….make damn sure JCW doesn’t get their grubby meat hooks on a video destined for court executives and presiding judges and broadcasts it to the public and the legislature.
Oopsie. Reefer Madness 2012 video
Let’s follow the bouncing ball, shall we?
We think her speechwriter will face the firing squad at dawn tomorrow. Or already has…
…sometimes the best communications is to hear what isn’t being said. We’ll blend a little of both to come up with JCW’s john q public interpretation of this political faux pas.
1. Ignore everything that happened before me taking the helm. Approximately 900 million in funds that could have kept your courts open wasn’t really siphoned off to pay for CCMS or overpriced unlicensed contractors doing work on an exclusive basis from the Mexican border to the Oregon border and all points in between. We aren’t really building some of the worlds most expensive public buildings while others close down statewide. Think about what we did when we eliminated the most egregious examples of waste when we eliminated the Markleeville and Downieville courthouses (population of each city, about 200 and each slated to get 25 million dollar courthouses)
2. It took you all fifteen years to concentrate all judicial branch power into the hands of just one person and we did that by working together.
3. JudicialCouncilWatcher (and the rest of the media asking) wants to know where those form 700’s are and wants to know how much stock we own in all of the companies we steer work to. We’re trying to muddle our way around this pesky law.
4. We get no money, you get no honey California. We’ve mitigated cuts by taking only 86% of our typical bloated budget while you’ve suffered dearly at the trial court level.
5. I only want to talk about 2011. I want to mislead people about the changes made in the AOC. We can’t be flat-footed about the past and talk about it too much. Forget about 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006.
6. I’m glad that you presiding judges got together to rout the strong majority of the judges of this state that supported AB1208 by coming forward opposing AB1208.
7. I was surprised to hear all of the meritless, false claims about the Judicial Council and the AOC being made on the Assembly floor. Lies, I tell you, lies! They all read that yellow press over at judicialcouncilwatcher.com and give false merit to the Alliance of California Judges and their noise.
8. Speaker Perez seemed genuinely concerned about all of those meritless false claims about the judicial council and the AOC being repeated on the assembly floor before the vote and wanted to know what was false? I couldn’t answer until I got together Pravda and had them spin their propaganda machine into a backhand slam on a few legislators. It’s in your handout and was sent to 120 legislators. (We’ll make sure the rebuttals hit their hands too Tani.)
9. I also spoke to Speaker Perez about him conducting a morally corrupt act by making AB1208 a political issue and strong-arming legislators while the bill was out for call. That should have never happened that way, it was dirty politics I tell ya! I lost to dirty politics, meritless arguments and false claims! I was told that each legislator would vote their conscience and that disturbed me that he did that. All those claims were made about the past.
10. What is most troubling to me is that AB1208 pitted judges against judges and is a violation of the separation of powers. AB1208 takes away my power. Why should my discretion be limited? 2011 -12 is all about transition, transformation and triumph. Just ignore the past and the waste that is happening now!
11. No action or money was spent on CCMS not already authorized by the legislature (ie given to the trial courts and skimmed off by the AOC)
12. So now we move to the Senate with AB1208. Because I went to school with Steinberg, that’s the reason the bill will sit so we can talk about budget. I haven’t seen the proponents of AB1208 speak anything about budget (although AB1208 is all about budget… doh!) and those dogs over at JudicialCouncilWatcher only speak of sweeping my court construction funds to fund the branch. I’m shooting for a 300 million dollar budget increase, not the sweeping of a similar amount from court construction.
13. We’re misunderstood and falsely represented by others. It’s all lies! LIES I TELL YA!
14 We’re the only branch that performs checks and balances dammit! The power of the purse is a dangerous intrusion of the separation of powers.
________________________________________________
And your day wouldn’t be whole without this Pravda classic tossing Huffman et al under the bus. (and then putting him in charge of the accountability committee)
Related articles
- The AOC doesn’t represent me (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The Need to Treat the Legislature with Respect & commentary from JCW (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Questions about Overholt’s leadership and council spending (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Chief Justice Slams the State Assembly over the passage of AB1208 (courthouse news)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Cole Day Rain
February 8, 2012
Thanks for this video. It puts some pieces together for me. I thought maybe this Chief Justice had an prejudicial relationship with the judges who have targeted me. This video confirms it. And I’m blown away by her blatant admission that she and others were and are trying to “get around the law” regarding form 700’s. Not surprising but still shocking to have her admit it so blatantly.
unionman575
February 8, 2012
JCW you follow the bouncing ball well.
Underground
February 8, 2012
Looks like the USS AOC has many leaks or leakers 🙂
Judicial Council Watcher
February 8, 2012
Who are we to say anything about making submarines out of screen doors?
Edited to add the Chrysler superbowl commercial because of the important message contained therein….
althepal55
February 8, 2012
Awwww… but, where will the many poor, little rats be able to go?
(They are starting to leave, right?)
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 8, 2012
Clint’s best line was to Bradford Dillman; “Your mouthwash ain’t makin’ it.”
It is hard to believe that HRH-2 asked to have her 15 minute video presentation to the TCPJAC sent to all judicial officers in the State. Many of the members of the Legislature I have spoken with are none too happy about her comments. I think her video should be given to a psychiatrist who might find that she qualifies for a disability retirement.
Let’s see what happens next.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 8, 2012
Michael Paul
February 8, 2012
He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.
Thomas Jefferson, 1780
Cole Day Rain
February 8, 2012
I wish someone would put the video on youtube. WMV is the suckiest format ever and I can’t play it well.
Michael Paul
February 8, 2012
Here is a doctored, edited, innocuous version that was for public consumption.
About her comments of coming forward and expressing concern about the branch and not being retaliated against or fired: Chief Justice -Your words are cheap. If your words had any value then I would be still working there and others would have been fired. Or imprisoned..
Cole Day Rain
February 8, 2012
I found this video very damning. Especially the part where she talks about her relationship with Poochigian and Hill.
