Good Afternoon California,
We were reminded recently of an entry in the federalist papers. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary would be the “least dangerous” branch of government because it possesses the power of neither sword nor purse.
Needless to state, that required some reflection because we’ve given the Judicial Council, the AOC and the CJP both the sword and the purse and for 15 years they have stifled dissent and led us to these unprecedented court closures and layoffs.
Should we separate the sword from the Judicial Council and its membership? Should we remove the purse from the hands of the JC and AOC and encourage direct legislative appropriation?
We’re willing to argue that Alexander Hamilton got it right and now California’s other two branches of government need to see it for what it is – and get it righted.
.
.
Judicial Council Watcher 
MrsKramer
September 2, 2011
It seems pretty obvious that George was trying to run the judicial branch like a corporation and that he envisioned himself as the Chair of the BOD with Huffman being the CEO and Vickery the CFO. They HAD to know before they even started down this path that this would be adverse to autonomy and independence for the trial and appellate courts.
So why did they do it and why does Cantil-Sayuake continue with it? What could possibly even be the mindset of those who defend this flawed corporate structure over defending the Constitution for the good of the people-as all CA judges vow to do when they take their judicial oath?
I think they have backed themselves into such a corner, that they can’t back down on anything without the threat of the whole house of cards collapsing. As such, their only choice is to continue with desperate measures to try to hide the various fallouts from George’s flawed structuring model. This means they are going to continue to retaliate and strong arm by any means possible for survival, until someone steps in to unincorporate the incorporation of Ca’s judicial branch.
This situation makes for a good case study of how not to run a judicial system. The structure, progession and digression needs to be historically documented, studied and written about by political science scholars, so it does not happen again.
keeping the FAITH
September 2, 2011
Mrs.Kramer,
You are correct when you say that RG was trying to run the judicial branch like a corporation. The only reason why he retired is because he knows the house of cards he built is on the verge of collaspsing, and he didn’t want to be around when it did. He now has someone in place, who is for sure trying to follow in his footsteps. Which is not a wise decision on her part, because when the house of cards collapse, she’s the one who will be blamed. So sad she doesn’t see what’s as plain as the nose on her face. Oh well.
Bravo to the judges for not beating around the bush.
JusticeCalifornia
September 2, 2011
RG turned tail and ran, so he wouldn’t have to watch his debacles surface, or be held accountable for them. The handwriting was on the wall.
He abused the considerable power of the branch, and then left everyone else holding the bag (most of whom deserve it), while he lobbied to get his name on the building he corrupted.
Not a class act or exit.
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton:
“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”
MrsKramer
September 2, 2011
JC, amazing how relevant that is today. The reality is that with a judicial system as large as CA’s, we do need some sort of centralized communication and some standardization in policies and procedures. But safeguards need to be written to assure the central agency is manned with facilitators, not self appointed monarchs and dictators. If CJ were term limit positions elected by the judges, that would help much to curtail corrupt absolute power.
Also, the composition of the CJP needs to be completely overhauled with less judicial members. You have too many judiciaries on that committee whose own rulings are impacted by the judges they can use the CJP to harass, intimidate and retaliate against.
The CJP should not be writing the Canons of Judicial Ethics for the judicial branch. They are not a policy making body or even part of the judicial branch. They are an independent state agency whose sole function is to watchdog ethics in the judicial branch, not establish what those ethics are (or are not).
Wendy Darling
September 2, 2011
Speaking of The Sword and The Purse, published today, Friday, September 2, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
What Feinstein Won
Cheryl Miller
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202513451741&What_Feinstein_Won
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
September 2, 2011
Published in this months issue of Cal Lawyer magazine, by Gerald F. Uelmen:
All On Board
September 2011
by Gerald F. Uelmen
The Gibson Court. The Traynor Court. The Wright Court. The Bird Court. The Lucas Court. The George Court. For 70 years, we’ve been identifying the California Supreme Court by the surname of its chief justice. But the tag never went past two syllables. If we keep with tradition, we all have to learn to pronounce the six syllables in Cantil-Sakauye (note: sounds like kahn-TEEL sock-ah-OOH-way). Our gracious new chief might be OK with “the Tani Court,” but that’s much too flippant. We can’t just call it the California Supreme Court, so I’ll opt for the Cantil-Sakauye Court. The sooner we all can pronounce it, the better: She is planning to stay for at least 12 years.
http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=917679&evid=1
Long live the ACJ.
Mrs Kramer
September 3, 2011
I take issue with this sentence in the CalLawyer article, “She [Cantil-Sayuake] displayed impressive political skills in engineering the legislative defeat of AB 1208, which would have shifted authority from the Judicial Council back to lower courts to manage their budgets.”
