Good Morning, California. Judicial Council Watcher was informed yesterday that the Paula Negley v. AOC matter in the 9th circuit court of appeals has been set for oral arguments on October 14th. JCW contacted Ms. Negley yesterday to get her reaction to this new development. Ms. Negley was elated, yet cautiously optimistic that the matter before the 9th circuit was proceeding to oral arguments and that her case against the AOC remains viable for now.
.
.
In the Michael Paul v. AOC cases, Mr. Paul has contacted JCW and has been posting his case files up and making them accessible to Judicial Council Watcher since retrieving his files from his former counsel. It appears that these files paint a different picture than what his attorneys were disclosing to him and what he subsequently disclosed to us. He said he apologizes to JCW readers and the San Francisco courts because he passed on bad information he assumed to be reliable: after all, it was coming from his attorneys. An example of this was that in December of 2010, Mr. Paul informed us that he was informed by his counsel that the courts would not entertain discovery upon the AOC with regards to the taxpayer lawsuit and that his counsel advised him to get other counsel to take on the taxpayer lawsuit. He stated at the time that the information was conflicting because as they were suggesting that Mr. Paul find other counsel for the taxpayer matter, they were also indicating to him that he would likely not prevail in the taxpayer matter and be liable for AOC’s attorneys fees and costs.Mr. Paul chose to drop the taxpayer matter based on his counselors advice and immediately thereafter, they terminated their representation of him in all matters.
What the documentation indicates is that in November, seven months after the taxpayer lawsuit was filed, the AOC and AG’s office demurred to relating the taxpayer case to the AG’s unlicensed contractors cases because among other things, there was a statute of limitations of fifteen days following the filing of the case to relate the taxpayer case to the unlicensed contractors cases. Not only was this statute of limitations breached, it was breached by over six months. Mr. Paul indicated at the time that he was told that the AOC demurred on providing discovery that would be required to prove his case. He described his counsels action as an effort to stop the use of unlicensed contractors continuing to be steered the work and a “back door qui tam” to the tens of millions of dollars in unclaimed funds. Apparently, the only possibility of this taxpayer lawsuit ever becoming a back door qui tam was that the cases needed to be related and they needed to be related within 15 days of his filing.
It appears to JCW that money for supporting all litigation for his attorneys appears to be in transforming the taxpayer lawsuit into a qui tam case, seeking the big money of treble damages on the funds paid to unlicensed contractors that remained unclaimed to this day by the state. The demurrer of relating the taxpayer case to the unlicensed contractors was sustained and the decision was mailed on December 21, 2010. It was on this same day that Michael Paul was scheduled by his former counsel to come in their office where they subsequently abruptly terminated their representation in all matters. Instead of riding their discovery on the back of the unlicensed contractors lawsuits by relating them, Mr. Paul’s counsel would have to dig into their own pockets to fund the taxpayer case and his whistleblower retaliation case. Simply stated, they did not wish to make a long term investment in either case. The big money of a qui tam was taken off the table leaving a taxpayer suit the AOC was feverishly working to resolve by placing contracts back out to bid.
Recently, Mr. Paul paid another attorney to produce a pro-per complaint on his behalf so that what he understood to be the statute of limitations wouldn’t expire. He requested this attorney lodge two causes of action. One, being labor code 1102.5 for whistleblower retaliation and the other being the California whistleblower protection act for judicial branch employees. The attorney producing the pro-per complaint omitted labor code 1102.5 indicating that the statute of limitations on that cause of action was six months: a mere 21 days, during the Christmas holiday season no less, for Mr. Paul to find another lawyer to represent him and file that complaint. The real challenge was that after being represented by former counsel for over a year in the taxpayer matter and for about 5.25 months in the whistleblower retaliation matter, his former counsel lodged a complaint with the state personnel board for the California whistleblower retaliation act but not with the department of industrial relations over labor code 1102.5, whistleblower retaliation, making no effort to inform him that his statute of limitations on Labor Code 1102.5 with respect to the department of industrial relations would expire in 21 days – immediately proceeding the Christmas holiday period.
You might be able to imagine how difficult it would be to find an attorney to represent you between Christmas and New Years. As he explained to us, nobody wanted to return calls until after January 2nd leaving him a mere 10 days to meet a statute of limitations he had no idea existed. After all, he had been represented for the previous 5.25 months by people who shouldn’t have been waiting until the last minute (or for that matter, waiting six months past the statute of limitations) to make a pertinent filing protecting his rights.
