By now everyone who reads this blog knows that we’re hypercritical of waste and mismanagement at the AOC. While our schools, community colleges, universities and our social safety nets are dismantled, billions are being spent on some of the worlds most expensive public buildings and software that has never been used and is nearing obsolescence. Promises of the V4 software running in any court have yet to come to fruition and it isn’t due to a lack of money – it is due to a lack of a functional product capable of meeting the needs of any court today.
Everyone has been misled and lied to. Worse, we’ve given the judicial council both their own sword with control over this states’ attorneys who could fight to make this right on behalf of the public, we’ve given them the ample leeway of the purse to spend billions of dollars without a shred of oversight. We’re relying on judges, justices and court executive officers who are amateurs in the world of software development and construction to undertake very expensive decisions based on the flawed belief that the amateurs doing the software development and construction at the AOC have a clue as to what they’re proposing.
There remains billions on the table that lawmakers are ignoring, yet the solution is a simple one. Direct appropriations to this states’ trial courts, the AOC, court construction projects and software development programs will be the only way of correcting the misdirected priorities of a highly conflicted judicial council, most of whom are slated to get their own shiny brand new courthouse if they go along. And go along they did.
So their decision to push forward, while eliminating the two most egregious of construction projects costing 25 million dollars apiece and serving isolated communities of about two thousand people really was no surprise. They get to say that they did something about it after 5 years of having this stuff on their books as part of their plan and criticism from all corners of California. Then we have the 700 million dollar priorities list that they used to back fill this savings and pile on yet more debt that consists of estimates from exclusive, sole source providers that have been historically bilking the AOC at every possible opportunity and were previously unlicensed.
Yet only a small group of judges seems to be taking a stand while our legislature and governor witness our institutions including our trial courts being dismantled.
Not too long ago, we heard rumors in Sacramento that legislators might be inclined to sweep the AOC’s construction funds and we know they’ve already passed legislation that would permit them to drive a wooden stake through the heart of the revenue vampire we know as CCMS.
Going into the new year, students will be bounced out of colleges and universities because they never planned for successive, massive increases in their tuition. Those that graduate can look forward to not being able to land a job because they’ve dried up. People who previously had home care for their ailments will instead be transferred to public hospitals at a substantial expense to the taxpayers. District Attorneys across the state have already stated that they’re going to be over-charging criminals to ensure they go to state prison instead of being re-aligned and having to serve time in our county jails because the counties cannot afford to house them. We’ve entered the slippery slope of incarceration privatization and monitoring where we’ll be able to jail people in their homes and charge them for monitoring their activities. And we’ve tied court construction revenue to you being guilty of the driving offense you’ve been charged with. Both the sword and the purse on that one….
JCW calls upon the legislature and the governor to immediately intervene in this morass of mismanagement in the judicial branch by removing both the swords and the purses and leaving the branch to do what it does best – adjudicate cases before them.
Join us in writing a letter to Governor Brown and your legislators and urge them to regain checks and balances over the third branch by removing both the swords and the purses and re-appropriate money not to the judicial council, but to all judicial branch operations directly.
It’s time to start taking care of business.
althepalAlan Ernesto Phillips
November 23, 2011
WOW!!
In light of the hemorrhagic bilking that seems to be going on at the hands of the AOC/JC and our rubber-stamping Chief, this sounds like a VERY important movement being proposed!
As Public Affairs Officer and Board Member for the NORTHERN HISPANIC LATINO COALITION from Shasta County, CA., I would wholeheartedly endorse and participate in your thrust toward a more sound and PROPER judicial homeostasis.
My question:
Please forgive the political polarity in the missive below; it is a simple “call to action” that provides an easy ‘template’ for anyone to use for a large-scale e-campaign in quickly issuing a brief, logical challenge:
____________________________________________________________________
“Subject: Congress:
If you voted against Medicare/Medicaid you shouldn’t accept taxpayer-funded health insurance
Hi,
In April, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to cut Medicare and Medicaid. Even Democrats on the so-called Super Committee are talking about cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
Essentially Congress is telling senior citizens and the poor that tax cuts for billionaires and millionaires are more important than providing a health care safety net for our most vulnerable.
But did you know that members of Congress get great taxpayer funded healthcare? In fact, they get one of the best health care plans in the world.
It strikes us as the height of hypocrisy to be accepting government-provided, taxpayer-subsidized health insurance while denying seniors, the disabled and the poor the basic coverage that Medicare and Medicaid provide.
That’s why we’re circulating this petition demanding that members of Congress who voted to cut Medicare and Medicaid stop accepting taxpayer-subsidized health insurance for themselves. If they believe our most vulnerable citizens should buy insurance on the corporate, for-profit market, shouldn’t they do the same?
Sign the petition. Tell Congress: If you don’t believe in publicly-funded health coverage, don’t accept it.
That’s why I signed a petition to The United States House of Representatives, which says:
“If you voted to cut Medicare and Medicaid, you must stop accepting taxpayer-funded healthcare for yourself and your family.”
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://signon.org/sign/congress-if-you-voted?source=s.em.cp&r_by=951042
Thanks!”
###
____________________________________________________________________
To me, that simple letter cuts to the heart of the hypocrisy while contrasting to show the real victimization. If you have something like that I would send it out to all I can contact with impunity! (Just a thought) Thanks for ALL that you are collectively doing in this effort, JCW.
In dearest solidarity,
Alan Ernesto Phillips
https://plus.google.com/115902390478619061589/about?hl=en
[Today is day 251 since my daughter was abducted (w/no contact allowed) by 18-YEAR assigned judge Jack Halpin, et al. Last Monday, He refused to accept a proper 170.1 challenge in my effort to right His many wrongs…]
Judicial Council Watcher
November 26, 2011
We highlighted that this was an example instead of deleting the entire post.
Anonymous
November 26, 2011
Alan:
We just passed ten years and my disabled daughter is an adult. She was an adult ten years ago. She was literally kidnapped by public officials under color of law. There was no factual basis for doing this whatever, no one has ever disuted these claims, but when they have no facts they make them up as you may have noticed.
This case was pure corruption, tp protect local officials that did this to her by twisting loopholes and standing conventions in Probate and Welfare and Institutions. She is still falsely imprisoned by them and there’s nothing we can do about it. This is what is happening in probate cases all across the country, to seniors and incapacitated adults.