*edited by JCW. Your case isn’t against the Judicial Council or the AOC directly. JCW has a long standing policy against criticizing judges for their work on the bench and individuals discussing their court cases if they are not specifically related to the Judicial Council and the AOC. You are welcome and encouraged to provide a signature line in your posts to your own web page. JCW is not the place from which to launch attacks against the judiciary or judicial officers for their official acts from the bench. Please note however that judicial officers acting in their administrative capacity are fair game. We reserve the right to modify or delete your posts when they violate this policy. Please see our about page for more information.
Wendy Darling
February 8, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, February 8, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Chief Justice Slams Assembly Over Passage of Court Funding Bill 1208
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye slammed the state Assembly in a recent speech to about 100 judges and court clerks, saying the legislators had made “false claims” about the court’s big and powerful bureaucracy.
The chief justice said she met with the Assembly Speaker John Perez before the Assembly voted last week to pass a bill that would reduce the power of the Administrative Office of the Courts, an agency criticized by trial judges as arrogant and spendthrift.
“I had frank discussions about what was happening in the judicial branch in 2011,” said the chief justice, “and so was quite surprised to hear on the floor of the Assembly all of the meritless, false claims that were made about the judicial branch and the AOC.”
“It’s one thing to lose an argument based on merit,” she added. “It’s another thing when the facts are not represented.”
Perez, a Democrat from Los Angeles, called her after the vote.
“I said to him, ‘I am greatly dismayed by the false information that was stated on your floor.’ And he was greatly concerned that there was false information stated on his floor about the judiciary.”
In the rough politics over the bill, its legislative author promptly returned the slam.
“There’s a lot of concern on the part of the Senate as there was in the Assembly,” said Majority Leader Charles Calderon, interviewed on the same day the chief justice criticized the Assembly.
Read the entire article: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/08/43727.htm
The AOC doesn’t represent me. And neither does the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
Underground
February 9, 2012
I will say it again. court house news service is our best friend. Maria leaves no doubt where she stands in this effort. Let the news media wring its hand and take a neutral position. Maria is emotionally tied into this along with us. When we’re peeved, she’s peeved and some in the legislature eat her stories and gets peeved too. It’s a win-win. I hope JCW and the Alliance remember all the good deeds she has done for us along the way. You go girl.
antonatrail
February 9, 2012
Methinks teensy tani is beginning to dig herself a hole … there were no misrepresentations on the assembly floor about the AOC except by the opponents of AB 1208.
Time didn’t permit all the ills of the AOC to be aired.
versal-versal
February 9, 2012
Thanks Wendy for the link to Ms Dinzeo’s detailed account of the aftermath of the 1208 vote. The CJ’s contentions that all is well in the branch since she took over is incredible.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 9, 2012
Word on the street is that the JC and their partners targeted attorney legislators, reminding them that some day they will be termed out and need to return to private practice. This tactic earned the JC/AOC a lot of voting abstentions and it is the abstentions that they were looking for to kill this bill in the assembly.
Proportionately, there are more attorneys in the Senate. Add what Curtis Child discusses about ‘elbowing’ legislators (into compliance) and you can imagine that the veiled threats against legislators will escalate in an effort to kill this legislation. Of course, those same veiled threats will backfire when it comes to budget talks as legislators know that money is power.
Been There
February 9, 2012
JCW writes, “Proportionately, there are more attorneys in the Senate. Add what Curtis Child discusses about ‘elbowing’ legislators (into compliance) and you can imagine that the veiled threats against legislators will escalate in an effort to kill this legislation. Of course, those same veiled threats will backfire when it comes to budget talks as legislators know that money is power.”
And then Tani can do her Pyrric Victory Tour of editorial offices and other media when her chickens come home to roost.
anna
February 15, 2012
The legislature could put an end to that threat. All they have to do is
1] do away with the immunity they gave the State Bar, when they lie and go after lawyers, and
2] demand that the Decisions the State Bar issues is reviewed by a written opinion and not just a summary denial.
12 years ago they had to.But HRH the 1st cut a deal with John Burton that they no longer have to write an opinion, and there is no review as to what the State Bar does, or how it can violate the rights of attorneys in this state.
anna
February 13, 2012
This why Phil Kay was taken out. The State Bar is being used to take out any attorney’s that stand up to the CJ.
This is just blatant blackmail.
However, if the legislature got smart, they would neuter the State Bar. They should, and they can. The State Bar was created by the legislature. The State Bar gave attorneys rights, and the CJ along with Joe Dunn flat out are abusing them and are protecting the illegal activities of the judicial branch instead of the public.
unionman575
February 9, 2012
Yes, money is power.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
February 9, 2012
” In her address to the judges and clerks, the chief justice said that after her discussion with Perez, she thought AB 1208 would not have the 41 votes it needed to pass the Assembly.
“‘I thought that for the most part then that it would go away, because I understood that this bill would be up to each member to vote their conscience,” she said. “That it wouldn’t be the subject of political maneuvering in terms of voting your conscience on the Assembly floor.'”
Yes, Tani, political maneuvering is good only when your lobbyists are advancing your agenda, and bad when your agenda is rightfully questioned and opposed. Has a single AOC lobbyist ever told a legislator to just vote his or her conscience on AB1208?
Hypocrisy is terrible, Tani.
Been There
February 9, 2012
Who wrote this for Tani? It reads more like Lynn Holton than someone like Beth Jay (the person who not only has served HRH long and well, but who also knows where all the bodies are buried). Beth is too smart to write something this bad.
anna
February 13, 2012
Are you kidding? Beth Jay is not only mendacious but stupid. She only admits to discussing cases with only one side in criminal and civil matters in the press. [And I’m talking death penalty cases]. Nothing could be more arrogant or clueless.
That woman should be thrown in jail.
anna
February 13, 2012
And when I say talk, I mean she is actively seeking information to give to the CJ, and others. That is an improper exparte communication. It violates all cannons of judicial ethics, and is criminal. You’re damn right she knows where the bodies are buried, she buried them, and considering some of the cases included capital cases I mean that literally.