Today, Mr. Paul describes his search for other legal counsel to pick up the ball on his employment matter as ‘rejection after rejection’ but he remains optimistic in his search for legal representation. He indicates he has nearly exhausted his search at cela.org for northern California lawyers. He has also explained that employment attorneys looking at his paperwork are mentioning another type of legal case having no relation to his employment but continue to encourage him to press the existing cause of action and find an(other) attorney to represent him. After all, no one likes cleaning up someone else’s mess.
We at Judicial Council Watcher believe that effective prosecution of the Paul whistleblower case is essential to the overall health and welfare of the judicial branch so as we’ve done before, if you happen to know a hardcore whistleblower attorney that would be willing to look at this matter, kindly post it in-thread, drop Michael an email ( michael_paul@michaelpaul.net ) or drop us an email. ( JudicialCouncilWatcher@hushmail.com )
He shouldn’t have to represent himself given that his disclosures resulted in 42+ million dollars being claimed by the state or 428+ years of his salary. Comparing this matter to other recent litigation and settlements against the state in other whistleblower matters, this matter is the only recent whistleblower case where the state is looking at making a substantial financial recovery as a result of the whistleblowers’ disclosures.
MrsKramer
August 17, 2011
That is wonderful news about Paula Negley. Michael, I so sorry to hear that after all you have done to expose massive fraud, waste and abuse; and the retribution you experience, that you are sitting here today, Pro Per.
I am confused about the JC suing the unlicensed contractors. Is that case still going? Wasn’t someone at the AOC suppose to check licenses before they hired contractors?
Michael Paul
August 17, 2011
JCW missed a document. A January 10, 2011 document confirming my former attorneys dismissal of the taxpayer matter and acknowledgement of closure of representation, indicating my statute of limitations was one year from the date of termination. (see jan10_11_hh_ltr.pdf)
I can read at the DLSE site that I had six months to lodge a labor code 1102.5 complaint with them which would be two days after the letter was sent. The letter would have arrived on or around the day the DLSE complaint needed to be filed. I am somewhat distressed by all of these developments for obvious reasons.
Michael Paul
August 17, 2011
If I’m not employed on October 14th, I intend to travel to the 9th circuit to hear the Negley vs. AOC oral arguments and would recommend others do the same.
Wendy Darling
August 17, 2011
Published today, Wednesday, July 17, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise:
Judicial Council Says Meetings to Be More Accessible
By a MetNews Staff Writer
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
MrsKramer
August 17, 2011
“The judge’s conduct violated canon 2A (judge shall respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary) and canon 3B(2) (judge shall maintain professional competence in the law),” the commission said…..Commissioners approving the admonishment were Fourth District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Judith McConnell,…” Utterly amazing!!!! Did I tell you the part about….oh, never mind.
anna
August 17, 2011
My heart goes out to you. I just posted regarding the lack of strong plaintiffs attorneys on the blog entry of yesterday. Phil Kay was meticulous when it came to filing protective motions, and pleadings. That’s why George and Huffman, with the help of Beth Jay, took him out.When I first read about the hiring of unlicensed contractors I had high hopes for you. From reading this posts your attorneys look like idiots, is there a possibility of a legal malpractice lawsuit?[or was the message sent to them that what happened to Phil Kay was going to happen to them?] What little I know about the law, how was it that defense counsel, was allowed to ask for relief from the courts on behalf of parties who hired unlicensed contractors? that’s a violation of contracting law in this state. To do so at a public level, with govemental agencies seems there sould be some sort of criminal action available. Violating the contracting laws of this state are pretty stiff.
Michael Paul
August 17, 2011
Some attorneys I have met with mentioned the M word, explaining they are obliged to mention it. That’s not my focus. The AOC seems to be immune for the hiring of unlicensed contractors. Should this case ever see a jury, it will not look favorable to any jury that I was the only person who paid any price for the use of unlicensed contractors when I myself rejected their use numerous times.
MrsKramer
August 17, 2011
Michael, not an attorney. But if that litigation is still going, can’t you file a cross complaint IN that case, against a party to that litigation for hiring the unlicensed contractors in the first place, and the damage to you for their trying to silence their role? Given that the JC was forced to file that suit to save face, I bet there are some descrepancies in that Case File, the ROA and the Case History that you could re-blow the whistle on to this very day.