Timely and publicly playing the card of feigned indignation of being an offended professional female, while taking out of context and twisting a meant compliment that she is attractive (on the outside) into a purported statement agaisnt women, is nothing of which to be proud.
This is particularly true when she used her female wiles in a manner that is offensive and abusive of strides made by true professional females. And she did it knowing what it was going to cause for trial court funding and while aiding the AOC to stay bloated, wasteful and secretive.
That trick was not indicative of desirable moral character for someone who is leading the largest judicial system in the US. It was indicative of a narcissistic personality. She publicly crossed the line from responsible judicial leader to dirty poltician on the eve before AB1208 was to be heard. It was premeditated, underhanded, and degrading to women everywhere for her personal gain.
I was on the fence about her ethics, leadership skills and motives until she pulled that trick. This was the turning point that told me she is a person who will do whatever it takes to get what she wants. I bet there are some in Sacramento who received the same messages that I did from that faux, feigned, offended, functional, professional female persona. i.e., she’s faux. she’ll feign. she’s offensive. she’s not functional. and she’s not professional.
For CalLawyer to promote that her fighting dirty was display of “impressive political skills” is concerning. (JCW, can I post the Hustle and Flow video again?)
Judicial Council Watcher
September 2, 2011
Dear Mr. Uelmen,
We call it the Queen mini-mimi court This would be an extension of the corrupted administrative institution that King George created. While it wouldn’t be too late for our Chief Justice to wake up and smell the roses, the fact of the matter is without doing something meaningful in reforming the institution she inherited from King George, it remains King Georges court.
Nor will she occupy the seat for 12 years as the voters and legislators bare witness to continued malfeasance and poor management choices of her conflicted, handpicked minions.
Wendy Darling
September 2, 2011
Published late today, Friday, September 2, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner, and, as always from Mr. Girdner, well worth the read:
Judge Bangs on Bureaucrats’ Door
By BILL GIRDNER
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/02/39532.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Mrs Kramer
September 2, 2011
Good article. Judge McCormick, fantastic “slice and dice” email.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/02/mccormick%20survey%20answer.doc
keeping the FAITH
September 2, 2011
Thank you Judge McCormick. Keep demanding answers. Please do not stop. There are cracks in the foundation over at 455 Golden Gate and those cracks will only get bigger until a large sink hole forms and down they go. What they aren’t doing there is so very wrong. Lies, deception and greed at its ‘finest’. This has, as we are all aware of, has gone on for years and nothing was done. Things are different now. RG, as someone earlier stated tucked tail and ran and the person who replaced him is in way over her head. This is apparent by her forming of one committee after another, giving the illusion that she’s ‘working’ on trying to find solutions to this mess. Well we AIN’T buying it. We know a con game when we see it. The house of cards that RG built is teetering on collapse. And they know it. They are nervous, really really nervous.
Overholt is, well let’s not get started. Folks, change is going to come, for the good of the trial courts. Its coming soon also. Too much has been made public in the past weeks. People are now becoming aware of the problem(AOC) and cannot ignore it any longer.(legislature). Change is coming. Ron and Bill know it, that’s why there gone. Too bad Overholt and the CJ just refuse to believe it. But who can blame them? Who would want to give up their cash cow?
Wendy Darling
September 2, 2011
Not so much a cash cow . . . more accurately, the gravy train, apparently going full speed ahead.
Long live Judge McCormick.
And long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
September 2, 2011
Tani wants a 12-year reign? Given her sellout of the branch and the public, and her solicitation (and I mean that in the most demeaning sense possible) of the bar, so far?
I think not.
The branch has suffered massively as a result of her arrogance, inexperience, poor choice of advisors, waste, mismanagement and overall inability to lead. She is –indisputably, by the way– a gambling barmaid turned mediocre junior associate justice. She is neither learned nor inspiring. She has not shown herself to be in the least bit qualified to lead or inspire– to the contrary, her BFFs — who are consistently picked to deliver her messages– are tarnished branch baddies.
JusticeCalifornia
September 2, 2011
Let me amend my last post.
RB2’s top advisors are branch PARIAHS.
I don’t know in how many ways she needs to hear this. Apparently, the message is not getting through. In polite society, I think they deal with this sort of thickness by raising their eyebrows, and saying, “poor dear”.
Sorry Tani, but you have been a huge disappointment to those who hoped you would be a breath of fresh air. If you want to know what you should have done, and what everyone hoped you would do, read JCW’s April Fool’s post.
Michael Paul
September 2, 2011
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/chief-justice-asks-for-resignations-of-aoc-directors-and-council-members/
Just in case she needs a reference.
Mrs Kramer
September 3, 2011
From reading the Recorder article, I think it sounds like there is going to be a show down at the OK Corral on Sept 9th with significant impact on the big scheme of things. Politically, that was a really bad move last year for the AOC to advise SF to cut into their reserves.