Every day in probate courts in this state, elders (some of them incapacitated but many, many not) are beling lined up and totally stripped of all their civil rights, yeilding them civilly dead, their assets stripped and looted for the attorneys, imprisoned in lucrative locked-down nursing homes, isolated from their friends and families and cut off from the world and their ability to defend themselves or be rescued. Many of them die when their estates are drained dry by the probate racketeers. Nothing is being done to stop this. You can’t fight them because they claim a monopoly over their party standing in court, against all comers. They won’t let you fight for your relatives in court. The judges look the other way or are complicit. It is state sanctioned elder abuse. APS and CPS will not protect their rights once they get hold of your child or relative. All they do is cover up for the judges and state officials. Something is very, very wrong in this system. There is no accountability anywhere. It’s huge. There are thousands upon thousands of such cases across the country right now and organizations fighting it.
They aren’t interested in helping the disabled because they benerally only pick on people with money to grab. Unless, like my daughter, there’s a lucrative federal program or two that allows them to grab pork money from Medicare of other government programs.
It’s not just the kids, although that’s a big part of it. It’s the incessent class warfare waged against the upper middle classes down to the poor in the courts today under color of law. That’s why the streets are full of protesters, in part, in the bigger picture.
We are fighting in the courts to find justice and have not given up and will not give up until my daughter’s rights are restored, and those that face such ordeals can find remedies. .
Jeff Golin
November 23, 2011
The preferred term for such software is “vaporware.”
courtflea
November 23, 2011
who are these weirdos posting here? Coalitions and constitutionalists? pleeze. While I certainly respect free speech, how are these postings related to the topics?
And Jeff, you are spot on: vaporware.
unionman575
November 24, 2011
To: Alan Ernesto Phillips…your post does NOT belong here. Thank you.
althepal55
November 24, 2011
Sorry to offend Union Man; JCW, please feel free to delete my offering.
Wendy Darling
November 24, 2011
Published Wednesday, November 23, by The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw:
Court Critic Angling for Oversight Role
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — The assemblyman leading efforts to roll back trial court centralization has asked for the creation and control of a new select committee.
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
November 25, 2011
Wendy, I do not have paid access to The Recorder online. Could you give a “Cliff’s Notes” version of who and what? Thank you so much!
Wendy Darling
November 25, 2011
With regrets, we also don’t have subscription access to The Recorder. Perhaps another reader who does will kindly share a synopsis.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
November 26, 2011
Assembly Floor Leader Charles Calderon, D-Montebello, has been given the go-ahead to form a new (judicial branch oversight) committee, although its scope and jurisdiction are still being worked out, Calderon’s chief of staff, Tom White, said in an email.
John Vigna, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker John Perez, said later that while Calderon has requested the new committee, it hasn’t been authorized yet.
The article indicates others, including Mike Feuer and Curtis Child had no comment with respect to forming a committee. It also discusses the AOC’s 700 mil wish list for things like 3K to apply anti-graffiti film to san mateo county bathroom mirrors and 4500 to cut limbs off a dead tree with pravda chiming in that these simple descriptions don’t do the actual work any justice.
Finally, it concludes with Cheryl Miller pointing out that the new legislative session starts on Jan 04.
Wendy Darling
November 25, 2011
From Sacramento Bee
On The Money: Judges Blow Whistle On State Agency’s Hiring
By Mike Luery
Courthouse delays are more common now because of staffing shortages. But an On The Money investigation has discovered that one government agency — the Administrative Office of the Courts — is growing despite a statewide hiring freeze.
“They’ve gone on a hiring spree with IT consultants and technicians and the totals are in the millions of dollars,” said Maryanne Gilliard, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge. Gilliard is also part of a rebellious group known as the Alliance of California Judges.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/11/22/on-the-money-judges-blow-whistle-on-state-agencys-hiring/
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
November 26, 2011
AOC’s Mr. Carrizosa writes in the comment section of the above CBS report: “It’s incorrect to say that the AOC is hiring temporary workers to skirt a hiring freeze. It hires temporary workers because there’s a hiring freeze on fulltime workers”
Isn’t that the same thing as saying they ARE hiring temporary workers to skirt a hiring freeze on full time employees?
Delilah
December 6, 2011
Re AB1208.
December 5, 2011: “The Alliance of California Judges has issued a new report entitled “Restoring Balance: Rescuing the California Trial Courts”:
http://allianceofcaliforniajudges.com/pdfs/restoring_balance-111111.pdf.
Video message of Alliance Director Judge David Lampe:
http://allianceofcaliforniajudges.com/html/restoring_balance.html.
The report is excellent. Pass it on in link or printed form.
Long live the ACJ and Majority Leader Charles Calderon! There are no words to express the gratitude owed to them by court employees throughout CA. They are lone and valiant voices in the wilderness, when the only other sound is of crickets and/or Pravda propaganda.
We thank you.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 6, 2011
We intend to post this in the next 24 hours so thanks for the comment and yes, watch the video, read the report AND DONATE.
(There appears to be a formatting issue on our side that needs to be addressed by someone on the techie side of the fence, else the current draft post regarding this exact subject need to be reproduced from scratch.)
(We expect it to propagate to all 320 syndicated feeds just like everything else we post.)
sharonkramer
November 26, 2011
JCW, are you saying that even if such a committee were to be formed, it wouldn’t be for at least two more years?
Judicial Council Watcher
November 26, 2011
Not unless it’s currently November of 02….
sharonkramer
November 26, 2011
Well if it is 2002, then I am one who can see the future of Ca’s judicial branch and it’s not pretty.
What does this sentence mean in your post? What does Jan 2004 have to do with the matter at hand?
“Finally, it concludes with Cheryl Miller pointing out that the new legislative session starts on Jan 04.”
Judicial Council Watcher
November 26, 2011
Jan 04, 2012.
sharonkramer
November 26, 2011
Hmmmm? Wonder if they could have that up and running within 48 hours? (inside joke).
Been There
November 26, 2011
January 2012 is not too far off. Michael Paul has suggested that there may be illegal kickbacks to high level AOC people from contractors and others. I hope the legislative committee will raise this issue when it looks into the stewardship of state funds by the AOC.
Given the division of powers between the branches of state government, does the legislature have the power (other than fiscal) to compel the AOC to transfer the courthouses/maintenance/repairs to State General Services or other state agency?
I assert again, a large part of the problem is that the AOC is in over its head in dealing with these issues.
sharonkramer
November 26, 2011
Am I understanding this correctly?
There is already an independent state agency who is not part of the judicial branch who is charged with overseeing ethics in the judicial branch. This is the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP).
They have currently been seeking clarification as to their authority when policing the judicial branch. This is evidenced by their queary of what, if anything, they could or should do about LA county subsidizing judges’s incomes and the potential for conflicted interests when LA county is a party to a litigation. (in other words, this state agency is asking for direction from someone)
CJP members are appointed by the Governor, as I understand it. As an independent state agency not under control of the Ca Supreme Court, they are subject to audit by the Bureau of State Auditors (BSA) for their effectiveness, or lack there of, as I understand it.