JusticeCalifornia
February 9, 2012
Cantil-Sakauye’s unedited speech is very telling. Lots of desperation there.
Lawyers are taught that they will quickly lose credibility in court if the pot persists in calling the kettle black, or if they use, or allow their clients to use absolutes– “always”, “never”, “every”, etc.
“Every” lawyer opposes AB 1208? That’s news to me. You might want to fact check that statement, Tani.
And what is with the whining about a legislator asking for votes on a bill? Isn’t that precisely what the Bench Bar Coalition, Feuer, Steinberg, Curt Childs et al have been solicited to ensure?
The truth is, Ron George’s heavy-handed quest (taken up by Cantil-Sakauye) to keep complete power and control of the branch in the hands of the chief justice and loyal appointees hand-selected by the chief justice — with no effective oversight whatsoever– is inherently repugnant.
Even more repugnant is the longtime third-world brutality employed by the branch elite and branch enforcers when dealing with whistleblowers, those within the branch who refuse to “speak with one voice” , and all those within or without the branch who refuse to tow the cj/jc/aoc party line.
The point of no return has been reached. Way too many people– judges, court employees, lawyers, litigants, families, children, taxpayers, elected officials, etc.– have personally witnessed or experienced unfettered court corruption, retaliation, the re-writing of “facts” and “history” to suit top leadership’s agenda, and other unscrupulous power plays at the highest levels.
Cantil-Sakauye was warned about this before she was elected. She was warned after she was elected. She has been warned throughout the last year.
Cantil-Sakauye has persisted in backing the wrong horses. She stomps her feet, and throws fits and insults as those horses are slowly but surely being put out to pasture.
Top leadership will eventually realize people really are mad as hell and they really won’t take it anymore. Change really is inevitable. And top leadership’s fondness for spitting into the wind isn’t doing the branch any favors.
Top leadership is going to have to get with it, and clean up its act, or it indeed will be completely neutralized via the checks and balances functions of the other two branches of government.
My hat is off to everyone who is supporting change. Wow. How different things look now, than they did three short years ago.
courtflea
February 9, 2012
Wah!wah!wah! The woman has totally lost control. I am ashamed for her. In light of Ron O’s resignation today, perhaps he wrote this horrible speech/screech!
Peppermint Pattie
February 9, 2012
If the current Chief Justice sincerely believes that “civility” is so important, she ought to communicate and demonstrate that to her AOC Division Directors, one of whom has been known to refer to one of his subordinate staff members as “the little f*gg*t” (fill in the vowels). How “civil” is that?
anna
February 13, 2012
Talk about “civility” to our forefathers, who died for this system. When we start to elevate form of speech, over the content, we might as well throw in the towel. Prior to our system of jurisprudence, we had trial by combat. Maybe Tani wants to back to those good old days?
Since when is “civility’ more important than the truth.
It’s obviously to “hot ” in the kitchen for all of these criminals, and they should get the hell out.
Cole Day Rain
February 11, 2012
I would think the leaked speech is enough to justify an investigation into Tani and her agents provocateur for corruption. I mean, bragging about openly attempting to “get around the law” regarding public transparency and naming names is, to me, an open admission to violating her oath of office, calls into serious question the integrity of the entire court system, and seems solid ground for launching an investigation into possible transparency violations before the FPPC already.
anna
February 13, 2012
Hello?, they should also go to the FBI. Impeachment????
unionman575
February 11, 2012
I agree Cole Day Rain.
Whew I needed a cold shower to wake up after the “terrific” speech. I thought it was a dream.
Fritz Koenig
February 12, 2012
OK.
I was convinced long ago before this latest video of TCJ. I was convinced before finding JCW having been gang-raped by the TheocraFascist 10 trial court judges of San Bernardino County, Justices Miller, Richli, and McKinster of 4DCA, and my sociopathic neighbors.
But after seeing this video courtesy of JCW, I see pathologies that have never before been expressed on JCW, nor to which I had been exposed. (And BTW, some of those pathologies have succor within the posters to JCW as well as TCJ herself. And certainly, “cutting the head off the snake, Tonto, Mini-Me”, and all the other gallows humor, snide remarks, sniping, and bitterness are expressions of the passions (i.e. psychological wounds) of the posters whether or not those wounds were inflicted by the AOC, the Judiciary, the Primal Scene, toilet training, or genital oppression.)
But riddle me this…what now?
Assume TCJ resigns. Assume all theories of JCW partisans are accepted.
What is the new structure of the California Judiciary?
Assuming you think (as do I and in gross theory does the law) that the entire State of California should strive towards a single standard of Justice which is achieved via uniform interpretation of law and values, what is the new structure of the Judiciary?
Assuming, as do I, that the new structure will have a Chief Justice and a Chief Administrator of the Courts, nominate 30 candidates to perform those duties.
Now get a little more real.
TCJ, even being far far over her head, can not be impeached as of yet. It is very unlikely she will resign. We still must replace her *practice* as CJ whether she resigns or not.
Nominate 30 people to storm the CJ offices by whatever means necessary to effect the changes needed to proceed into the future whether or not TCJ is hogtied into a corner of personal growth or expelled from the office to be replaced.
Enough destruction; time to construct the new judicial reality of California.
And for crying out loud, could the posters of JCW stop with the self-centered, and self-absorbed victimology, and produce the solutions that will solve the TOTAL PROBLEM OF JUSTICE in California?
If not JCW, then it is time for a new group. That group is NOT ACJ, as again, they are not champion solution to the total problem.
Cole Day Rain
February 12, 2012
Golly, I wish we were all as evolved as Fritz.
antonatrail
February 12, 2012
Umm, Fritz, did you enjoy a Sunday Champagne brunch today? I’ve heard there’s one in L.A. with never-ending Mimosas I’ve been interested in trying.
anna
February 13, 2012
You jackass. the system worked just fine before HRH George wanted to control all this power and money.