Pulled out key snippets of the article, not in order:
It [the agreement between Feinstein and Overholt] will be presented to the Judicial Council for approval at a special meeting Sept. 9.
.”….If accurate, that little-noticed provision of the deal — allowing local courts to charge and keep their own appearance fees — would mark a sea change in the branch’s current policy of collecting uniform levies statewide and spending the money on projects throughout California.
Standardizing fees marked a major plank in former Chief Justice Ronald George’s campaign to centralize judicial branch policies and operations…..If Feinstein won what she says she’s won, it would mark a significant retreat for an AOC that’s mostly stood its ground against mounting criticism from restive trial courts. California would return to the days when local trial courts set and kept their own fees, eroding George’s vision for a unified branch.
….The real value of the deal may be more than cash aid….Feinstein said the AOC has agreed to seek more trial court funding from the state, including new case management appearance fees “that trial courts could charge and retain locally…
Feinstein.. refuse to produce the agreement or discuss its terms. Overholt offered a slightly different take on the arrangement, saying in a phone interview that the AOC would “advocate for fees generally” at the Capitol, but the AOC has also declined to produce the agreement….Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye declined to comment on the pact and its apparent reversal of Judicial Council policy.
Feinstein said she was moved to take the AOC deal “because there is momentum building among attorneys and lawmakers to achieve a long-term solution to inadequate trial court funding.” Indeed, bar associations have rallied around efforts to aid San Francisco’s court system — most specifically the business- and lawyer-friendly complex litigation courtrooms…
The CAOC has been a traditional backer of branch efforts to standardize fees and policies throughout the trial courts.
“There’s not any support for [the court] [meaning SF] outside of Los Angeles and San Francisco,” said one judge who spoke on condition of anonymity….They [courts without complex litigation divisions] question whether smaller courts would have the same ability to levy fees for the more limited range of services they provide.
“It would take us back to the days when courts were their own fiefdoms,” said the judge.
But Feinstein said her court’s money troubles are real and that they are directly tied to what she said was bad advice from the AOC last year….
Feinstein is not a known member of the Alliance of California Judges. But the organization has embraced her as a symbol of the struggle between independent trial courts and the powerful, centralized judicial bureaucracy…..
In reality, any effort to secure new local fees faces a tough road. The Judicial Council has already rejected a proposal that it authorize courts to charge new appearance fees. Council members agreed with their lawyer’s advice that such fee-charging authority rested solely with the Legislature
….It’s also unclear whether any local-fees legislation would require support from two-thirds of lawmakers, an approval level that has proved the death knell for many bills given Republicans’ steadfast opposition to new charges. Also, support from Gov. Jerry Brown is not assured given his pledge to take new taxes to voters….
Any legislative campaign would also likely need the support of the Consumer Attorneys of California….
Feinstein said in her announcement that she and others are “working nonstop” to fashion legislation that lawmakers can consider when they return to Sacramento after the holiday break…..If the court funding picture doesn’t improve, she added, “We will be looking at significant layoffs again — which I do not want our court to have to repeat.”
QUESTION: Can other items, like the AOC refusing to disclose where their money is going while the trial courts are struggling, be brought up at Special JC meetings under public comment? What are the new Roberts Rules on this?
I bet Ron Overholt, the gang at the AOC & the JC wish their moms were US Senators. 🙂
keeping the FAITH
September 3, 2011
I’ve said it before and I will say it again, hats off to Judge Feinstein in SF was speaking out and shedding light as far as the public is concerned, about the problems with and at the AOC!
And yes, Ronnie and the rest of them are surely wishing right about now, their mother is a US Senator.
A change is going to come.
Enjoy your long weekend and please be safe.
unionman575
September 4, 2011
Thumbs up Judge McCormick! Give them hell!
courtflea
September 5, 2011
Uelman another hack ivory tower law professor. What does he know about the real world of the judicial branch?
Judge McCormick, keep up the good work. If they treat your request like a request for public records, make sure you stay on top of them and force them to adhere to their own rules regarding timely disclosure. If the AOC bitches about all of these requests from judges causing a strain on their abilities to provide info, remind them they are here to serve the courts and if they are transparent as they claim to be, it should be no problem providing you or anyone else with information.
Yep Ron George ran like Asama Bin Ladin after the 9/11 attacks.
katy
September 5, 2011
If they treat Judge McCormick’s request like a request for public records, then it would follow that the same subject would fall under the new Rosenberg rules – request for the public to speak at JC meetings – like the one coming up on September 9th. Maybe the JC can publicly answer why the AOC does not need to disclose where their money is going, while asking the judges to describe the usefulness of the AOC and the funding they are allocated.