The AOC also appears to be a state agency that falls within the purview of potental BSA investigation as is evidenced by their audit of CCMS.
So the last piece that is missing is that the other two branches of government have the legal ability to act on BSA audits when audits substanciate that state agencies closely affiliated with the third branch are severely compromised.
Right?
Michael Paul
November 26, 2011
Looking purely at the numbers:
20 million square feet / 30 million dollars = .66 cents per square foot for budgeted maintenance. You could not maintain your residence for 66 cents per square foot.
Here is a revealing guide to what it costs to own a building. I welcome anyone to print this form for themselves and plug in the numbers for their own building.
http://www.fmlink.com/article.cgi?type=Benchmarking&title=Benchmarking%20Your%20Preventive%20Maintenance%20Program&pub=Facility%20Issues&id=40530&mode=source
I’m going to suggest that something different is happening now than was happening before and it’s intended to cover someones tracks because the encouragement to bundle projects only happened after the unlicensed contractors were sued.
Before the AOC was budgeting a greater amount of money towards facilities maintenance, yet was awarding cost plus contracts for facilities modifications of obscene amounts to unlicensed contractors. I’m going to assert that there was impropriety in these transactions and someone was upset that I stopped the gravy train by bowing the whistle.
To cover their tracks, they now (as of 2010) bundle projects in common areas or consisting of common systems and local facilities maintenance with facilities modification charges either by charging the local court too much money or charging the AOC too much money. A good, yet obvious example of this that would catch everyone’s attention would be $2500.00 to paint a closet or $4500.00 to cut dead limbs off a dead tree.
Then they get to declare they don’t have enough money to do it so that they can more easily get you to buy that this is what they’ve been doing all along. Do you recall any of these obscene wish lists being released before?
Of course not.
Another Who Knows
November 26, 2011
The bundling of projects started in January of 2010 shortly after FMU was instructed to erase team jacobs from our vocabulary and refer to them only as jacobs. If you want to keep your job, you don’t ask questions.
anna
November 27, 2011
Office of the General Counsel
Before the successful shift from county to state funding of the trial courts in 1997, trial courts generally received their legal services from local county counsels. With state funding, presiding judges and the Judicial Council asked the Administrative Office of the Courts to begin providing legal services to the trial courts.
The judicial branch agency provides all legal services needed by the trial and appellate courts, including litigation defense and legal advice on labor, employment, and judicial
administration issues.
The above: was lifted from the AOC website, and claims that it gives judges legal advice to the judges, not only in dealing with employment, but in their offical judicial capacity, regarding 170.1 challenges and subpoenas..
They have crossed the line!!
While I have posted that the AOC and JC can only do “administrative things”, which is what the Cal Constitution states, and is why Wolfe v. Strankman, allows for the AOC, and JC to be sued, the AOC has given themselves “judicial” duties, and violates not only the Cal. Const. it also violates the judicial cannon of ethics.
Judges are not allowed to discuss with anyone other their “legal” staff or other judges, matters that are before them. Cannon 3.7 [d] i think, states they cannot discuss matters with lawyers or law professors anything. The AOC has been hiring outside law firms to give legal advice to judges who receive 170.1 challenges, and then write papers for them to file in court, as if they were written by the judge.
This is outrageous!!! Why doesn’t the AOC just pull back the curtain and let the world know that the AOC writes judicial opinions. That is why they keep throwing out lawsuits of Michael Paul, and Phil Kay. [Michael, I’m still hopeful you will survive your demurrer, however, you need to know this.] The AOC is giving legal advice to the actual judges.
I told everyone that HRH George set this whole system up to keep tabs on the judges of the trial courts[superior courts] and reviewing courts [COA], and to keep tabs on litigation, now we have their own publications which states so.
Those of you who are lawyers and judges, know exactly how corrupt this is. Why are you silent? This is an admission that judges are discussing things with people who are litigants, and prohibited from doing so, because they amount to ex parte communications with out disclosing this to the other side!!!!!!!!
Even worse, litigants are giving legal advice to judges in their own cases!!!!!!!!!!! Hell, why doesn’t Michael Paul just ask the AOC to directly to decide his case? The AOC, the JC and the State Bar can be sued. To find out that one of these agencies is now giving legal advice, and is now representing “judges” is beyond comprehension.
I posted this comment here because of the information re: the oversight committee of Calderon, this needs to get to him, along with the judiciary committee.
When you go to the AOC website their is a paragraph which how often the AOC provides counsel to the trial courts. I will post that in a minute. To those in the legal field, this means that felonies are being committed by the AOC, you know it. Judges how long have you known this, yet kept silent???????
anna
November 27, 2011
Sorry for the typos. This is the very reason the two agencies were set up. So Judges could attend to “administrative” matters. The reason they do not have immunity for doing “administrative” things is that what they do is not considered “judicial”. This is so over the top it’s criminal. It’s tantamount to “fixing” a trial or proceeding. The AOC and the JC, can be sued. That is why Wolfe v. Strankman exists. Ronald George was successfully sued and named as a party because he was sued in his “adminstrative”capacity as head of the AOC. It took the 9th circuit to rule, because State Judges refused to follow the law.
For the AOC to admit that they now can provide attorneys, and hire private counsel for judges, in both, the Superior Courts and COA’s re: writs and CCP 170 et.seq. challenges is outrageous. Why don’t they have the AOC hear everything?
The attorney General is suppose to represent the judiciary if they are sued. Why does the AOC or the JC have any involvement? Neither of these two entities can represent judges? They are not a law firm or “legal” entity, that has been given the role to act as a representative for “parties”.They cannot act as an authorized agent, for judges doing something “judicial”.
Judges, what the hell is going on?
An entity, that can be sued, is now giving legal advice, and reviewing CCP 170 challenges and writs. [yes, you read it right, the AOC provides the “neutral” judge to decide CCP 170 et seq, challenges, and gives the Courts of Appeal, which reviews the “neutral” their legal research and advice] They are writing their opinions!
Why the hell doesn’t the AOC just hear these outright! Why have judges at all!
Woodhall, Lampe, McGoldrick ANSWER THIS!!!
Why is the AOC along with the JC acting as judge, jury and executioner?? In these judicial matters?
Michael, if your judge screws you over, this needs to be taken to the FBI, as to why a party can give legal advice and provide private counsel, to the very judge that is hearing a matter against them. This violates every conflict of interest, known to the legal profession, not to mention delegating judicial functions to a non-judicial [administrative] entity. No wonder some of the writs read as if a first year law school idiot wrote them. The AOC is writing them.
