Welcome to the California Judicial Branch
You’ve probably seen the title above somewhere before. There should be a caveat sentence below this that indicates “Except if you are an employee of the AOC” In the below link you will be able to read Paula Negley’s opening brief. In our opinion, this brief isn’t as much about whether the case itself has merit (that’s certainly what Ms. Negley argues and we agree that it does have merit…) but whether the institution of the Judicial Council and the AOC have any credibility as defenders of justice. The JC and the AOC rely on getting accusations tossed out of the courts that they are a bit too cozy with rather than face those accusations on their merit in open court, in front of jurors.
In Paula Negley’s case, the AOC was making consistent overtures to settle the matter but only of Ms. Negley would entertain a non-disclosure agreement. No NDA, no settlement. The JC/AOC’s ultimate saving grace in this matter was that a friend of our former chief justice, one Marilyn Hall Patel (now retired) was sitting at the bench in the federal matter. Somehow, we believe she should have been recused in this matter as friends of respondents don’t make the best impartial judges.
As you read the appellants opening brief and the shocking behavior of the AOC, you will see why the legislature took some action to protect court employees, going so far as making that protection retroactive.
9thCircuitAppeal-Paula Negley-AppellantsOpeningBrief
A Link to the actual oral argument. (Requires Windows Media Player)
Judicial Council Watcher 
JusticeCalifornia
October 14, 2011
JCW, as I understand it, there was NEVER an offer to settle. On any terms.
Paula Negley rocked oral argument this morning and had all the facts at her fingertips. That was the best pro se presentation I have ever seen. The judges asked informed and thoughtful questions.
May justice be done.
Judicial Council Watcher
October 14, 2011
No, there were only overtures to settle and only under the pretense of securing a NDA as a prerequisite to any offer to settle the matter.
The real question is: Should the AOC be able to hide behind the robes of the judiciary to run roughshod over employees and violate the law without anyone being able to hold them to any standards of accountability….or even common decency?
JusticeCalifornia
October 14, 2011
No. Top leadership and especially metnews Person of the Year (hereafter “POY”) should show real initiative by asking for the resignations of everyone involved in the Negley travesties, especially IMHO that stupid, incredibly cruel skit outlined in Negley’s brief. I mean really– who does that? It’s so abusive, so unprofessional, such an inappropriate waste of time on the public dime and so. . . . .high school bully.
It ought to be real simple to find out who all thought up, wrote, approved, knew about, and/or participated in that vicious skit, and how much it cost — all at public expense.
antonatrail
October 14, 2011
I’m glad to hear Paula Negley’s oral argument went well. May truth and justice prevail here! As in the old westerns, the AOC are definitely the ones wearing the black hats here.