Just erase 15 years.
The system is in place. It called the Cal Conts. Read it. It worked. George “created” a problem that didnt’ exist in order to “centralize” and control the judiciary, courts, cases, the law and an inflow of money to him.
He always wanted to be judge, jury and executioner. We don’t need a new judiciary, we just need to get the JC and the AOC and the State Bar out of the mix. George used all of these “branches” for political payback and settling his vendettas.[personal and political]
Fritz Koenig
February 13, 2012
I understand everything was fine before Bismarck too!
Thank you all for answering my questions, confirming my assessments, and proving the value of posts and dialogue via JCW.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 13, 2012
Sorry about the name calling Mr. Koenig. We’re not commissioned to take on the total problem of justice – just to promote incremental reforms that deal with the head of the snake. There are many other sites and groups that deal with incremental issues related to justice in the courts. The problems really lie at the very top of the food chain. If it were a more democratic body, I think you (and other groups) would see the changes that you/they’re looking for locally.
Fritz Koenig
February 13, 2012
“head of snake” = Judicial Council or TCJ Correct?
JC proclaims,
“in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice.”
What, about the JC declaration currently is not true?
Judicial Council Watcher
February 13, 2012
Article 6, section 6 of the California Constitution governs the responsibilities of the judicial council, who are mostly appointees of the chief justice of the supreme court. If one looks at cause and effect, they don’t ensure the consistent, independent, impartial and accessible administration of justice, nor is it their constitutional charter under article 6 section 6.
Many people fail to understand that the judicial council has usurped much of the power and control that it claims. The constitution forms them as an advisory body, not a governing body, except for the purpose of judicial assignment and workload and even that is the responsibility of the chief justice.
_________________________________________________________________
SEC. 6. (a) The Judicial Council consists of the Chief Justice and
one other judge of the Supreme Court, three judges of courts of
appeal, 10 judges of superior courts, two nonvoting court
administrators, and any other nonvoting members as determined by the
voting membership of the council, each appointed by the Chief Justice
for a three-year term pursuant to procedures established by the
council; four members of the State Bar appointed by its governing
body for three-year terms; and one member of each house of the
Legislature appointed as provided by the house.
(b) Council membership terminates if a member ceases to hold the
position that qualified the member for appointment. A vacancy shall
be filled by the appointing power for the remainder of the term.
(c) The council may appoint an Administrative Director of the
Courts, who serves at its pleasure and performs functions delegated
by the council or the Chief Justice, other than adopting rules of
court administration, practice and procedure.
(d) To improve the administration of justice the council shall
survey judicial business and make recommendations to the courts, make
recommendations annually to the Governor and Legislature, adopt
rules for court administration, practice and procedure, and perform
other functions prescribed by statute. The rules adopted shall not be
inconsistent with statute.
(e) The Chief Justice shall seek to expedite judicial business and
to equalize the work of judges. The Chief Justice may provide for
the assignment of any judge to another court but only with the judge’
s consent if the court is of lower jurisdiction. A retired judge who
consents may be assigned to any court.
(f) Judges shall report to the council as the Chief Justice
directs concerning the condition of judicial business in their
courts. They shall cooperate with the council and hold court as
assigned.
Michael Paul
February 13, 2012
Calling forum participants derogatory names isn’t cool. JCW forgot to mention: Legislation passed 15 years ago never re-wrote the constitution but it moved some trial court responsibilies from the local county to the state. Courts are constitutionally formed as local entities, with locally elected officials and local control. The issue AB1208 seeks to cure is that that money was no longer appropriated from the county to the courts, the money was appropriated from the state to the Judicial Council and the AOC, yet the council only meets a few times per year. Since this money shifted from the counties to the state, it has landed in the hands of people who wish to control it for their own benefit and pass on what’s left to the trial courts and use that money as a political tool favoring a chosen few. Not only did chief justice george tour the state and visit courthouses, I visited probably a hundred or so courthouses and I can tell you that many of the courts already replaced were in a hell of alot nicer buildings than many of the courts that aren’t even being considered for replacement. There is a real need for a construction program, but in my honest opinion it is being used as a political tool to for the benefit of a chosen few.
Fritz Koenig
February 13, 2012
May I have a response to:
“head of snake” = Judicial Council or TCJ Correct?
Article 6 Section 6 is not a complete statement of the powers of JC as it, A6S6(d), explicitly states JC “perform other functions prescribed by statute.”
So, to fully explain the power of JC one must look beyond the Constitution to statute.
That being said, the following findings are curious and promote that research into the statutory authorizations:
Within Article 6 Section 6 the word:
“administration” is not used in the context of improving administration, and certainly never in the context of *ensuring* administration of justice;
“independent” is used only once, but in the context of an appellate court’s review of the record being independent of the Commission on Judicial Performance;
“accessible” is not used at all;
“consistent” is not used at all;
“ensuring” is not used at all,
but all of those words are inexplicably used by Judicial Council to describe to the public its charter and purpose.
So limited to the above findings the FK TruthoMeter says,
the JCW statement that “nor is it their constitutional charter under article 6 section 6”, is POSSIBLE BUT NOT PROVEN for to prove that statement a thorough search of statute must be made.
the JCW statement that “they don’t ensure the consistent, independent, impartial and accessible administration of justice” is POSSIBLE BUT NOT PROVEN, but from FK’s additional knowledge it is TRUE (Sharon Kramer will concur I think)
And a new question. What entity(ies) does “ensure the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice.”
If there is none, is not all this moot?
Judicial Council Watcher
February 13, 2012
The proverbial head of the snake is the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council and their administrative offices, the AOC.
Actually, if it not written in the constitution, it is not their constitutional charter. Statutes are referenced, yet are not an integral part of the constitution so adjust your truthometer a bit.
As to your last question: A democratically elected judicial council should be doing these things but I assure you that a bunch of chief justice appointees aren’t going there and there is ample evidence of that.
