Uh-huh.
Unless you happen to be a judicial branch whistleblower that saved the state some 42 million dollars.
If you are such a person, you will find that the plaintiffs bar is genuinely afraid of being blacklisted or disbarred for representing such a person because apparently that is the good word going around. It isn’t about contingency representation in this matter. Mr. Paul indicates that he has been flat-out rejected everywhere he has turned. He indicates that about 15% of these attorneys turning away his case have answered the can you tell me why you won’t represent me question.
The number one reason is fear of being blacklisted by the plaintiffs bar or being disbarred by the California Bar. The number two reason is that the employment law firm must conflict out of representation because they previously represented the AOC. According to Michael, only one attorney has suggested that his case has no merit because he filed a taxpayer lawsuit to stop the fraud and that was the reason he was fired.
“This isn’t about money” Michael said in an email exchange with JCW. “Even if I am willing to pay, they are unwilling to represent out of fear of reprisal.”
Today, Michael who indicates he has exhausted the several hundred member list of the California Employment Law Association will face an AOC demurrer in San Francisco Superior Court all on his own. The AOC is demurring on the basis that the very law that the Judicial Council and the AOC supported in front of the legislature was not in effect on the day that he was fired. Even though the position materials of the Office of Governmental Affairs indicate that they support CWPA expansion for judicial branch employees indicating it meets judicial branch goals of enhancing transparency and accountability, even though statements made by the authors of the bill sought to expand existing protections to judicial branch employees retroactively, it appears this morning that no one will be held accountable short of the courts appointing Mr. Paul an employment law attorney.
Is this what the Judicial Council and the AOC calls fair and equal justice for all Californians?
Because today that commitment to providing fair and equal justice for all Californians counts only if you can find a lawyer not afraid of being blacklisted or disbarred.
Michael has spent sixteen months looking for work and eleven months looking for an attorney. Last week was his first partial week of employment in sixteen months. According to Michael, most lawyers have indicated as of recent that he has a better chance going after his old attorney for malpractice than he does taking on the AOC for at least in that matter, there is no threat of being disbarred by the California Bar association or blacklisted by the plaintiffs bar.
And the above the law AOC continues to be untouchable.
Judicial Council Watcher 
Michael Paul
November 14, 2011
Add the new downieville courthouse and the markleeville courthouse and it is 92 million. Plus the untold tens of millions unaccounted for that were siphoned off by “Team Jacobs” in what I suspect is an elaborate kickback scheme that goes “all the way to the top” according to one AOC manager.
JusticeCalifornia
November 14, 2011
Good luck this morning, Michael.
There is no question in my mind that attorneys who speak out face retaliation of various kinds and degrees.
Most attorneys stay as far away from these cases as possible. .
Those who don’t are forced to document and report, and duke out every aspect of the case, fighting the other side, the court, and in some cases, the AOC and judicial council.
It ain’t for the faint of heart.
Stuart Michael
November 14, 2011
And its takes mucho $$
not a problem for the AOC – they can tap unlimited taxpayer funds and hide behind sympathetic judges
just look at what they’ve done to Paula Negley
katy
November 14, 2011
Michael,
Have you heard this one, yet, from any leading plaintiff attorneys? ” I understand. Wow! But we can’t do it because X is a good friend of Y. They serve on Z together. I’m going to delete that email (with all the links) you sent me, Okay?”
Received an interesting letter from the attorney for the Judicial Council, with the header of TCS and Ron Overholt’s names on it, this weekend. We will be blogging of it, soon. Keep going, Michael. As the webs get more tangled, they can’t keep hiding the truths forever.
Hotel California
November 14, 2011
Understood. Anyone in my case was either PAID-OFF or if they tried to Help – they were DISBARRED! It is well known by the International Bank Corruption Department
“If you control the courts, you control EVERYTHING” thus the reason Presidents Scrap to make Supreme Court Appointments and Why Obama and Holder turn a blind eye to California Judicial Corruption…….SCRUB MY BACK
anna
November 14, 2011
Ladies and gentleman,
Even if an attorney wins a case, and documents it, and the law states that, that is the final word on the matter, [meaning the COA and the Supremes affirm the results] that lawyer will be brought up on charges that they harmed their client by bringing the lawsuit. That is what happened to Phil Kay.
