Image via Wikipedia
As a recent op-ed from the reformer indicated, the assigned judges program is being abused. Wouldn’t it be great if, as the AOC or Judicial Council you could pick the judge that heard your case? Better yet, wouldn’t it be swell if you picked someone with judicial-political aspirations of going to a higher court? As illustrated by the reformers case, this is precisely what is happening.
The assigned judges program is ripe for abuse by the AOC and it is being abused. According to some preliminary statistics gathered from the AOC, about 400 judges served as assigned judges in 2010. Out of those 400 judges, about a third of them (133) sat on the bench managing a courtroom and being re-appointed to the bench every 60 days for many, many years.
In many cases, many of these 133 of the ‘good ol boys club’ retire on a Friday and start collecting their pensions. On Monday, they return to the exact same courtroom they served in previously before they retired and they are earning nearly double their pay.
Prior to their retirement they filled the slot of an elected judicial officer, subject to retention elections and CJP oversight. Once appointed, they are no longer subject to retention elections nor CJP oversight. They are free to roam California’s courtrooms as loose cannons accountable to only the AOC, which as we know, means they are accountable to no one.
Assigned judges are a vehicle under which judges can be backfilled due to absences, workload or challenges and require re-appointment to the bench by the chief justice every 30-60 days. These are intended as temporary assignments and while most assigned judges might spend no more than 90 days per year sitting on the bench, some of the assigned judges ‘good ol boys club’ have been sitting as an assigned judge in the same courtroom, collecting two salaries for greater than 10 years. This brings us to the controversial use of perpetual appointment as an abuse of authority. Does the Chief Justice have the right to appoint and re-appoint a judge to the bench for years at a time and undermine the will of the electorate?
Meet Retired Judge Jack Halpin of Shasta County. Retired from the bench, he has been re-appointed in perpetuity since 1994 – for over seventeen years. While he should have been subject to three retention elections, he is above the law and has been subjected to no retention elections. It must be nice to be Jack Halpin.
With only AOC oversight (and we all know how that goes: bury the dirt and leave no trace) and the locals questioning weather or not Judge Halpin suffers from dementia the sole determinant of his fitness for the bench is two hundred miles south inside the AOC.
Of course, having no method whatsoever to determine Judge Halpin’s fitness for the bench and for his respected service as a member of the “good ol boy’s club” Judge Halpin enjoys the uncommon perk of absolute judicial immunity. He is fit for the bench because the AOC re-assigned him to the bench and that’s the end of it. All complaints against Jack Halpin spanning over a decade are without merit because the AOC says they are. Of course, should anyone actually file suit to question this, it will be the same group that appointed him that will work to defend him. They will pay for and pick the counsel, they will choose the venue and the judge to hear any such case. Unlike judges going before the CJP who must get their own legal counsel, Judge Halpin can rely on a far higher power to defend him in the AOC.
He is free to accept bribes. He is free to rule against responsible parents and railroad children into cottage industries, knowing that responsible parents will fight like hell to get their kids back whereas irresponsible parents rarely will. While this is a disease that affects parts of the bench all over California, it’s especially sinister when the judge is assigned, cannot be held accountable by the people and is, in effect, accountable to no one.
According to the AOC, there are 133 “Jack Halpins” throughout the California Court system, subverting the constitution at the hands of the chief justice. These people are re-appointed in perpetuity without ever having to stand up to a retention election.
This disease, as we understand it began with Chief Justice Ronald George before his appointment of the judge to the Scott Peterson case. Whereas it had previously been customary to assign a case to a court and permit the local court to determine which local judge would hear the case, Scott Peterson was the first defendant to ever have his case heard by an assigned judge appointed by the Chief Justice. When Chief Justice George was called on it, a new (unwritten) rule of court was introduced that would permit him to not only determine the venue but determine the judge. Of course, it was made retroactive just like SBx211.
We further understand from the AOC that 26 of the 133 positions being filled by long term assigned judges are authorized positions that the Governor should easily be able to make appointments to fill their slots. Of course, NO ONE HAS TOLD THE GOVERNOR THIS because these positions are already filled – with assigned judges.
Judicial Council Watcher calls upon the Chief Justice to remake these rules of court and comply with the spirit and intent of the California Constitution. Repeal the rule that permits the AOC to appoint the actual judge and limit such cases to appointing the venue. Establish a rule of court that limits appointments to the same court to no more than three consecutive re-appointments to the same court in a year and stop abusing this process.