Fritz Koenig
February 13, 2012
FK syntactical, semantic, semiotic parsers < overload, overload, overload. Number 6, don't ask me "Why?" * 😉
program stop location:
Constitution Statute
perform additional duties precise specification of additional duties
additional duties appear to be Constitutionally chartered albeit upon condition of specification.
Grasshopper will hibernate now. **
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(The_Prisoner)
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(TV_series)
Fritz Koenig
February 13, 2012
Well, apparently wordpress filters out the vertical line and spaces I needed to create a diagram using text.
It wooda maid cents to any systems analyst type, and any lawyers here since everyone knows the lawyer in the room is always the smartest guy in the room Bar none.
Fritz Koenig
February 13, 2012
But I do not see that a “democratically elected judicial council” is constitutionally authorized or mandated to “ensure justice” only work to “improve” it by specific means plus whatever authorized by statute.
Clearly, SCOTUS InJustice Scalia’s view would affirm such a scheme as no Constitutional mandate to ensure justice since in Herrera v. Collins, he said, ” … There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough) for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”
And so Troy Perry was killed by the State even as substantial doubt was raised post conviction.
I posit that without including the anchor of a mandate to ensure Justice (which TCJ certain throws as fusillade) we will spin in circles ungrounded around the stated limited scope of JCW.
Fritz Koenig
February 13, 2012
Correction: Troy Davis. Duh…
anna
February 15, 2012
FW,
You might want to look up statutory construction and what statutes can and cannot do with regards to the Constitution, California, or US, before you pontificate here.
I do not take back my name calling.
It’s idiots like you, who give common meaning to legal “terms of art” which have legal definitions and are required to be used in the courts under the evidence code.
Administration of justice is what happens in court proceedings. Obstructing it, is a common-law crime, which in California is prosecuted by contempt. However administrative duties of the judicial branch are not adjudicative. Nor can they be. That can only be done by actual constitutional courts. JCW has it right. If it’s not in the constitution, they can’t claim it’s in their charter. However, they can only do what statutes give them authority to do. While, they are constitutional recognized, they have no inherent constitutional power, because they are a creature of statutory construction.
The problem lies with the public statement the JC puts out, and it is deliberately deceptive.
They don’t get to proclaim their charter. That is the job of the legislature. They write the constitution..
This is where the judiciary takes umbrage.
They are the ones attempting to usurp the power of the legislature.
Conflating “Administration of justice”, and “administrative duties” of the courts, is outrageous, but the JC along with the AOC want to do just that. That’s why they have to add the words “orderly, and “accessible”, because that means nothing. Administration of .justice is a legal term, and the JC and the AOC cannot have anything to do with it.
Fritz Koenig
February 15, 2012
Anna’s ejaculations have produced quite the foaming at the mouth.
Here you go anna, here is a cloth to clean yourself.
Anna states, “Administration of justice is what happens in court proceedings.”—Only very rarely and that is mostly by chance. Just ask Katie Tagle. One would think in this day and age no one would believe, much less attempt to foist, such fairy tale propaganda from oligarchs into any discussion.
As for the rest of Anna’s points, there are too many non-ambiguous pronouns, jumps of topic and logic, false assumptions, mis-capitalizations, and clumsiness to Anna’s tirade to address fully here. At the risk of yet another tirade:
The Constitution is quite clear that at least one purpose of the actions the Judicial Council is “To improve the administration of justice…” (A6S6(d)).
Is the phrase “administration of justice” in that (d) part meant as the legal term of art “Administration of Justice” to which Anna refers (with fist pounding on the table and red faced with that foam in her mouth)? If not, then is it instead the common plain text meaning?
Whichever one meaning one declares, the Constitution declares that the JC “has something” to do with it.
Now we just gotta figure out how the plain text meaning of “administration of justice” is really that different from the legal term of art, “Administration of Justice”. Perhaps all those people so much smarter than I could create and use a nomenclature which can not so easily be conflated?
Res Ipsa Loquitor
February 15, 2012
Hey Fritz, Please feel free to write what you think, but please, please be kind to posters here. Anna did not deserve the personal attack and you could have omitted it and still made your point. Thanks, Fritz.
anna
February 15, 2012
FW
They are allowed through the JC and the AOC to “improve” not anything else. They don’t administer justice. They don’t ensure it. That is what courts do. Period. How they improve it, is a good question. They are not allowed to do anything that could be considered, adjudicating it.
They are not an adjudicative body, and that is why immunity for judges doing anything administrative is not allowed.
These two bodies prior to HRH the 1st’s reign, only determined what type of paper, or how many holes they could demand when filing papers. In other words they made it “easier” for the actual judges “courts” to get the briefs, eg; file a courtesy copy with the court. Or we need 4 copies. etc. That was how the JC and the AOC worked. They didn’t have “blue ribbon panels” for studying how the laws in “family court” worked, or whether juries respected judges. That is for the legislature. But that is how HRH wanted to spend money from the legislature. If the CJ doesn’t like the law, get off the court and become a legislator. However, the courts worked just fine before HRH, and we had transparency, it was called “written opinions”.
The legislature in this state instituted the strongest Disqualification statutes in the country, and the CSC don’t like it. Nor do they like being told they can’t do something through statutes. However, they don’t get to throw out statutes, unless they are unconstitutional.
So HRH, got everyone to buy into centralization, all the while knowing that he could do things there, without any transparency.
Prior to his reign,If the reviewing courts didn’t like how justice was being administered, they wrote legal opinions. Period.
Opinions included procedural matters. Since the legislature writes CCP.
Due process flows from procedure.
However, the JC nor the AOC don’t care about due process. Nor does the SC. That is a nuisance. They consider it form over function.
It also gets in the way of the CSC and the CJ keeping track of cases they don’t like or want shut down.
Both the CSC and the CJ use the JC and the AOC to indulge in exparte communications and direct orders, or actually provide legal advice, or in some documented instances write the opinion for the judges to sign which violates cannons of ethics, and is criminal.