BTW, correct terminology of the four records of each case:
1. Case File (these are the hard copy documents of the case)
2. Case Summary (this is what is on the Net)
3. Register of Action (these are the numbered entries that print when one requests a copy of
the entries in a case/ROA).
4. Case History (this is the “stealth ROA” that only the courts can see. It has unnumbered
entries that do not print when one is researching computer entries in a case for accuracy
and consistancy with the Case File).
anna
August 18, 2011
Michael, it’s illegal to hire unlicensed contractors, the courts are not allowed to assist in furtherance of illegal acts, or assist something against public policy. Case law is clear on this. How does immunity apply? While the m issue may not be your focus, that may be the only way it can come into court. There is more than one way to “skin the kitty” as one jurist said.
Michael Paul
August 18, 2011
Immunity applies because no one is permitted to conduct an independent investigation due to separation of powers. The Contractors state license board appears to have developed amnesia into their alleged investigation. The State Controllers office won’t release the names of AOC personnel not making any pension contributions either. The AOC wants all roads to lead back to John Judnick and they want him to exclusively manage any investigation, even though it was his coworkers and his boss that inked this contract. Talk about a conflict of interests….
anna
August 18, 2011
The AOC is an administrative office of the judiciary. Ronald George was sued and allowed to be sued in his administrative capacity see. Wolfe V. Strankman, [a federal case]which held, as is the law, that the AOC has no immunity, because what it does is not judicial, and can only act in an administrative capacity. Since when is anything the AOC do “judicial in nature”? That is the question the courts had to answer. Someone is playing fast and loose about what is judicial and administrative. Are the courts saying that employees have no rights if they work for a judicial branch? Someone is lying to you. Judicial immunity only applies to “judicial” acts. There is an exception for administrative acts.
Michael Paul
August 18, 2011
It’s been suggested to me that I find a retired judge that has a bar card or a practicing attorney who is willing to accept my case as their very last case before retirement. There is genuine fear expressed by attorneys in taking on the AOC. This fear is the largest impediment I have in retaining counsel. As soon as they hear “Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts” that tends to end the conversation, sometimes with a hearty laugh, sometimes with a “good luck”,
sharonkramer
August 18, 2011
Ever thought about writing a book? The court of public opiinion is the REAL court that brings change and causes investigations in many cases.
Michael Paul
August 18, 2011
I’ve got enough material to make a good book. While I’ve been asked by others to write a book about this, I’m not in the book business. I wouldn’t know the first thing about how to sell it.
There are two main reasons that people don’t wish to touch this case.
1. The JC/AOC. (hearty laughs, “you’re kidding me, no way am I taking on those guys, etc”)
2. “I don’t want to clean up another attorneys mess”
There is no one rejecting the case on its merits. No one. Some even go so far as saying I have a good case and encourage me to keep on looking for an attorney. If I end up representing myself, I end up representing myself.
Jon Wintermeyer
August 18, 2011
I think writing a book is the only option that Michael and I have. Which I think would make a really great movie.
I had started with other local attorneys when first released by the Court for complaining about the AOC FMU and Team Jacobs. I filed all the required complaint paperwork with the State and told yes I have a claim, but one state agency will not represent me against another.
Then I went and met numerous times with Michael’s lawyers at the time and I ended up with the same result. So the whistleblower bill accomplished nothing for protection of my rights unless as a CA taxpayers I want to be funding my case from both sides. Pay my lawyer and watch my taxes get funneled to pay the AOC legal counsel to represent those that broke the law and did not report my complaints about waste and fraud that occurred in the court I worked for as the Facilities Director.
anna
August 18, 2011
Phil Kay took them on and then the Bar went after him. If you read the decision the bar published, you will find out they lied about the cases Phil won. They are published cases. Gober v. Raplhs is a published case in which Phil won, and was awarded attorney fees.. HRH George set this whole system up. So I understand why lawyers would be afraid to take on the AOC or the Jud. Council, however, there is no such law that states separation of powers means that the administrative actions of the judiciary are immune. If that were the case, the judges in Penn, would never have been prosecuted. The attorney Generals office is part of the executive branch. Have you gone to the AG’s office? Criminal statutes might be longer. Also, if the AG”s office doesn’t want to prosecute, a private person can still go to a grand jury. The only immunity judges have are from civil cases with regards to damages. They are not immune from criminal activity. Violating contracting laws sometimes triggers a criminal statute. I forget what the B & P Code Section which starts the Contracting act for general contractors is, but it’s not that hard to read and it’s pretty explicit as to if there is criminal activity regarding doing work with unlicensed contractors. While this isn’t employment law, it’s contracting and building law, there are still protections that would allow you to report this to the legislative agencies, and they would have to take corrective steps, if they don’t one sues for declaratory relief, or some type of mandamus action. . Jon I don;t know who you guys hired, but they lied to you, and they should be held accountable for that.