This violates every judicial cannon of ethics that I know of.
This calls into question every CCP 170 Challenge in this state!!
Our legislature created the most stringent disqualification statutory scheme in the country. and George set this up to violate it.
All of you judges that know about this are complicit in this.
California Justice, you noticed that the AOC was hiring outside counsel for this, no one could figure out why, Now we know.
This makes every challenge subject to being void, and every opinion or order, null and void, in Michael Paul’s first lawsuit. It also makes all of those on the JC, AOC and PJ of every county who hires AOC’s lawyers, or contracted “private counsel” in violation of the law. It’s an admission that people other than judges are deciding cases, tampering with actual judicial records, and obstructing justice.
Calerdone needs to know this.
anna
November 27, 2011
Legal Services
Manages, defends, and resolves lawsuits and claims involving the Judicial Council, appellate and trial courts, judicial officers, and court and AOC employees, approximately 500 each year. Supports trial courts’ responses to 200 subpoenas and DQs each year.
Responds to requests for legal opinions and advice for the Judicial Council, courts, and the AOC on dozens of issues, from the use of public funds to ethics. In fiscal year 2009–2010, received 532 requests for legal opinions and advice from the Judicial Council, courts, and
the AOC, and provided guidance responding to 473 requests. In the current fiscal year (2010–2011) to date, received 329 requests and provided guidance responding to 236 requests.
Provides real estate legal services, including transfer of responsibility for 501 court facilities, support for 57 court construction projects, 200 leases and licenses for court facilities, and compliance with environmental regulations.
Provides legal services on labor and employment issues, including wage and hour issues, leaves of absence, discrimination, harassment, unfair labor practices, workers’ compensation, workplace safety, complaint investigation and resolution, and personnel policies and procedures. Each year handles about375 inquiries, 50 litigation-related claims, and 50 labor arbitrations.
Provides legal assistance and advice on court and AOC business operations and transactions including negotiating and drafting contracts and MOUs, as well as business and legal issues involving procurement, outsourcing, security, intellectual property, and risk management. Over 400 matters of varying complexity handled last fiscal year
THIS [ABOVE] IS THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH FROM THE AOC’S WEBSITE, I’M POSTING THIS HERE, SO THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT IT EXISTED!!!. MICHAEL, YOU SHOULD COPY AND PASTE THESE PARAGRAPHS FROM THEIR WEBSITE BEFORE THEY TAKE IT DOWN. IF YOUR JUDGE SCREWS YOU OVER, THIS NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE RECORD. I’M PUTTING THIS IN CAPS, BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO ‘BOLD’ OR HIGHLIGHT MY COMMENTS IN THIS SECTION WITH DIFFERENT COLOR TYPE. I’M TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE FROM WHAT WAS LIFTED DIRECTLY FROM THEIR WEBSITE[ ABOVE] AND MY COMMENTS. SORRY FOR THE CAPS.
ALL OF YOU SHOULD COPY AND PASTE THESE PARAGRAPHS FROM THE AOC’S WEBSITE AND HAVE EVIDENCE OF THIS BEFORE THEY REMOVE IT.
anna
November 28, 2011
Why am I surprised? Lampe, McCormick, judges, all I hear is crickets.
Michael Paul
December 4, 2011
Hi Anna,
I had to think about all you wrote and the response received. While I agree that the things you mention above seem problematic if not challenging to the neutral dispensation of justice, I also think that transferring most of the budget and budgetary controls to the trial courts would permit them to provide many of these services that appear to be in conflict by the AOC providing them instead of the local court. I also think the judges you mention would prefer to address the cause (and AB1208 initially appeared to address that) as opposed to the effects, some of which may be the subject of pending or impending litigation. As such,I would be surprised to hear anything but crickets.
Michael Paul
December 4, 2011
P.S., I did print the entire web page you mentioned.
anna
December 4, 2011
Michael, the cause is what creates the effect. What they are doing is more than problematic. It makes everything they have done subject to being “void abnitio”. Only 1st year law students, and freshly minted law clerks, “poo poo” procedures, and the due process it protects. [That’s why the “decisions” written by the AOC read the way they do]. Conflicts of interest, and those “pesky” little details of who is talking to the judges, seem like a “technicality”, that should be overlooked. Technicalities, are what creates due process, and provides a “neutral” tribunal. It also provides transparency and accountability. Without those, you might as well try matters before those you are suing.
If these judges knew that it was wrong for the AOC to be providing Legal assistants to the trial courts, then they should have reported it to the CJP. The very reason they have to address these matters is because there is pending litigation before them. They are not allowed to rule on matters that have this “built-in” conflict, to them. Or they have to tell all litigants that the AOC is directly communicating to them through the agents the AOC is providing the courts. Which amounts to an exparte communication. When that is exposed, all the orders become null and void, from the time of the assignment of the AOC lawyer.[legal clerk].
The Cal. Cont, does not allow the AOC to provide “adjudicative” services. It only can provide “administrative” services. Period.
There is another possibility of why the judges are not commenting. They are unaware of the overreach, and cannot comprehend that the AOC and JC would have even attempted to go there. I have been involved with the legal profession for over twenty five years and until I delved into this matter, would not have even considered this type of deliberate overreach by HRH George. Most lawyers and judges are too busy attending to their own cases and legal issues, rather than the “long term” machinations of HRH George.
By allowing the AOC to give “adjudicative” advice to trial courts and the COA’s , that created a direct pipeline to George to apprise him of cases and issues that were coming up. Something that could never have happened before [except by fluke] That is the way it is suppose to be. The CJ, and the Supremes are suppose to take the cases as they come up. Not steer them to their desired conclusions.
This is outrageous, and violates all the tenants, we supposedly hold dear. I also know that George used the CJP to reign in judges, he wanted to silence.
In addition, George wanted to silence any case that he didn’t like the law on or where, if he wanted a different outcome he would have to write an opinion that could not stand public scrutiny. In other words, against the law. While most ignorant “fresh” new lawyers, believe, there can be two sides to all issues, certain ‘technicalities” prevent this axiom. Sometimes one can “checkmate” the courts. Those areas are “unconstitutional” and “lack of fundamental jurisdiction”. The two most misunderstood, and at the same time overlooked and overused terms in the legal profession. Most people think that if something is before the courts they automatically have jurisdiction or standing to be before the court.[or tribunal]. Not so. Whether a court is competent to hear certain matters is often never raised and that has to be determined if the courts orders can be enforced. in this state. HRH Geroge hated that law of Cal., that our state is not a “collateral bar rule state”. That is why he set all this up. In order for it never to be reviewed by a court. That is why “immunity” is so important, and why all these courts that are throwing people in jail, are now creeping up. It’s why Sharon Kramer,might go to jail. HRH George’s “administrative agencies” are engaging illegal activities, those of “adjudicative’ ones, and that is reviewable. The shrill claims of both HRH1 and 2, that the legislature is trying to “dictate” what the judicial branch is doing, is an admission that it’s the judicial branch that is actually legislating from the bench and giving themselves unlimited and unchecked power.