Furthermore, no judge should be above the law and not subject to CJP oversight. Since we all know that AOC oversight is equivalent to no oversight whatsoever, we call upon the state legislature to pass a law in the absence of rules of court that subject assigned judges and court commisioners to the same rules and oversight as other judges.
No one should be above the law or subverting the California Constitution.
Most especially the Chief Justice.
Produced by Yen Interactive Media on behalf of Justice California for Judicial Council Watcher
Related articles
- The build-a-grievance post (or why AB1208 is necessary) (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Dirty Cops – An op-ed by “The Reformer” (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- A shadow syndicate shielded by judicial immunity? (lesliebrodie.wordpress.com)
- http://www.blindbulldog.com/
sharonkramer
June 25, 2011
That might be your finest writing yet. Easy for me, who does not have much knowledge of this aspect, to understand. If I can understand it, so too will many other people with no superior knowledge of the matter.
BTW It’s really the “Good Ole Boys & Girls Club”. God forbid you demean Tani by not acknowledging her eligible membership…just because she is pretty. Senate Judiciary Committee members will come after you for that in the media, you know. So will Tani.
Again, excellent writing. Needs to be spread far and wide.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 25, 2011
Would you be referring to the same Tani that relied on charms and good looks to work her way through law school wearing skimpy outfits as a waitress and blackjack dealer?
Would you be referring to the same Tani that was appointed Chief Justice by the womanizing, love-child-making governator that was obviously thinking with his small head instead of his big one when he selected a questionably qualified candidate for supreme court because “kal-ee-forn-ya is going to have the hottest chief justice in America?”
Eat your heart out Noreen Evans. We’re bloggers and are held to a different standard.
sharonkramer
June 25, 2011
“Eat your heart out Noreen Evans. We’re bloggers and are held to a different standard.”
Yes. And so are all professional females. I would never play the offended honorable female card to the media to foil a bill passage (or to get my way on anything). Its beneath my standards.
That little trick (inanimate object meant), was offensive and demeaning to professional females everywhere. I was on the fence about Tani before that, trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. I admire people who start with nothing and excel. But that trick of feigned offense really turned the corner for me to understand that she is person who will do whatever it takes, honorable or not, to get what she wants. Noreen Evans was right there playing the same card.
JusticeCalifornia
June 25, 2011
I was looking for the Judicial Council’s Assigned Judge Fact Sheet. I googled the link, and was taken here:
http://www4.courtinfo.ca.gov/downnotice.htm
“Attention: The web site is currently unavailable due to scheduled maintenance on Saturday, June 25 at 6:00 a.m. to Sunday, June 26 at 6:00 a.m.
Your patience is appreciated”
The ENTIRE court website is down.
But here is a different link I found to the Judicial Council’s “fact sheet” about assigned judges.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:twq4AKXYqUoJ:www.courts.ca.gov/Assigned_Judges_Program.pdf+ASSIGNED+JUDGES+PROGRAM+CALIFORNIA&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiPfNdfuP5dr6RLseShhHUChMKx7Rsrj5HosWPyYnNKtV3sqXvsCOKQcOCkh1PludZpP7V_WVItrWNRV8LKWG1BSyLoAB9jHh8ndmis-GNBLkeEnAuHcD7H-N4B18Cjdoi9Xfwh&sig=AHIEtbQquTDOpGbyIiiS2CSr2A9ZdcK2RQ
Michael Paul
June 26, 2011
The third Wednesday (after 5PM) and the third Saturday are monthly maintenance periods for the AOC’s information services department and the reason the site was shut down.
JusticeCalifornia
June 25, 2011
THE CHIEF JUSTICE/AOC’S “ASSIGNED JUDGE POWER USURPATION”
BACKSTORY PART ONE
A. On June 4, 2011 the following public information request was made:
“1. How much has [Shasta County assigned judge) 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? “
B. The stated purpose for the requested information was as follows:
“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. “
JusticeCalifornia
June 25, 2011
THE CHIEF JUSTICE/AOC’S “ASSIGNED JUDGE POWER USURPATION”
BACKSTORY PART TWO
C. There was no response to the June 4, 2011 request, until June 21, 2011, when the AOC’s assigned judge’s director, Brad Campbell, and AOC OGC attorney Ann Springgate initiated a telephone conference call, followed up by a second conference call on June 22, 2011. The information provided by Brad and Ann during that telephone call included the following:
There are 400 judges in the program
About a third of the assigned judges are “longterm”
There is a budget of about $26 million for the program
220 judges were serving under an assignment order as of December 31, 2010.