Try reading the evidence code or the CCP.
Or better yet, crack open Black’s.
Fritz Koenig
February 15, 2012
Reply to Res Ipsa Loquitor:
I disagree.
My teacher tried to tell me in second grade that even after a girl kicks a boy in the balls on surprise first strike a gentleman never pushes back against a lady. I told the teacher I knew that but the lecture was irrelevant since ladies do not kick boys in the balls on any account. The teacher turned to the girl and told her I was right and sent her to the corner and me to do all the day’s worth of arithmetic exercises for the day which she knew I would enjoy and finish in mere minutes and require the advanced problems when the other students were given the regular arithmetic instruction that day.
Come to think of it, that may have been the last time I witnessed true Administration of Justice. Thanks to JCW for helping remember that event for the first time in decades. 😉
I do not appreciate Anna or anyone else making contemptuous cretinous ad hominem attacks by calling any posters “idiots”, “jackasses”, and especially when they double-down on the behavior with an incomprehensible tirade. I see you agree.
Michael Paul admonished Anna for the first offense. I ignored it and did not engage her. But apparently Anna had not gotten the message or perhaps Anna has some special privilege afforded by a set of decorum standards which discriminate poster by poster. I doubt that.
Would that my second grade teacher was hearing Section 527.6 civil harassment petitions the Judiciary would have more money in the budget!
I see Anna has made another post. Now that my point of her gutter attacks has been exposed, I’ll let someone else handle the next outburst from her. If they continue, I am sure readers will leave the forum or never engage at all.
anna
February 15, 2012
FW,
I cut my teeth on harassment charges and have helped create the law in that area.Calling you an idiot or a jackass, is not gender specific, nor actionable. However, your comments were.
Putting that aside, your sense of justice is irrelevant, however, what the law says justice is.
I always love it when someone comes along and wants to recreate the wheel. Such as your tirades about revamping the judiciary. It worked, and would work if the CSC just did what they were suppose to do.
Ronald George did not want to do that.
Every new judge who comes along wants to “revamp” or has a brilliant new way of making the “trains run on time”. However, that is not their job. Their job is to apply the law. The legislature tells them how to run the trains. [our state has the best porcedure laws on the books]
Words have meaning.
However, I do apologize to all the idiots and jackasses if I offended you by associating you with FW.
anna
February 15, 2012
FW
I actually know the definition of what constitutes civil rights in this state, and what violates them. You will find the definition in statutory language.
I always find it funny how, those who have never had their civil rights violated, conflate that to mean any derogatory thing said, or now claim that their rights were violated. As to your second grade comment, you don’t say what the girl actually did. You just bring up the grotesque analogy, and an incorrect one, by your teacher, Didn’t the rule “keep your hands to yourself apply to second graders? Or is that rule just for kindergartners?
Did you retaliate to defend yourself? If you didn’t, the correct course would have been to report the girl for assault.
Fritz Koenig
February 15, 2012
In reply to Anna:
Indeed as you say word’s have meaning.
And English words,in particular, have multiple meanings. Thus it is particularly prone false interpretation by projection of the receivers own mind upon the meaning of the speaker.
I do not know where the ideas of “civil rights violation” by “derogatory” speech, “gender”, much less “actionable” originate other than projections. Whew!
As for the meaning of the word judiciary as it applies here, see another post in reply to Anna.
Fritz Koenig
February 15, 2012
In Reply to Anna’s statement, “I always love it when someone comes along and wants to recreate the wheel. Such as your tirades about revamping the judiciary.”
As I agreed, words do indeed matter, and so do their definitions.
I remain unaware of any special definition for the word “judiciary” created for JCW posts. in fact I have seen it refer to all three of meanings given by both common English dictionaries (haven’t access to my OED), and, Blacks Law Dictionary (paraphrase with special exception):
1) The branch of government of government responsible for interpreting law and administering justice
2) a system of courts
3) a body of judges.
I. Now some one posted to JCW that judiciary meant “the judges” and nothing else. That was but one poster’s claim. I did not and do not take that poster’s declaration to be the local definition used here.
Clearly, posters of JCW have used the term “judiciary” in the sense of “the branch of government”, i. e., the california judicial branch, i.e, as Article 6 Section 6 header says, “Article 6 Judicial”, which includes Judicial Council, the courts, judges, etc.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_6
Clearly other pre-imminent posters have championed a reordering of the judiciary and meant by that the whole system, and NOT JUST the judges and justices, but the relationship between judges and those acting as administrators.
II. Note Black’s explicitly uses the term “administering”, a verb form, in relation to an entire branch of government. For this definition of judiciary, Black’s does not use the term “administration” as in the term “Administration of Justice”. Likewise, Article 6 Section 6 does not use the term “administer” but seems to use “administration” as a verb instead.
III. Paraphrasing Black’s first definition of “administration of justice”: the maintenance of right within a political community by force.”
IV. The posters of JCW have clearly called for a restructuring of the existing structure of the “judiciary”, with sense of the “judiciary” as given in Black’s: the entire branch including the relationship of judges to the central administration, and the administrations role as influential to creating the law, and influence upon legislators.
When I asked, “What is the new structure of the California Judiciary?”, indeed I meant judiciary in the sense of the whole set of actors and agents including at least AOC, JC, CJ, judges, courts, etc.
Furthermore, I was calling for specific changes from the status quo.
Anna may have other definitions, but shouting about them will not get those definitions adopted.
Fritz Koenig
February 15, 2012
A responsive reply that is nevertheless aside the the main point of this thread:
In reply to Anna’s statement, “If you didn’t, the correct course would have been to report the girl for assault.”
Hmm, the phrase “kicking a boy in the balls” does not imply physical injury to the testicles?
That would be a battery, and mere assault charge would not be sufficient.
Wow, really? A second grade schoolyard skirmish is to be sent into criminal court! No wonder the courts have no money!