It’s just flat- out illegal. However, who’s going to monitor them?
Michael Paul
December 4, 2011
Don’t think a day doesn’t go by without me wondering if the AOC will be trying my case instead of the court.
It is disturbing to have the AOC file a demurrer suggesting the court to ignore plain language and claim that AB1749 is prospective taking effect on January 1 2011 and dance around plain language words that indicate the authors were worried in particular about Jack Urquhart’s case or my own case enough to insert the words “Employee” includes a former employee who met the criteria of this
subdivision during his or her employment which both Jack and myself did. Even there, the AOC argues minutiae about weather or not I met the criteria to even be a covered employee when the plain language legislative intent is clear.
Of course in presenting their judicial notice, they omitted the authors letter of concern as to why this law is required and they also omitted this statement contained in the legislative history that shows the Judicial Council themselves supported the legislation.
,They supported the very legislation they are currently arguing against!!!!
The Judicial Council writes in support:
The courts and the AOC are entrusted with a significant share of state taxpayer dollars, and it is appropriate that judicial branch entities are held accountable for their expenditure of those funds in a manner analogous to the other branches. AB 1749 will promote that result and ensure that there is no appearance that judicial branch expenditures are lacking in accountability or transparency…By creating a unique procedure for consideration of retaliation complaints, which vests final decision-making authority for complaints filed with the employer and the State Personnel Board within the judicial branch, AB 1749 clearly acknowledges that an independent co-equal branch of government must have independent authority to oversee its employees.
Personally, I look at the above statement by the judicial council as an authoritative statement of judicial branch policy as it is part of the legislative history omitted by the AOC.
By filing a demurrer, the AOC is representing that it should not be subject to the CWPA and that it is perfectly fine for the AOC to exhibit the existing appearance that AOC expenditures are lacking in transparency and accountability at least up until January 1, 2011. It’s a preposterous argument given the amount of work the AOC spent in getting the law modified oddly enough not to limit protections but to expand those protections to trial court workers as well.
anna
December 5, 2011
Michael,
The fact that they are arguing that you are not an employee, should, in the real world, defeat their demurrer.
The question of whether or not, you are an employee, is a “question” of fact, or law, which is not allowed to be determined in a demurrer..
The most disturbing thing is that the AOC, JC and the State Bar keep using “demurrers” to determine facts or legal questions, in order not to answer. { and the #$%#^% judges keep granting them without leave to amend.}
If they have to answer, you could win.
Every judge and lawyer knows this, and for them not to step in, or comment is disgraceful.
These agencies, cannot answer, because they would have to deny what you allege, or admit it, and claim that somehow they are entitled to break the law.
The fact that the AOC now provides “adjudicative” services to the trial courts, is beyond the pale.
Remember demurrers are only suppose to challenge whether you stated a “cause of action”. NOTHING ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hope you have someone in your corner, assisting you with your argument, and position. Good luck.
anna
December 5, 2011
Can’t stress this enough. DO NOT LET THEM ARGUE THE MERITS OF YOUR CASE IN A DEMURRER.
They can only argue that after they are forced to answer. Pound the judge, it’s improper for them to attack your facts or law in a demurrer. They are only allowed to argue that “facts as stated, or law” do not rise to create a cause of action.
Run this by an attorney, or someone who could assist you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do not waive this!!!!!!
At least ask for someone that you trust, or is competent, to review your arguments and give you advice on how to argue, and what the judge is required to do. These judges know what a hot potato this is and will take advantage of your ignorance of the difference between ta demurrer and a summary judgment
P.S. Do not let them argue that the last demurrer decided anything. As a matter of law it cant’t. See, these are technical arguments, but unless you know them, they will attempt to slide them by. .
Wendy Darling
December 1, 2011
Published today, Thursday, December 1, from Courthouse News Service:
Chief Justice Lobbies for Restored Budget
By MARIA DINZEO AND CHRIS MARSHALL
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/01/41877.htm
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
December 1, 2011
“Tuesday’s hearing was one of four being held throughout the state and organized by the State Bar of California, The California Commission on Access to Justice and business advocacy group CalChamber…..Evans, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, received a big round of applause when she said, “We can’t have a functioning democracy without a functioning judiciary.”
Delilah
December 1, 2011
Don’t know if this is the right spot to post this. But did anyone read about the close personal relationship and connection between the CJ and the Prez/CEO of the CA Chamber of Commerce, Allan Zaremberg, as written about in the Daily Journal earlier this week? I’ll try to post the article soon if anyone’s interested. And did anyone besides myself wonder why the CA Chamber of Commerce showed up in force against AB1208 (Calderon) as being a “job-killer” bill and about Zaremberg’s phone call to Calderon before the bill was to first be heard?
sharonkramer
December 1, 2011
We noticed.
http://wp.me/plYPz-2Fu
I would love to see the Daily Journal article.
Been There
December 2, 2011
A couple of things I noticed. First, the obvious timing of her nomination (by Rep Gov who supported/admired Ron George just before an election Meg Whitman was not going to win) and the unmistakable appearance that Tani was Ron George’s personal choice to succeed him. Second, the strong endorsement of Tani as CJ by her Presiding Justice, Art Scotland.
I personally like Art Scotland although we are probably 180 degrees apart in our political views. He is not by any means a stranger to the Supreme Court selection process having been short-listed for an appointment to the California Supreme Court several times. He is a man of strong conservative beliefs, and he is passionate about those beliefs. And I think he would very naturally want someone who shares his beliefs as CJ.
That said, Tani could be as conservative as she wishes, hang out with the Chamber of Commerce folks, and still clean up the AOC and it’s ever growing little shop of horrors.
I do not understand why she hasn’t or perhaps cannot do that. Just think, she has the opportunity to be the CJ that saves the California courts from financial ruin in tough economic times. I honestly believe that if Art Scotland were CJ that he would have Institued major changes in the AOC, including some serious changes in top administrative personnel
Is Tani in control of her own AOC or does it control her?
sharonkramer
December 2, 2011
Is Tani in control of her own AOC or does it control her?