Most of the assignment orders are made every 30 days, some are made for 60 days, tops.
The assignments are made to fill “requests” from the trial courts. The trial courts can request specific judges.
Halpin is likely to stay assigned to Shasta County notwithstanding the fact that he has been assigned since 1994, and complaints have definitely been made about him.
The AOC investigates complaints about assigned judges to determine if the complaints have merit.
An estimated 26 of the positions filled by assigned judges right now are official judgeship positions.
Judges can retire one day, and then show up for work the next day in their same courtrooms, while waiting for their spot to be filled. Once that spot is filled, they may transfer to another department in the same court. In this manner they may serve for years.
Assigned judges are paid a standard per diem. Therefore you could figure out how much each judge has been paid by multiplying the days served by the applicable per diem. (Ms. Roberts, query—please make sure this is absolutely correct–what about insurance and “travel” costs?)
It would take six months to get the information that was requested on June 4.
Commercial rates will be charged for the information requested because the request was made from a law office e-mail, even if this is a matter of public interest and will be used for purposes of requesting a BSA audit, and for preparation of a JusticeCalifornia bulletin to be forwarded to legislators and/or published. There is no public interest category or exception in the court records rules.
JusticeCalifornia
June 25, 2011
And can I just say this? One of the most AMAZING aspects of the response to the June 4 request is the claim that it could take SIX MONTHS to gather the requested information.
SIX MONTHS!!!! How on earth is that possible? All those 1100 or so AOC employees being paid so much money, and it could take SIX MONTHS to answer those simple questions?
Anyway, when the detailed time and cost estimate for the June 4 request is finally provided by the AOC, it will be provided to JCW.
Let’s see what price, priority and other restrictions the AOC places on providing controversial information requested in connection with issues of immediate public and constitutional concern.
Wendy Darling
June 25, 2011
“Judges can retire one day, and then show up for work the next day in their same courtrooms, while waiting for their spot to be filled. Once that spot is filled, they may transfer to another department in the same court. In this manner they may serve for years.”
For any other person in public service, this would be called “double dipping.”
“The AOC investigates complaints about assigned judges to determine if the complaints have merit.”
Employees at the AOC, and in particular the HR Division, know how laughable this is. The AOC, who runs the assigned judges program, investigating their own, always with a very predictable result. Break the law, and if anyone complains, assign yourself to investigate your own actions, then self-validate them in a sham investigation and cover it up by claiming “confidentiality.”
Long live the ACJ.
Blind Bulldog
June 25, 2011
That’s our own “Teflon” Jack Halpin as I have come to name him, nice work on the article. Although they seem untouchable, this is just the kind of attention that makes it very hard to run a crime syndicate.
sharonkramer
June 26, 2011
JusticeCalifornia
June 26, 2011
Let’s face it. Retired judges assigned by the chief justice do not work for the state, or a particular court. They work for those who assign and pay them– that is, the chief justice and the AOC. Are they going to bite the hand that feeds them, by ruling against top leadership’s interests? Not likely, when they depend on a new assignment order coming down the pipeline every 30-60 days.
This creates a clear conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety. Put clearly, it makes assigned judges look like the AOC’s hired guns.
“Have gavel, will travel”.
Perhaps what the CJ/AOC are really afraid of is an independent inquiry of cases involving assigned judges, with an examination of how often and under what circumstances assigned judges have made rulings that benefit and protect the branch and its friends.
Talk about the potential for organized crime. . . .it is mind boggling.
I can envision honorable retired assigned judges out there, reading this, horrified. But the fact is, what is going down makes it look like the CJ and AOC are buying judges to do their bidding. The Reformer’s case is a perfect example.