CCP 527.6 allows a minor to be the protected party and that so-called “Restraining” orders are summarily issued like candy. Why put the second grader through a criminal assault trial? Shall we recommend second graders off to their local Superior Court department that handles civil harassment if “the teacher did not prevent” more than one act constituting a pattern of behavior?
Not unless one wants to really sink the judiciary, however one defines the term.
anna
February 15, 2012
FW,
Prior to the JC and the AOC being awarded constitutional status, they were created by the legislature.
So they have constitutional status, big whoop, that only means they cannot be abolished by the legislature..
They are not part of the “trial courts” they are an appendage of the SC. It could be argued they are not even part of the COA’s.
The only money thelegislature is required to fund are the recognizable courts, The Trial Courts, and the Reviewing courts.
Justice is administrated through court orders, judgments, and legal opinions. period.
Try enforcing and edict through the executive branch with something from the JC or AOC.
anna
February 15, 2012
delete the “d” in and in the last sentence
Res Ipsa Loquitor
February 15, 2012
Fritz, I am not interested in joining you in a race to the bottom here and I do not see the relevance of your story from second grade to the issue I raised, in fact on several levels that story does not advance your position. After years of working in the public sector (if in fact you do), you probably are not as thinned skin as you imply.
Fritz Koenig
February 15, 2012
Reply to Res Ipsa Loquitor:
Well, OK, you do not see the analogy.
Perhaps that is due to the fact you have not recognized yet or acknowledged who here is interested in a “race to the bottom”. Certainly it is not I.
It is precisely that someone had begun a needless and disruptive race to the bottom and continued it after admonition that was my point. It is unfortunate that the bright light I shined upon the bottom did not cause the runaways to stop and return to the surface.
Anyone care to tell me what “FW” means?
Public Sector? Thick or thin skinned? Again with the ad hominem comments? From you now? Nothing about my person other than what I post here is relevant to what I post here.
anna
February 15, 2012
Sorry, should have said FK.
You’re the one who’s called for the overhaul our “justice system” and “unless we posters here have a solution for your concept of creating justice” we should shut-up.
The problem most people have zeroed in on here, is the usurping of power by the AOC and the JC. Most of us who are familiar with the courts, know that, that would clear up most of the mess.
What is your problem???
Are you really obtuse?
The actual problems can be pinponted to almost 15 years to date. If you have issues with injustice, it’s not here. People here just want to reign in the unbridled power grab of the AOC and JC, as used by the CSC and the CJ.
Actually, If teachers know that physical harm has been done to one student by another, its their responsibility to report it to the authorities. Sorry, I didn’t include battery to your scenario.
Actually the AOC and JC are known as “judicial branch entities”. They are not recognized courts. Nor, as JWC has pointed out do they have any “governing” powers. They are allowed to issue CRC’s, however as (d) states they cannot conflict with Statutes.
The CRC’s are suppose to bring uniformity to the courts local rules and were created to limit confusion of how the local courts rules interpreted CCP statutes. Your conflating this idea of creating a uniform concept of how “justice” is dealt out, is ludicrous.
That is for stare decisis, and an entire body of law that has taken centuries to create, which can only be done by case law, or a constitutional convention.
Last time I looked no one here is advocating for that.
I apologize, you are not a jackass, you’re nuts.
Fritz Koenig
February 15, 2012
In Reply to Anna’s misquote of FK, ““unless we posters here have a solution for your concept of creating justice” we should shut-up.”
FK never said that, and certainly not in February 12, 2012 post. It would be useful not only to avoid projecting, but also to quote people properly.
FK did indicate that any attempt of analyzing a “power grab” by the central functionaries that does not anchor itself with consideration of “Administration of Justice” is an exercise in chance.
But, in the 2/12/2012 call for the new structure, FK provided a Given which was first limited to JCW goals, “Assume TCJ resigns. Assume all theories of JCW partisans are accepted.”
Then more calls set different scopes.
At no time did the 2/12/2012 call tell anyone to shut up, or even change their mission and goals.
I read the mission and a goal of JCW such as it is long ago. It was and is rather a mash of stuff but I got the gist of the mission and took it on face value:
From JCW’s About US page:
“Who we are – political commentary reporters with backgrounds in technology, government intelligence and construction attacking an institution that is bleeding corruption at the highest levels.”
Check: FK qualifies unless a conjunction of all three professions mentioned was really meant.
“What is your objective? – To dismantle the apparatus encouraging corruption and to ensure reforms to make such an endeavor difficult to launch in the future.”
Check: FK wants to do that.
“This blog seeks to present to the reader serious issues regarding the public’s trust in the judiciary and California’s judicial branch of government.”
Check: FK wants to do that too.
And most significantly the invoking of Jefferson:
““The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body — working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdication [sic], until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
–Thomas Jefferson (1821)
Check: Yeah this is just grand. Anna wants to bully me with derision right and left for talking about something she does not want discussed on this forum, and the About Page of JCW invokes Jefferson talking about the “destruction of our nation” by creep of power till all [presumably the nation] becomes venal and oppressive.
Yet Anna wants to limit the scope of JCW to “The problem most people have zeroed in on here, is the usurping of power by the AOC and the JC.” and, “People here just want to reign in the unbridled power grab of the AOC and JC, as used by the CSC and the CJ.” Further, Anna did not explicitly say so, but almost all posts recently on JCW have been about the power that AOC/JC has and is grabbing from the courts (trial courts, judges) and not much else, e. g., grabbing power from the other branches. (Admittedly, Anna makes as well, a glancing blow against JC making recommendation for legislative changes that she apparently sees as a JC grab of power from the legislative branch.)
Then Anna insists everything would be fine if we just reset back to 15 years ago.
I suppose it is true that once the “head of the snake” is cut off there will be less “institution that is bleeding corruption at the highest levels.”, but will this generation weaned and organize by the “snake” not bleed its own corruption at the lower levels such as Perseus released while carrying the Gorgoneum?
