judicial officer hearing and adjudicating legal actions and proceedings within the judicial branch of government (to include arbitrator, mediator, or a private judge, any of whom is assigned by a court to hear involuntary proceedings). This definition shall not be construed to mean trial juror, prosecutor, or any administrative official.
Material allegations: Statements essential to the claim or defense presented in a pleading filed in court.
Blocking: Any unlawful act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void judgment or order.
Corporate litigant: A party holding a corporate charter, as distinguished from a business license.
Juror: A Special Grand Juror.
Strike: An adverse immunity decision or a criminal conviction against a judge.
2. Exclusions of immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States. The foregoing judicial misconduct shall not be construed to mean court decisions made within the authorized capacity of a judge.
3. Special Grand Juries. For the purpose of returning power to the People and ensuring the integrity of the judiciary, there are hereby created within this State three twenty-five member Special Grand Juries with statewide jurisdiction having inherent power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, based on the evidence shown on the record, whether any civil lawsuit against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, or whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought before the Special Grand Jury.
4. Professional Counsel. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, and thereafter shall be ineligible to serve; except a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute to conclusion ongoing cases through all appeals and any complaints to the Special Grand Jury. Each Special Grand Jury may hire clerical staff, as needed, without time limitation.
5. Establishment of Special Grand Jury Facilities. Within ninety days following the passage of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a suitable facility for each Special Grand Jury. Each facility shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population throughout the State, but no facility shall be located within a mile of any judicial body.
6. Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into an exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph 10 for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph 7, surcharges under paragraph 8, forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph 18, and fines, if any, imposed by sentencing under paragraph 16.
7. Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a party filing a civil petition or response before the Special Grand Jury shall, at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil petition or response on their own behalf before the Special Grand Jury as a matter of right shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating that they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee, pursuant to First Amendment right of redress.
8. Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph 6), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to supplement the funding of this Amendment so as not to be chargeable to the public.
9. Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to that of a Superior Court judge, prorated according to the number of days actually served by the Juror.
10. Annual Budget. The Special Grand Juries shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the seventy-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Treasurer. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty Superior Court judges, the State Treasurer shall so notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the State Treasurer shall transfer such excess to the state treasury. Except for the initial year, no expenses in paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 of this Amendment shall be chargeable to the public.
11. Jurisdiction. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to appoint a foreperson, establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each petition/complaint brought before it, unless such case is transferred to another Special Grand Jury to achieve caseload balance. A transfer shall not prejudice a docketing deadline. The Special Grand Jury first docketing a complaint shall have sole jurisdiction of the case. Except as provided in paragraphs 17 and 22, no petition of misconduct shall be considered by any Special Grand Jury unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in petitions of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Juries become functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the petitioner opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that Court.
12. Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and have been an inhabitant of California for two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious act.
13. Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and their names shall be publicly drawn at random by the Secretary of State from the list of registered voters and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing. The initial Special Grand Juries shall be established within thirty days after the fulfillment of the requirements of paragraph 5.
14. Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Juries, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two Jurors shall be rotated off each Special Grand Jury and two new Jurors seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.
15. Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed petition upon the subject judge and notice to the petitioner of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file a response. The petitioner shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge’s response. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions of time upon the showing of good cause.) In criminal matters, the Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. Each Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty calendar days, serving on all parties their determination as to whether or not immunity shall apply as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination in writing within thirty days. All allegations in the petition shall be liberally construed. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their determinations, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring judicial accountability and the perception of justice. The standard of authority by which the Jurors shall be guided in making their determinations shall not be opinions of courts, but shall be the Constitutions of California and of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof. The Jurors shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this Amendment against a judge shall not commence until a final determination by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen Jurors shall determine any matter.
16. Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a petition is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal impartiality, relationship, or lack of fluency in English, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge, having jurisdiction solely to maintain a fair and orderly proceeding. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, sentencing shall be the province of the special trial jury, and not that of the selected judge. Such term of sentence shall conform to statutory provisions.
17. Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all of the following conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty days have passed following the lodging of such affidavit or declaration, and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.
18. Removal. Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office. Judicial retirement for such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such judge would have otherwise been entitled. Retirement shall not avert third-strike penalties.
19. Public Indemnification. No judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.
20. Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.
21. Redress. The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.
22. Challenges. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person.
23. Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. The foreperson of each Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July. Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.
Copyrighted Library of Congress 9/12/03
Judicial Council Watcher
June 24, 2011
While we approved the post and would like to see improvements in these systems, we see problems in the jail for judges initiative as written. While the thought behind it is good, the devil is in the details and it’s those details we have an issue with.
Perhaps some active or retired judge and/or active or retired attorney would like to work with JCW and see if this can be improved upon a whole lot.