SF Whistle
June 26, 2011
CJ Ron George put together an elaborate network of loyalists, lackies and sycophants—
His rule (with iron-first) was predicated upon surrounding himself with YES-Men (and women)
Does anyone have a memory of circumstances where the JC opposed RG??? (said -NO)
Minimimi has made it clear she has no intention of dismantling the old network—Her only problem is that she is having trouble steeering the supertanker—she is a novice pilot–
The assigned Judges happen to be a truly glaring example of RG’s masterpiece. His excess is so clearly manifest in this bunch of lackies that owe allegiance to no one other than the CJ—they answer to no one—no accountabillity to the CJP (if there truly is such a thing)–
There is truly an opportunity to expose this very corrupt area of the branch—It’s time to elect some Judges—NOT have abusive courts filled with hand-selected lackies…All Judges should stand for real elections with greater regularity—perhaps they would not be so arrogant insular and distant from the people that pay their salary
Jim
June 27, 2011
While I don’t disagree with some of the comments about abuses in the Assigned Judges Program, I am interested in how contributors to this blog would propose to deal with the situation where a judge is away from the court for vacation, illness, educational training, etc. A larger court may have the ability to cover an absence, but smaller courts simply cannot close a court room in order to accomodate these absences. Many courts have vacancies of authorized positions for a year or longer, and hectoring the Governor’s office for a timely appointment can fall on deaf ears. If you add up all of the vacation time authorized for judges in a court with more than four judges, and also factor into the equation time off for educational training, the number of days involved can easily equal or exceed one full time judicial position.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 27, 2011
There’s no denial that assigned judges, be they active or retired, would still be required precisely for all of the reasons you’ve denoted. However, appointments in perpetuity are unacceptable and there needs to be placed some reasonable limits on what should be a part time job or occasional employment. I have no doubt that other retired judges wouldn’t mind returning to the bench from time to time. By mixing things up a bit in that respect (because for example, you can only appoint someone for three 60 day terms per year to the same court as we propose) then we avoid many of the issues that have the people of Shasta County up in arms.
Michael Paul
June 27, 2011
Other parts of the country utilize circuit judges. Judges who are full-blown judges but travel to other courts for reasons of vacation, illness, training, challenges, etc.
Think of it as a reserve force of judges, similar to a reserve force of the military. Bound by the exact same UCMJ, (or in the case of judges, the same CJP) they become regular military at the order of the commander-in-chief.
Few people know better than I do that there is no accountability whatsoever at the AOC (where I remain the only one fired (shoot the messenger) for unlicensed contractors) and all the lawbreakers are still employed.
Jim
June 27, 2011
Agree with JCW that no judge should serve in perpetuity on assignment. Also agree with Michael Paul that a group of circuit judges might work, but I have some questions: 1) how would these folks be paid?, 2) who would determine when they were deployed?, 3) who would be responsible for their appointment? I’m not convinced that we need another layer of administration, and it seems like the circuit court concept would do just that . . . It has been the position of the AOC that retired judges can only work a full day and be paid for a full day, yet many courts might need someone for less time. The reciprocal assignment process hasn’t really reduced the need for assigned judges.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 27, 2011
The AOC is given budget for assigned judges. Couldn’t the same program be re-worked for either Michael’s circuit judge idea or in the case of assigned judges, the same program that pays them now? Regarding question number two, the local court would request a circuit judge or assigned judge and that person could be selected off a list as the next available judge in line to serve a given area as opposed to being hand-picked. Basically an improved version of the same system that already exists that is transparent and accountable….
Jim
June 27, 2011
Who would administer the program and control the costs? Who would determine how many hours/days/weeks/months would be allocated to a particular court? It would seem that you would have to add additional judgeships unless you used the current cadre of retired judges, and you would still have difficulty with the rotational list if you used retirees. Some of those people don’t want to travel a great distance to sit on assignment. Others aren’t well versed in particular areas of the law. Still others aren’t suitable to work in a smaller court where a judge needs to be conversant in all case types. What does a court do that needs a judge for a long trial or a lengthy assignment in your approach? I certainly concede that there are problems and abuses with the current system, but administering such a program is far more involved than it might seem at first blush.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 27, 2011
The Los Angeles Courts recommend having a staff separate from the AOC responsible for oversight over the AOC. We couldn’t agree more. Perhaps it is this same group that can administer this program and shift it out of the hands of the AOC.
Asking our people about the possibility of computerizing your concerns, (ie don’t want to travel a great distance or will only serve in particular courts or areas of the law, must be conversant on all or particular case types) would be a relatively effortless task.
As long as the AOC weren’t responsible for developing it….our guys said they could have such a system up-and-running inside of a month.