It’s all inner twined. Once you are a good man who stood by and did nothing (liked signed off on the destruction of court records in Marin county and/or turned a blind eye while it happened), you can never go back without have to admit your hands are unclean.
The ONLY way things are going to change is if the legislature and the Governor force some deep cleaning in the house that George built. Good men would NEVER stand by and watch the Ca judicial branch and democracy being sold to the highest bidder.
I literally felt my eyes bug out when I read this, “Evans, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, received a big round of applause when she said, ‘We can’t have a functioning democracy without a functioning judiciary.”
If Evans knows this and she really wants to see CA have a functioning judiciary, then she needs to step down as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She is evidenced to be a politically compromised, key bottleneck who is aiding to stop the judiciary from functioning.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/05/senator-demands-apology-for-assemblymans-comments-on-chief-justice.html
Long live ACJ and Assemblyman Calderon.
Jon Wintermeyer
December 2, 2011
Noted in the Contra Costa Times today, an article about the FBI being called in at the request of the CCC District Attorney’s office to investigate the apparent financial irregularities and conflicts of interest at the Hercules City Hall. This matter is is in the hands of the FBI’s Public Corruption Unit.
I have to ask, why is this much smaller case of finacial irregularities and conflicts of interest more important to the FBI and US Attorney’s offices than what the the Administrative Office of the Court and Judicial Council has been doing with the CA Taxpayers monies for the past 5 years.
Seriously how much financial waste could have been performed using public funds in the City of Hercules of Contra Costa County, when you compare it to the waste done in the entire state of CA by the AOC and JC. The article listed an FBI spokesperson as Mr. Peter Lee and from the U.S. Attorney’s office in San Francisco as Mr. Jack Gillund.
This article was first page, bold print in the local news section by reporter Tom Lochner (510)-262-2760. But in the past two years, there has been nothing reported in any of the Times newspapers about the AOC or JC.
Wendy Darling
December 3, 2011
These are questions so many of us have been asking for so long, Jon Wintermeyer. The obvious answer is that law enforcement won’t touch the AOC and the Judicial Council. Nor will the courts or, apparently, the State Legislature. Which, in turn, leads to breaking the law with impunity. And no one in any position of authority or responsibility will do anything about it.
No one.
sharonkramer
December 4, 2011
It’s seems like it is going to have to come from within the judicial branch to stop the corruption. The ACJ has done a great job of shedding light on the money/power grab of the JC/AOC. But there are Canons of Judicial Ethics that do not appear to be adhered to by judges:
(1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has
violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or
initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the
violation to the appropriate authority.*
(2) Whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a lawyer has violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge shall take appropriate corrective action.
The CJP is an independent state agency who are to police ethics in the courts. THIS is the agency that needs to be audited. From reading this board and from personal experience, I know that there are past and present JC members who deserve to be taken off the bench for some of their ethics violations.
If judges, who are aware of the actions based on reliable information, filed a complaint signed by many, the the CJP would have to act or evidence for the BSA why they did not. I think we all know who is one of the biggest offenders of ethics violations from the bench and his close affiliation with a key CJP member. Seen his name here in no less than 3 cases.
Delilah
December 2, 2011
JusticeCalifornia, where are you?
Judicial Council Watcher
December 4, 2011
Justice California informed us they will be offline for awhile as they take care of business.
sharonkramer
December 2, 2011
I am going to be incarcerated indefinately, Jan 6, 2012,, for refusing to be silenced of how several members of the Judical Counci have colluded to defraud the public by CRIMIINAL MEANS, let me repeat that, CRIMINAL MEANS
Have always loved black comedy. This song continually goes thru my mind.
sharonkramer
December 4, 2011
Anna,
This is in reply to your latest post. Yep. In a case in which I am a non-lawyer representing myself (in large part because no one wants to cross the criminality of some of the judiciary involved) II had to bring it to the court’s attention that I was not properly served with an Order To Show Cause. Had I not gone to the law library for fifteen minutes, I would not have known that and would have waved my right to be properly served (among other “indescretions”). .
At the ExParte, when rescheduling the matter at hand from what the judge intended, the judge actually got up off the bench, went back in Chambers and came out and said he had to check with his “law clerk” to see if that new date was okay. Why would a judge have to check with his law clerk? Shouldn’t it be the scheduler one would check with for schedule?
Here’s another question: Why does the Judicial Council and AOC have to be mandatorily notified of every anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation if they are just the “policy making” body and “administrators” that have no involvment in individual cases?
http://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/judicial-council-notification/
At the time my matter was in the anti-SLAPP phase, I had no idea that the courts were so compromised and thought, “Gosh, they sure made alot of errors”. Looking back now and comparing with what the App Court did the second time around, those were not errors favorable to the financial interests of the affiliates of the Chamber. (Things like deleting 14 key lines from the middle of a transcript of testimony I was writing of, both times, changing the complete color of what occurred.)
I am just shocked at who is carrying on with this. Nice man. Good reputation. Obviously does not want to be here. So why is he?
anna
December 5, 2011
As I said, this entire scheme was set in motion, to keep HRH George, and his henchmen, Baxter, and Huffman, informed as to what is in the courts.
COA’s and the Supreme’s are not suppose to be determining the out comes of cases. Bottom line, they do not like the law in California!!!! And there is not a thing that they can do about it.
So, they are attempting to determine cases before they ever get to the reviewing courts. So they never have to overturn the verdicts, which they could not do,, or else write an opinion as to why the law is wrong.
Baxter and Huffman. along with HRH George wanted to do away with civil rights and punitive damages.
Phil Kay was a threat to both. They couldn’t touch him, his clients, or their verdicts. So they lied in the State Bar by implying that the verdicts were overturned, and his clients were harmed. Really?? I’m sure Michael Paul would like that harm, winning millions of dollars, and having his rights vindicated.
No, this is all about covering up for the corruption that the three amigos above set in motion. Most attorneys, when they lose just accept it. They never, argue the law, or that a judge got it wrong, or exceeded it’s authority in ruling on a certain issue, to obtain the desired outcome. Good Luck at your hearing..
sharonkramer
December 5, 2011
Thanks for the well wishes, Anna. There should not even be a trial for contempt. This court does not even have jurisdiction. There was no judgment ever properly entered or noticed in the last case (the one that they are trying to gag me from writing and evidencing what occurred based on the fake judgment document from the case).
