There’s been quite a bit of talk about democratizing the Judicial Council. There’s also been a few people who complain that we don’t discuss anything substantive. Judicial Council democratization is a substantive issue for many, for it would change the face of the JC from a group of conflicted, appointed drones to a group that was put in place specifically to promote the best interests of the trial courts themselves. It would shift the balance of power from a thousand bureaucrats in San Francisco to trial court representatives.
- Democratization vs the crony appointment system. Should we democratize the judicial council or leave it alone?
- How do you envision democratization of the council happening?
- What do you feel would be a suitable composition of such a council insofar as members and representation?
- How would be a democratically elected judicial council get into office?
- Any other details we’ve left out or that should be discussed regarding democratizing the judicial council?
This thread is composed in response to both calls for a thread like this to discuss it as well as those who will critique the site from a distance and may occasionally post who say we don’t discuss anything substantive. The latter group if history holds true won’t debate the merits because as of yet, they’re unwilling to open a dialogue on this subject.
______________________________________________________
In an effort to encourage dialogue on this subject, short of any hot breaking story we’re going to not post another thread for a few days.
.
.
Posted in: Judicial Council of California
Judicial Council Watcher 
Judicial Council Watcher
September 12, 2011
This is also a call to people who support judicial council democratization to outline their own visions of what that might look like. It takes two sides to have a conversation.
On an unrelated note: An assistant U.S. Attorney, Angela Davis has been elected to the judicial council by the bar board of governors. Hopefully she takes this position with eyes wide open and a desire to understand more about all sides to this conflict and help to clean up the mess rather than perpetuate it. http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/judi091211.htm
anna
September 13, 2011
Angela Davis is part of the problem, she allowed the rules of procedure to violate the State Bar act, which now allows the bar to act as a proxy for corporations and disqualified judges, after they lose cases to go after the successful attorneys who win on behalf of workers and plaintiffs. They elected her because she will cover up for Huffman, and Beth Jay. Union employees are the few employees that don’t have go to arbitration, and can have their day in court. Huffman along with Davis could wish for nothing more than that to go away. Davis, with the help of Huffman, want to undo any verdicts through a compliant filed against the winning attorney, where the plaintiffs win, by using the subsequent illegal “discipline” process to claim that the verdicts were obtained by deceit and fraud. Even if the verdicts were upheld on appeal. She along with the state Bar just gutted the attorney-client privilege by allowing the bar to go after lawyers, even when their clients don’t want them to. And then use that against the clients in an attempt to “vacate” the lawful verdicts the clients won. Plaintiffs and clients would be better served by representing themselves in “pro per”. Then the state Bar would never be allowed to attack their verdicts. The State Bar can only go after lawyers, not private parties.
Angela Davis is fully aware of the Richard Fine situation, along with all the other corrupt garbage the State Bar is doing.
The State Bar is being used to keep lawyers in line, so there will be no one willing to represent people such as Michael Paul.
Michael Paul
September 13, 2011
That would probably go a long ways in explaining what has been happening and why I find myself representing myself. Quite a few have said I have a good case, they’re just the wrong lawyer/firm to take the case.
Some have openly expressed fear of retaliation, indicating that this case, at this time, against this opponent is not worth the headache.
Some have opined that I need to find an employment lawyer that is retiring or an experienced, retired employment law judge to take this case. I don’t disagree, having talked to hundreds of attorneys. While usually, I get form letters of rejection, often I get thoughtful letters expressing how I have a case but they just can’t represent me against this opponent.
antonatrail
September 15, 2011
I’m not wholly sure where to post this. And I hope it’s informative and of interest to all.
http://www.fairwarning.org/2011/09/u-s-orders-bank-of-america-to-pay-930000-for-illegally-firing-whistleblower/
courtflea
September 13, 2011
I think a study of the Chicago court system would be a good place to start when looking at examples of a system embracing cronyism and not democratic. Sometimes looking at what you do not want in a system is a way to see what is what you want in a system.
anna
September 14, 2011
as someone blogged here already, “first go after the lawyers”. I know it’s a Shakespeare quote, however, when you make the experts “attorneys” too scared to represent their “clients” you’ve already destroyed the system. It’s ironic that attorneys who represent criminal clients will go to the mat for their clients [for protecting their liberty,] however, when it comes to plaintiffs attorney most are to scared [to enforce the civil rights] of their clients. I mean to go to the mat. Yes,cleaning up corruption is much too scary a thing for most plaintiff’s lawyers.
Mark Fennick
September 14, 2011
1 _ is what all in Govt. loath and fear . . . . . . Open-ness transparency Nothing . . . hidden All interaction , behavior , discussion and decisions . . . a completely public display 2 All Govt. is incest . . . Politicial incest __ like where Politicians pick those who get to serve . . . on all the Boards / commissions / councils etc. __ This of course is the opposite of how a jury is created __ Soooooo . . we need to get to that reality where All Boards / commissions / councils etc. are created . . just like a jury . . . random and arbitrary 3 Not that I am a fan of juries , it is just that history is proof , that those in Authority be is High priests / Emperors / Kings and Queens and now for 200 years Politicians , have always been negligent and incompetent / sleazy and corrupt / and as stated in the constitution . . prone to being “ cruel and unusual ”