If you guys have the goods, [documentation] take it to Jared Huffman. He’s a good man and has represented plaintiffs in civil rights actions. He’s on the judiciary committee and is a representative from Marin. He was a civil rights attorney, and is now a state representative. He doesn’t like waste or corruption..
sharonkramer
August 18, 2011
Phil Kay’s story needs to come to greater public light. It’s a really important one to illustrate the cronyism in our judicial system – along with what some clerks of the court do to aid it. Its a tale of direct attack founded on well evidenced judicial perjury – that no one will do anything about and have even aided with its intended results–knowing full well the damage they and the underlying deception have done and continue to do to Phil.
Jon and Michael, I know the outrage you must be feeling. You have tried to do the right thing to stop corruption for the public good, Have ended up retaliated against (even though your actions caused change) with no one now standing up for you, like you stood up for them — and while you are forced to watch the “evil doers” continue on their merry ways.
Does that about sum it up? Its a sad statement of our judicial system that there are no attorneys wanting to jump in to help you.
It seems to me that there are enough whistle blowing that has exposed much, just on this board alone, involving member(s) of the JC, that one could practically file a class action suit or write book of this mess in chapters – with each chapter a different whistle blower of JC/AOC/CJP/Bar member(s) endeavors into croynism.
anna
August 18, 2011
I don’t believe he’s related to Justice Huffman.
sharonkramer
August 18, 2011
No, but Richard Huffman, Jr is. I am told that Sr did not recuse himself when denying a writ involving Jr and cronyism in the courts/favors for special people.
And speaking of books. Judge Salcido’s is at the publisher. The title is: Silent Killers.
anna
August 18, 2011
Entering contracts on behalf of the judiciary of the state of Cal., is not a judicial act. Judicial Acts take place in courts. period. There is a reason that the Cal Conts. noted a difference between Courts.[Superior, Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Courts] and the AOC and the JC. The courts are trial courts and reviewing courts. the AOC and the JC are not courts. There are reasons that “clerks of court” are not allowed to give legal advice, or muck around with the records. They are not judicial officers. They are not “officers” of the court[ lawyers] The AOC and the JC have no judicial power. The dirty little secret is they have exparte communications with judicial officers, and often talk about matters, which are before the courts, which is judicial misconduct. That is why this CCMS is most disturbing, the AOC is not suppose to have any control over actual court files. That is the job of the Clerk of the Superior Court. They are beholden to the actual court[judges] and the participants, and the public. I could go on and on, but you’re probably bored already. The AOC and the JC are well beyond their jurisdiction, and someone needs to stop it. Too bad you didn’t appeal the demurrer.
antonatrail
August 18, 2011
I wish to hear much more — really everything on the subject of judicial acts versus administrative acts and the jurisdiction included therein. It’s intensely interesting, far from boring. A clear delineation of who is and who is not a judicial officer, legal advice and the custody of the court files could cut through all the AOC bullshit and bring an end to their hiding behind the judicial robes and encroaching where these pointy-heads do not belong. (Quick – before they sneak on a trailer bill in the night on the last day of legislation.) See how the AOC, by repeating and repeating that they establish policy seem to have made it so. One of the judges at a legislative hearing said the AOC aren’t to establish policy for the courts. I believe him. They’re just about qualified to bring the judges coffee. All of the AOC actions are made in furtherance of the AOC’s agenda for total power over the courts and NOT for the benefit of the courts.
sharonkramer
August 18, 2011
Me too. I would like to hear more on subject. Judicial immunity does not apply for the AOC and JC. So what does apply? Here’s all the codes for California 🙂
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Michael Paul
August 18, 2011
The AOC’s role in the judicial branch represents most of what is posted on JCW. I’m sure everyone would like to see and know the limitations on AOC activity because there doesn’t appear to be any.
anna
August 18, 2011
the of in the first sentence should be “or” Entering contracts on behalf of the judiciary or the State of Cal. is not a judicial act.
anna
August 19, 2011
Judicial acts are done by judicial officers. Judges. The AOC is, as a matter of law, [the Cal Const,] an administrative body. It cannot perform judicial acts. Neither can the Judicial Council.