If JCW doesn’t mind, I will show you how bad it is. JCW, feel free to delete if you think this best:
I prevailed over Globaltox in trial of Aug 2008. There was no judgment ever entered to this effect. A Ruling, yes. Judgment, no. So this is what Huffman, Benke and Irrion wrote in the Opinion of Sept 2010:http://freepdfhosting.com/84f43e8abe.pdf
“The jury found that Kramer did not libel GlobalTox and judgment against GlobalTox was entered. The trial court awarded Kramer $2,545.28 in costs against GlobalTox”.
Although the lower court judge could find no case to support it, because he had never seen this happen before, I was able to evidence for him that a judgment was never entered (aka the appellate court lied in their opinion).
On Oct 28, 2011, the Minute Order was issue by the lower court and a judgment was then entered by the lower court AFTER an appellate opinion of Sept 2010, http://freepdfhosting.com/9a91bae162.pdf
“The clerk is directed to alter the 9/24/11[sic 9/24/08] judgment to include the statement that: ‘Defendant Kramer is the prevailing party as to Plaintiff Globaltox, Inc. The judgment is hereby amended to include costs of $2,545.28 in favor of Defendant Kramer and as against Plaintiff Globaltox, Inc.”.
So this Contempt of Court hearing, at which I am going to be incarcerated for evidencing several powerful judiciary, JC members, AOC employees, and the Chair of the CJP, framed me for libel in a litigation over public health and involving billions of dollars, is founded on a fraudulet judgment document from the last case, that was never properly entered, noticed and does not even match with the Abstract of Judgment recorded or the new amended judgment. And THAT is just the tip of the iceberg. I have them red handed for colluding to defraud by criminal means. and THAT is why I am going to jail for repeating the word, “atlered”.
THIS is what they have been trying to stop me from doing, with the courts aiding it to continue by criminal means:: Removing the fraud in science of the US Chamber in the courtrooms by getting the federal government to issue a public statement.
http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/
All they are really going to accomplish if they lock me up (in a case where they do not even have jurisdiction), is to shed light on what the courts have been aiding the Chamber and the insurance industry to use fraud in courts to deny liability for causation of illness. Like I said, it’s billions and it is major criminality coming right from the top of CA’s judicial branch.
sharonkramer
December 5, 2011
I evidenced Clerk of the Court Government Code 6200 violations in both the lower court and appellate court in my letters of Sept 11, 2011 (that were then used as evidence of violation a gag order – supposedly because I used the word “altered”). Never mind all the corruption I evidenced or my right to petition my government for redress of a grievance.
Huge pdf:
http://freepdfhosting.com/aca23df2d4.pdf
Got a phone call from a JC member, who is also a clerk of the appellate court. He told me that if i pursued litigation over the matter (his personal GC 6200 violations) the courts (presiding app judge/CJP member) would just deem me a vexatious litigant. I followed up our conversation with a fax.
This is like third world country type justice.
anna
December 5, 2011
First of all to be deemed a vexatious litigant, one has to file 5 lawsuits in pro per, and have them tossed as merit-less before one can be declared a vexatious litigant. This is why these people have no business dispensing legal advice, In addition, they are lying about the law. I can only assume you mean Justice McConnell, [a nasty piece of work], however, I don’t think you have file 5 separate lawsuits. Let alone had them thrown out. Your lawsuit, even if you lost, is not considered frivolous. To be considered “frivolous” has to be tossed out on a demurrer, motion to dismiss, etc. If a defendant has to answer, one cannot be described a vexatious litigant, nor can it be considered as one of the 5 lawsuits, in pro per, that has been tossed.
Why do you think the “clerk” phoned you? He wasn’t allowed to put it in writing. 1] What he told you amounts to legal advice, and 2] he was lying about the law, and 3] he illegally threatened you. In addition, [I’m assuming you are not talking to a research clerk] he is prohibited from dispensing legal advice, because he is not a lawyer. So, he is engaging in the UPL [unlawful practice of law] which is a crime.
Sharon. don’t get caught up in the merits of anything.
At a contempt hearing there are four elements they have to prove, before you do anything. Find out what they are and make them prove them.
People, they are lying to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .
unionman575
December 6, 2011
I am tired of hearing about a certain person’s court case on here.
I could discuss my divorce case here. Anyone interested? I doubt it.
anna
December 6, 2011
The issue is not about a personal case. It is the lying, abuse and the criminal actions being taken in actual “cases”. Did that happen in your divorce? The lying and criminal actions that are being done in actual cases, are being done by the AOC. They are not suppose to be doing this. Their “mission” and reason for being created, do not include interfering in actual “judicial” matters. They can only assist the courts in administrative matters. The entire CCMS actually interfers with actual “judicial ” court records, of which they are not allowed to touch. Only the “clerks” of court [county employees] are allowed to protect and secure those documents.
The cases people talk about, and that I’ve commented on are the only cases, where people have had the guts to take on, either the AOC or the JC. Did you, or are you willing to take on either, in an actual case? Did the AOC or JC interfere with your divorce? Some of the cases you are complaining about, the people are willing to go to jail, or expose themselves to more financial harm [than they have already suffered] at the hands of these two entities that trample on everyone’s rights.
If you can’t understand how this affects, you as an employee, or a union rep, don’t denigrate those who are willing to put their money, where their mouths are.
When I read blatant lies told by the AOC to these people, [like threatening both with being labeled “vexatious”] when, in fact, that isn’t true. I feel someone has to inform them of the definition of why that is a bald face lie. The fact that an entity that is suppose to assist the judicial branch, in the furtherance justice,[for all Californians], is actually perverting that, and lying about it, is disgusting, not to mention illegal.
Thank God for this website. Thank God some people are willing to share their stories, and documents and by doing so, share the abuses they have suffered at the hands of these two corrupt entities, and by sharing this, with all who read here, we can start to put the pieces of the puzzle together, and figure out how we got here.
This system that HRH George, Baxter, and Huffman, took twelve to 14 years to set up. All one has to look at is HRH legal career and see his overreaching at every step of his career, and how he cloaked everything he did, “for the public good”, at the very time he was stripping individuals of their liberty, rights, money, and jobs.
The fact that courts use the AOC and their employees to phone, anyone on behalf of the judiciary, is not allowed. To threaten someone, and it’s not the first time I’ve heard of this, however, it’s the first time I’ve heard that they did it to a “civilian” [not someone in the legal profession] is what organized crime does.
That is where we are. Sorry you don’t want to know this. Most of us do.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 6, 2011
Anna, while we understand your salient point, Mrs. Kramer’s case is only remotely connected to either the judicial council or the AOC.
As far as JCW is concerned, her private action is with someone that is not the AOC or the JC.It generally belongs elsewhere. This is why we request that some posters that have cases post a link to their own pages where they can tell their story and keep it off JCW if it is not directly related to the JC or the AOC. Use the link as a signature line to your posts, but don’t alienate the rest of our readers over your only remotely related issue.