Everyone who is an attorney, or judge and has blogged on this cite knows this, yet they remain silent. Why?
Michael Paul’s counsel committed malpractice, because they were too scared to do otherwise.
They face less repercussions committing malpractice than doing what was right. The fact that not one attorney can discuss Phil Kay without being targeted is disgusting! Nor can they say Phil Kay actually did what the State Bar accused him of doing, otherwise they would be subjected to libel and slander. The Bar will never go after the JC, AOC or it’s own. Tom Giardi, who’s partner was the State Bar president, committed fraud upon the Federal Courts was fined 260,000 dollars, and an opinion was written by the ninth circuit stating that he committed fraud , by clear and convincing evidence, yet he was not even brought up on charges by the State Bar.
If Michael wants the information to come out, he is going to have to sue his attorney’s. I will be shocked if the demurrer is denied. [i hope it is]
Until our judiciary revolts and starts telling the truth, nothing is going to change. Judges, the ball is in your court. You can whine all you want on this blog, however, words are meaningless unless you are actually willing to do something.
Otherwise, good attorneys with unblemished records and employees, who did the right thing are going to be thrown under the bus. You’re going to be next! Who will be there for you?
Someone needs to go to the FBI.
You figure this out!
Michael Paul
November 14, 2011
I went to the FBI and was interviewed three times. I wish to thank the judge here just as I thanked the judge in court today for delaying, until December 19th, today’s hearing over AOC’s objections. Thanks again. Maybe justice will be found in this matter.
Been There
November 14, 2011
Great news, Michael. Your courage and perseverance are inspiring!
anna
November 15, 2011
Michael good for you. However, until the judges of this state explain, document, and go the FBI, this state is screwed. Glad to hear you got your continuance. Hopefully, you will prevail on the Demurrer. [meaning it will be denied]
Wendy Darling
November 14, 2011
Published today, Monday, November 14, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
San Diego Court Starts Costly New Project
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – San Diego Superior Court has started an expensive new technology project at a time when California’s courts are complaining loudly of budget shortages. At a cost of $7 million for equipment and more to hire new clerks, the project to scan public documents requires the public to either pay a substantial fee online or see the documents at the courthouse on a delayed basis.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/14/41421.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
November 14, 2011
Sounds like Mike Roddy has either had a sudden reversal of fortune, or his credibility is zilch.
Judicial Council Watcher
November 14, 2011
We agree – so we stole your comment for a new post on the subject. 🙂
MrsKramer
November 15, 2011
Sounds like they are preparing for the justification of early destruction of the actual hard copy case files. Wonder who will Chair the Accountability and Important Documents Scanned Committee, that decides what documents don’t get scanned so no one is held accountable?
Anna, I have many of the same questions you do.
MrsKramer
November 16, 2011
Judicial Deference and Agency Accountability: A Federal FOIA Experiment
David E. Lewis
Vanderbilt University – Department of Political Science; Vanderbilt Law School
Abby K. Wood
U.C. Berkeley – Department of Political Science
July 12, 2011
“Abstract:
Judicial deference to agency accountability has been justified, in part, by agencies’ superior democratic accountability when compared to the judiciary. Yet there is important variation in agency design that can work against the democratic accountability the courts use as a rationale for deference. In a repeated measures experiment, we exploit the variation in agency structure intended to increase political responsiveness – our measure of agency politicization – in order to test agency democratic accountability. As part of efforts to do research for other projects, we submitted repeated FOIA requests to every agency with a FOIA office and measured the timing and quality of their responses. Our preliminary findings indicate that agencies with more appointees as a fraction of total employment give slower responses and tend to withhold information more often than agencies with fewer appointees as a fraction of employment. This leads us to conclude that the agency politicization that is intended to enhance political accountability can undercut democratic accountability. Judicial deference to agencies is therefore inadequately nuanced.”
So how about that stellar work done by the “independant state agency” whose charge it is to police the judicial branch of California, the Commission on Judicial Performance? Isn’t it time this autonomous state agency be restructured in the manner of how its members are selected to promote democratic accountable within Ca’s judicial branch?