We’re not judges or attorneys. We’re the media – laypersons in law, yet we see issues right away.
Ron Branson - National J.a.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
June 24, 2011
I should like to respond to the above post. It should be noted that J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) is the pioneer in leading the way for judicial accountability on the internet. Back in 1995 there were no other organizations or websites on the internet that exposed wayward judges, or called for curbing judicial immunity.
J.A.I.L. has been examined and poured over by thousands of attorneys and legal minds viewing it with a fine tooth comb. Among our ranks are numerous attorneys and even one judge, (now a former judge.) This author of J.A.I.L. has spearheaded fourteen cases to the United States Supreme Court prior to getting this off the ground.
It has gone through many editing and refinements over the years as legal minds contributed to its current version. Among our contributors was the head secretary of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in Santa Monica, who served as Secretary to one now serving as a respected judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who name shall remain unknown.
Those wishing to consult with our legal counsel may reach Attorney Gary Zerman at (661) 259-2570. J.A.I.L. has been the subject of nationwide radio debates, and has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, along with CNN, and the Los Angeles Times, not to speak of many law review magazines. J.A.I.L. has been the subject of no less than six State Supreme Court Justices, including South Dakota, California, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Missouri, and Kansas.
Ron Branson, is prepared to debate with anyone who wishes to debate it merits.
P.O. Box 207
North Hollywood, CA. 91603
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
http://www.jail4judges.org
sharonkramer
June 25, 2011
Mr. Branson,
Has your organization done any research on the role of the CA Commission on Judicial Performance with regard to judicial misconduct and immunity?
Ron Branson - National J.a.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
June 25, 2011
Sharon Kramer, I am quite proficient in knowledge regarding the CA Commission on Judicial Performance. Prior to 1960 complaints regarding judges were directed to Grand Juries, and the Grand Jurors investigated complaints against judges. This provided the People an potential independent forum in which to file judicial complaints.
In 1960 the CA Legislature “determined” that there needed to be created a special forum for judicial complaints called “Commission on Judicial Qualifications.” This commission was made up mostly of judges. The name was later changed to “Commission on Judicial Performance, or CJP. for short. Judges still retained the majority of the votes on the CJP.
What the CJP did was remove “jurisdiction” out of the hands of the People through the Grand Jury to place judicial complaints against judges into the hands of their fellow judicial brethren who could and would cover for one another.
Complaints against judges are of the greatest nature in complaints coming before the County Grand Juries, the Grand Juries now merely tell the complaintant that they must redirect their complaints to the CJP, and that they no longer have jurisdiction to investigate judges.
The CJP is created as a sandbag to absorb the many complaints that are coming in regarding judges. I should add here that while the California Legislature is the originator of these “judicial oversight committees,” their legislation has spread all across this country, and every state now has a judicial “oversight” commission by whatever name. But the key factor is that they are all created to sandbag complaints against judges.
Here in California there have been two different initiatives supposedly designed to reform the obvious conflicts of having judges judging judges. I believe the first one was Prop 90 followed by Prop 140. The so-called plan was to thrown more of the People’s tax dollars at CJP because they were just not getting the job done against the judges. The other was to shift the majority on the CJP from the judges to non-judges. But this only provided window dressing for the CJP.
These so-called “non-judges” on the CJP consisted of appointees of the Chief Justice of the CA State Supreme Court, an appointee of the State Attorney General, who serves as defense counsel for CA judges when they are sued by the People, an appointee of the Calif. Bar Association, of which every judge must belong prior to being eligible to sit on any judicial bench, and an appointee of the Chairman of the State Board of Equalization.
It can be easily deciphered that while the number of actual judges is just one shy of a majority on the CJP, all the rest are just political hacks covering for the wayward CA judicial system. I personally know on a first name basis, and am known, by the second man once in power within the CA Attorney General’s Office. After a visit within the AG Office one of their Deputy AG followed me into the elevator and said to me, “Mr. Branson, we know you want us to go after these judges in California. We just cannot do that. We have a conflict of interest. We are their attorneys. When you sue them, we come in and defend in your cases. Also, when we file our lawsuits on behalf of the State of the California, we want these judges to rule in our favor. We are not going to make these judges in California mad by holding them accountable.”
After having made a personal appointment with my AG friend at an Office Christmas Party, he later called me and said, “Ron, I cannot make that appointment or meet with you!” I said, “Why not (first name)?” He told me that he has a conflict of interest, he represents the ones I am complaining about. I apologized and said I was sorry for misdirecting my complaint, that I was looking for the one spoken of in Art. V, Sec. 13 of the California Constitution which sets forth, “Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced.” He just repeated to me that he could not meet with me, and hung up.