Her posts and her writings which go on to criticize local process and the legality of local decisions made by local judges and local court officials is something that also does not involve either the Judicial Council or the AOC (although a few of the same players are involved, one is not the other) and this is generally considered an inappropriate forum to address such grievances. We have rejected HUNDREDS of posts where litigants attack a judge over the decision in their case, simply because they are not directly related to the JC or the AOC. Kramer is irritatingly persistent and has partly hijacked JCW for her own local cause and court case.
This is not our purpose so be forewarned that we intend to be more aggressive in blocking such posts that contain elements of a case not directly related to the JC or the AOC. While not our doing, currently the askimet spam filter is treating Kramers posts as spam and they are not posting. Nor will we approve them because the way the mechanism for moderation works, approving a post now also approves all subsequent posts.We’ve been burned and we shall be burned no more.
We have been inundated with complaints regarding it both publicly and privately. We have lost readership and we have diluted our message by permitting Kramer to post Kramer vs.Kelman ad nauseum – and people have expressed this.
We’ve tried to use tools to block the posts. Kramer works her way back into our good graces by not mentioning her case only to turn around and keep on posting about her case, which does not concern either the AOC or Judicial Council directly. We strongly feel that this is not the best forum for her message and have articulated that privately and now we do so publicly.
anna
December 6, 2011
I understand the repetitions of Ms. Kramer. However, she does provide some anecdotal evidence of the incestuous nature and malice of both the AOC and the JC. My concern is always with the inappropriate overlap that HRH George set up.
When these entities claim both legislative [rule making] powers, while clearly not being a legislative body, and then grant themselves immunity, I have problems.
They are attempting to subvert our transparency laws regarding judicial proceedings, by using the AOC and the JC.
Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 366 (9th Cir. 2004) makes it clear that the CJ can be sued in his/her capacity as chair of the JC, [not his judicial capacity], because he sits as it’s administrative head, they also allowed Ms. Silva to be a named defendant.
anna
December 6, 2011
I guess my point is unless, someone is able to engage and convince the federal courts, that what George set up, [with the help of the legislature and their blessing of the unification of the courts], is unconstitutional or blends inappropriately different branches of government, were screwed. The system George set up, was a power grab to oversee what the “trial courts” were doing. Prior to the “unification of the court” the AOC,nor the JC, had any oversight over the Trial courts, other than as reviewing courts. [yes I know the two agencies were in existence, however, they were small, and only dealt with insignificant administrative issues, ie how are papers filed, uniformity of local rules and state rules etc.] [oh sometimes they dealt with “coordination” of cases, when they crossed county lines, and dealt with complex litigation[ the asbestos cases] that judge Ira Brown conducted]
However, in hindsight, George wanted unrestrained power. He got it. By being intellectually dishonest. [Just read his cases]
This can be attacked on many fronts. 1] it violates many judicial cannon of ethics, 2] it’s delegating powers to an administrative body, it’s adjudicative functions, 3] it’s creating “rules” that violate our statutory law, which it is prohibited from doing, etc.
The most disgraceful thing is that it is using the “guise” of “making the courts more accessible to the public”, to do what it is doing, so people wont’ start poking around. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Many of your readership know this yet, it’s extremely difficult to attack the behemoth that George built.
Most people who could directly attack it, would be putting their careers in jeopardy.
Since when does a judicial branch get to have an agenda [as the AOC and JC] claim they do? The only agenda the judiciary is suppose to have is the furtherance of justice. They do that by ruling on the law. Not creating blue ribbon panels for rewriting rules of procedure, or family law. That is what our legislature is suppose to be doing.
Some of the crap that these “blue ribbon” panelists state re; how they are going to “change” the law is utter crap. That is the definition of legislating from the bench, except they aren’t doing it in their “written opinions” because they would have to state they don’t like the law as is, and they are forbidden to do that, unless it’s unconstitutional.
So instead they do “it secretly through” the AOC and the JC, not to mention starving the trial courts, so the CJ, can unilaterally decide what building projects he/she wants to graft money from.
This state makes the Wall Street and bank bailouts look like child’s play. They cloaked their graft and outright theft in the name of “lets make the courts more accessible”, the question is for whom? and what?
anna
December 6, 2011
Public policy is suppose to be set by the legislature. The judiciary is not suppose to be involved with this. That is why there is a separation of the branches of govt. What policies are required of the JC other that to see that justice is done?
When the legislature turns it’s eye to new legislation, the history analysis and open hearings they have, far exceed what the JC and the AOC do.
It’s truly amazing to read the grandiose and heady mission statements that the AOC and JC spew on their website. None of it deals with creating more courtrooms and judges to handle the case load, or more district court of appeals.
Since when can an empty building dispense justice? Since when does a “blue ribbon” panel on the public perception of the judiciary, and focus groups paid to determine this, help bring accessibility of the courts to the public? Yeah, this is what our JC did for the first few years.
PR is more important than ruling on cases, and upholding the law by writing decisions. Lobbying is more important than giving money to the trial courts which could then carry bigger case loads.
Oh no, the judiciary has an agenda, and it ain’t justice.
Peppermint Pattie
December 6, 2011
As they like to say at the AOC and the Office of General Counsel – There isn’t anything that a phone call from the Chief Justice won’t fix.
Elmy Kader
January 14, 2012
My dear friend Union man,
Easy now it is all about inclusion and not exclusion. I did enjoy every ones opinion and learned a few things
CourtObserver
January 16, 2012
It appears there are no lawyers or court clerks on this Web site. The facts on Kramer:
Look at Kelman v. Kramer D054496, Fourth Appellate District
Kramer was the appellant
Jury found she libeled Bruce Kelman. Actual damages $1. Costs 7252.65.
Jury found in Kramer’s favor versus GlobalTox. Court awarded her $2,545.28 in costs.
Costs award affirmed on appeal.
sharonkramer
January 16, 2012
Court Observer,
Yes. That’s exactly right. That’s what the 9.13.10 Appellate Opinion states as judgments entered by that date. However, the CCMS as of 12.23.10 stated GlobalTox & Kelman prevailed in trial.
Contrary to the Appelate Court stating the judgment had been entered in my favor in their opinion. In reality this never happened and I can evidence that they know it.
On 10.28.11 over one year after the appellate opinion, the lower court amended the judgment to state I was a prevailing party awarded costs.
See page 3, October 28, 2011 Amended Judgment http://freepdfhosting.com/0ea7cd18a8.pdf
And THAT is just the tip of the iceberg. But I will refrain from posting more.