Jim
June 27, 2011
Hopefully there will be some necessary changes without additional bureauracy. Judges do need time away from the court, and need to know that their calendars will be covered by competent jurists. I’d just like to see a system that works, is cost efficient and provides a good quality of justice for the public that we serve. Many people who are in the assigned judges program do excellent work. Others who want to sit don’t seem to obtain assignments. Still others need to be “decommissioned” from further service in this (or any future) program due to issues described by other posters on this site.
courtflea
June 27, 2011
I may be missinformed here but last i heard an assigned judge’s stipend was over $800 per day in addition to their per diem (meals, travel, etc.) and their retirement check 🙂
I do agree with Jim, it is a service that is needed. And no question the never ending assignment is an abuse of the spirit of the program
JusticeCalifornia
July 10, 2011
I hear the abuses in Shasta County family court — led by Presiding Judge Jack Halpin (a “retired” “temporarily” assigned judge who has been “temporarily” assigned by Ron George and now Cantil Sakauye for going on 18 years straight)– continue unabated.
The AOC and the CJ have been warned, but are taking no action to remedy the abuses.
As I understand it, children are still being taken from good parents, destitute parents are being threatened with Redding’s version of debtor’s prison, law enforcement personnel are detaining people without explanation, and the court clerks are refusing to file papers pro per litigants want to file.
At this point, we all understand that if Tani didn’t like what Halpin/Shasta County Family
Court are doing, she could bounce Halpin within 30 days. She hasn’t, so we must assume she and the AOC are fully approving of what is going down in Shasta County family court.
Wendy Darling
July 10, 2011
Halpin isn’t commonly known as “Teflon Jack” without reason . . .
Long live the ACJ.
Robert Kavanaugh
March 6, 2012
Yes, I just pulled one of these ol’ boys down here in the OC. I’m pro per, (or as they say here in our courts, a ‘rube’) but I’d know’d there was sumpin fishy ’bout this jaadge. Within about two minutes, this guy permits the plaintiff’s bar, which he must have been communicating with ex parte (I was appearing by phone) to admit an unserved, unfiled, hearsay declaration which was fraudulent on it face (as it decribed someone who weren’t me) to reverse the tentative (which must of been written by a competent jurist) and entered a final order denying my motion under CCP 418.10. I’ve written out drafts and drafts of CJP complaints. Now, after reading this, I realize I sent the complaints to the wrong place. Puck. RETIRE these retrobrats.
Mike Hutchison
March 20, 2012
Hi everyone, I wanted to give everyone who follows this site a bit of good news.
The “High and Exalted” reigning king of the ” retired judges, Judge Jack “teflon” Halpin, is being removed from the bench here in Shasta County California !!!!!!
Of course they will say he is “retiring”, but make no mistake he is being removed at long last.
His 18 year long reign of terror will come to an end at the end of April 2012. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The anguish, pain and grief that this will save the parents and children of Shasta County is beyond measure.
Unfortunately, his being removed may not save my step children from being returned to their father, which CPS has FOUNDED / substantiated, his sexual abuse of my two step daughters..
Judge Halpin ruled earlier this month that the evidence from CPS “was irrelevant” and would not allow it to even be discussed in his court. These are his own words as spoken in family. court.
So unless another miracle occurs between now and the 16th of April, my step children will be turned over to their “father”several days and nights each and every week.
No supervised visitation, just a”loving and caring father” and his terrified children, who have not even had to see him in over a year !!!
His leaving the bench won’t fix the broken family court system, but when you take the man out at the top it can definitely have a trickle down effect on the entire system, at least here in Shasta County.
I am meeting with district attorney next week to see if there is anything that can be done to protect my step children from the soon to be “retired” Judge Halpin’s “court ordered” sexual abuse, due go into affect on the 17th of April, 2012.
We have spent three years in family court trying to protect them as best we can. As a step parent what I think feel and know, means nothing to to the system. I refuse to allow my step children to be sacrificed on judge Halpin’s bench / altar, two weeks before he is removed from the bench forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If there is any real justice left in the family court system, my step children deserve to be protected from the abuse handed down by this demented menace to society dressed in black robes.
Mike Hutchison
carol engelhardt
August 23, 2012
Mr. Hutchison
I have a client who I feel got a bad decision from Judge Halpin. Have you connected with other people who have actually had a bad decision or do you know how I could obtain access to complaints or any information concerning the problems with Jack Halpin
Thanks