I pulled off an entire exposure of the so-called justice system as it pertains to judges. I started with the Los Angeles County Grand Jury, and got their referral to the CJP. I personally appeared in S.F. in front of the CJP where I was told that they were not a criminal prosecuting agency for crimes, and that I would have to take my complaint to the Attorney General’s Office in Sacramento. So I did. The AG tried to boogie me off back to the CJP from which I had just come, and so they saw that was not going to work. I was given two and a half courtesy hours with the AG Pubic Relations man who copied many pages of evidence of judicial criminal activity. I was told that the AG’s Office was going to have to expedite these serious criminal complaints.
Days past and became weeks. Weeks became months, and I heard nothing. I called the AG’s Office about these “expedited” claims. They tried to shine me on, and even told me that I needed to go to the CJP with my claims. Eventually I went to the CA Governor’s Office with my claims. The were very nice and cordual with me, but could not wait to get me out of their office. I have taken my criminal complaints of judicial misconduct to the U.S. Attorney, and even to the U.S. Attorney General, and then to the FBI where they sat on it past the statute of limitations, and then wrote to me to notify me that they were dismissing the complaint on that ground.
I have been to absolutely every possible door and beat upon it when it comes to judicial misconduct and criminal activity. Ultimately, I saw no other route available but to go directly to the People with the proposal that we create our own Special Independent Grand Jury that does nothing but hold judges accountability on criminal conduct, and determine issues that involve the application of judicial immunity. I even granted these Special Grand Jurors the power to appoint their very own Special Prosecutors to criminally pursue judges when they willfully violate criminal laws.
Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
http://www.jail4judges.org
SF Whistle
June 23, 2011
Mr. Branson–
Welcome—and a big warm welcome to your initiative—-It must be passed throughout the Nation if we are ever to have an accountable, transparant judicial branch–
Your proposed law would end the arrogance that has consumed decency—
How can we launch this in California???
Judicial Council Watcher
June 23, 2011
If I am to use other initiatives currently in the works, it takes gathering 807,000 signatures.
Ron Branson - National J.a.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
June 25, 2011
Dear SF Whistle, I wish to respond to your comment “It must be passed throughout the Nation if we are ever to have an accountable, transparent judicial branch.” Obviously, we have in this nation 50 different states. If JAIL4Judges was passed in any one of them, then the entire corrupt governmental system would collapse. For instance, Art. I, Sec 10 of the U.S. Constitution states that no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt. Suppose the State called “Integrity” was the only state to pass J.A.I.L. Thereafter the State of Integrity sent a property tax bill to Patriot Bill who lives in the State of Integrity and demanded payment. Patriot Bill writes back and demands to know in what thing the State of Integrity is demanding payment in. No Patriot Bill knows that his state can demand payment in nothing but gold and silver coin, or else they are in violation the the U.S. Constitution, and if the state wishes to push the issue, he will bring a lawsuit in court relating to his state’s violation. If the judge decides to cover for the State of Integrity, then he subjects himself to the potential wrath of the People of the State of Integrity through the newly created provisions as set forth within J.A.I.L., and may find himself sued without the protections of judicial immunity. Whats more, after three strikes, he is cast off the bench and looses one half of his judicial retirement. Ough. That’s too high a price to pay!
Sooner or later the Attorney General realizes he is not going to fare to well in front of Judge Concerned over this constitution requirement of gold and silver. Mr. AG reports back to the Legislature of the State of Integrity and states that if the state is going to survive, they are going to have to bring a lawsuit against the Federal Reserve Banking System. Even the thought of such action results in a national economic panic within our monetary system.
Obviously, we cannot have but just one state among the 50 state operating on gold and silver coin as mandated in the Constitution. All the People have to do is win with J.A.I.L. in a single state, and the entire corrupt system as we know it collapses. Righteousness and justice will florish, jobs will be restored, and our nation would become great again, and the New World Order would suffer a deadly blow by the return of our country to the principles established and ordained by our Founding Fathers.
The fact is, defeating the enemy and restoring our country is easy. The problem is getting past the ignorance of the People who are still looking for a remedy they shall never find, Hosea 4:6, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee…”
Ron Branson
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
http://www.jail4judges.org
sharonkramer
June 23, 2011
As the saying goes, “Politics makes strange bed fellows.” We all may approach the elephant from different sides and not agree with each other on every point. Yet the common bond of everyone who I have seen post on this board is the recognition of the need for the over powering control of our judicial system to be removed the exclusive hands of the few — who have demonstrated their lack of respect for the judicial process, the trial courts and the law itself. We all recognize this is necessary to restore integrity to the judicial branch for the sake of public good. The passage of AB1208 is a key step required. Regardless of how one may feel about individual judges or courts or immunity or computer systems or pension plans or mold; lets work together where we can to make this happen.