Both organizations can have judicial officers as members, however, those members are now acting in an administrative capacity, not a judicial capacity.
antonatrail
August 19, 2011
Thank you for this. It makes the lines separating the men/women from the pointy-heads crisper.
anna
August 19, 2011
it’s ironic that the CJ is whining about the legislature trying to encroach upon the judiciary. In fact the AOC, and the JC, are encroaching upon the legislature. The AOC and the JC are not allowed to write laws. That’s the job of the legislature. That includes statutes regarding procedure, both criminally and civilly.
The JC since it gave itself the ability to write “jury instructions”, it secretly and through sleight of hand rewrites the law regarding employment law. Only an experienced employment lawyer would pick it up, and object to the use of those instructions. Which they would have to do if they want to preserve their clients right to an appeal.
What the AOC and the JC want to cover up is the improper communications between those two organizations and the actual courts, and the influencing of the outcomes of trials, and written opinions.
George and Huffman, used both of these organizations, along with the State Bar to communicate, and direct the out comes of trials, opinions, along with doing favors for important political interests and to take out their political enemies. [Not to mention the graft that has probably gone on.] The easiest way for kickbacks is through “development” contracts.
These improper communications are what they never want found out. However, they brag about them in the press. Beth Jay has constantly claimed that she discusses matters with the State Bar, along with attending AOC and JC meetings,and has input on matters that are before the Supreme Court. How would you like it if you were a litigant, and the other side bragged that they had direct communications with the law clerk for one of the Justices that would be ruling on your cases?And in the press admits that the very issues that are before the court is what they are discussing. Don’t you think you would have a right to know what they were discussing and if they were discussing the actual outcome? The laws of this state say that if that happens, the judge or justice has to recuse themselves.
George and Huffman never have.
The CCMS helps facilitate these improper communications. That’s why they want it.
JusticeCalifornia
August 19, 2011
While Paula and Michael and Jon struggle to find counsel, and are threatened with paying AOC attorney fees, the third branch enjoys millions of dollars of taxpayer funded AOC lawyers, and, IN ADDITION, the assistance from expensive outside counsel specializing in “helping” clean up branch messes. (how much is spent on outside counsel each year, I wonder?)
I have previously discussed the Meyers Nave firm, which was hired by the Judicial Council/Marin County to defend routine cross examinations of Marin County Family Court mediators.
Meyers Nave also came in on the City of Bell case.
I ran across this article that goes into great detail about this firm. Interesting:
http://sfbayview.com/2011/the-police-state%E2%80%99s-lawyers-meyers-nave/
anna
August 19, 2011
that’s not the only firm the AOC employs. They are hiring outside law firms to tell actual judges what to do. In violation of the judicial cannon of ethics.
JusticeCalifornia
August 19, 2011
I have noticed that. Often relating to 170.1’s and/or highly political cases. A distinct pattern has emerged, and developed into a [now very well documented] paint-by-numbers “art” form.
sharonkramer
August 19, 2011
Art Form indeed. You mean to tell me the AOC does this via outside counsel? I could have sworn the writing style I’ve seen is the US Chamber of Commerce’s. Did you all know that when anyone claims a litigation is a strategic litigation against public participation, that the Judicial Council must be notified? How convenient is that if one wanted to be aware and aid white collar crime?
Assembly Bill 1675 (Stat. 1999, ch. 960) amended Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 to require any party who files a special motion to strike or who files an opposition to such a motion to, upon filing, promptly transmit the following documents to the Judicial Council:
•a copy of the endorsed-filed caption page of the motion or opposition (caption page only – not entire motion papers);
•a copy of any related notice of appeal or petition for a writ; and
•a conformed copy of any order pursuant to section 425.16, including any order granting or denying a special motion to strike, discovery, or fees
katy
August 22, 2011
JCW, you are welcome to take this down if you think it doesn’t belong here. But I think it is relevant to show how the House that George Built will stop short of nothing if it means scamming taxpayers to help their friends. It also helps to show how the masses are manipulated. http://wp.me/plYPz-38x
JusticeCalifornia
August 28, 2011
Meanwhile, Emily Gallup gets the green light to move forward with her whistleblower lawsuit. . . .
http://www.theunion.com/article/20110827/NEWS/110829824/1053&parentprofile=1053