Do partisans of JCW really believe the “public’s trust in the judiciary and California’s judicial branch of government.” is based upon something other than “Administration of Justice”?
Do the partisans really believe the public will trust those “attacking an institution” which the public believes (if for no other reason that the Constitution so declares) is chartered “to improve “[A]dministration of [J]ustice”?
Is not the ‘idea of […] a uniform concept of how “justice” is dealt out’ already created and in the minds of the public? Is not that idea one of the battering rams of political propaganda and rhetoric used to address the public and legislature? Was it not given for the rationale of changing to the system we have and now given to keep the status quo?
It is curious is that ‘creating the idea of a uniform concept of how “justice” is dealt out’, according to Anna is, “That [which] is for stare decisis, and an entire body of law that has taken centuries to create, which can only be done by case law, or a constitutional convention.” Wither the legislature and the change of laws from those that took centuries to create? Why did Anna omit the legislature—the representatives of the public—as an agent that can create a uniform concept of how justice is dealt out, and more importantly, implement such a concept by actually changing the laws?
“Words matter” … indeed.
Been There
February 15, 2012
Is Fritz for real or an Internet troller?
JusticeCalifornia
February 13, 2012
Bottom line, cool rhetoric aside:
Current top leadership is taking the branch down.
JusticeCalifornia
February 13, 2012
Wow.
Bottom line, ALL (cool, uncool, on point or indecipherable) rhetoric aside:
Current top leadership is taking the branch down.
Fritz Koenig
February 13, 2012
I do not think the bottom line has been found.
I have already agreed that the character of “top leadership” is ill suited to the task (of ensuring justice, and of carrying out whatever is agreed to be the constitutional mandate), and I continue to suspect a) “lower leadership and lowest functionary” ill suited to the current system, and that a systemic fault exists which would thwart even the best “top leadership” and every person, thus the call for systemic reform beyond mere funding reform addressed by AB1208.
AB1208 may be necessary but it is clearly not sufficient, and it may be dangerous without the other set of reforms that are needed.
Wendy Darling
February 15, 2012
Been There — I’m going with troller.
Been There
February 15, 2012
Thanks, Wendy. I shall ignore the troller and encourage others to do the same.
antonatrail
February 13, 2012
Fritz Koenig:
Would you elaborate on “a systemic fault” that exists which would thwart even the best top leadership? Curious minds love to know more in the honest pursuit of the truth.
AB1208 may not be sufficient, but it is a needed first step in this mess HRH George created. Would you like to elaborate how it could be dangerous? And what other set of reforms are needed [simultaneously]?
I would love to see the AOC gutted by two-thirds of its budget/people as a good first step. Would that scenario be “dangerous”?
Long live the ACJ and here’s hoping AB1208 passes!!
anna
February 15, 2012
bravo
Judicial Council Watcher
February 15, 2012
The exchange between Anna and Fritz will no longer be tolerated. This site is a place to share pertinent information related to the judicial council and the aoc, not a last word contest nor a place to name call or demean other posters including each other.
Enough is enough.
Wendy Darling
February 15, 2012
Dear JCW: Thank you.
Fritz Koenig
February 15, 2012
JCW:
Anna and I both shared “information related to the judicial council and the AOC”.
Quite a bit of such information about both actually.
The exchange Anna and I had here is the closest to dialogue leading to greater Truth than I have ever read on JCW, albeit, I have not read all of JCW. I’ve certainly read plenty in the way of fusillades launched against TCJ, AOC, and JC with all sorts of “here, here”, “you got that right” cheering, but, actual explanation, consideration, constructive discussion leading to solutions has been sorely missing on JCW.
You control the forum, but your stated rationale for shutting down the exchange is not supported by the facts, and thus we can infer other motivations.
Delilah
February 15, 2012
Thank god. They were totally spamming up this place.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 15, 2012
This site is loosely moderated based upon a ‘benevolent dictator’ model. Just as you might expect to be gored to death if you walk out on in a field and slap the rodeo bull on the nose, so should you expect to be ‘timed out’ for jerking the moderators chain.
Edited for Mr. Koenig’s sake: The only tool available for blocking posts/timing out posters is to mark your last post as spam. That makes it appear as it went away when in fact it is held in a spam queue.
Fritz Koenig
February 19, 2012
JCW:
Whether you call it “held in a spam queue” or “went away”, the fact remains that you as moderator have censored a legitimate criticism and accusations about your improper actions as moderator.
Futhermore, Judicial Council Watcher is wrong that “blocking posts/timing out posters” is the only tool available to mark spam.
A) You state elsewhere that you edited the post of another poster because they spoke about their own case. So, you have the ability to redact a post. That tool could have been employed but was not. Just add SPAM ALERT at the top of any post you wish to so designate it you must insert your idea into what is and is not spam.
B) You have the ability to state that a certain thread is reaching the boundaries of allowed debate and that any further excursion will result in removal of posts. I posted nothing to extend the thread you declared as such. Instead I replied to your warning. That is a new thread. You did not block my last post because it violated your warning about the thread I was weaving with Anna. You blocked it for some other reason. That warning tool could have been employed but it was not.
C) You have my hushmail, you could have emailed me with concerns.
Indeed I made assumptions about how the moderator of a group claiming to know how to be judicial would conduct moderation of the threads. I was mistaken.
I am grateful that some people are at least trying to fix the troubles with the California Judiciary and doing what they can do.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 19, 2012
The rant of a toddler has been restored. Please try to behave yourself, less you be timed out again.
Cole Day Rain
February 19, 2012
Lol. Alright, well let’s get back to the real salt. JCC/AOC corporate maneuverings. I enjoy the fluid and comprehensive information here far too much to spend much time on this stuff. Anybody else doing the Overholt Bolt? Patel-la having any knee jerk reactions in her new (planned) post? Anymore folks directing vitriol at Legislators? What’s the spending like even now with the senior staff? More lobster dinners? I like this blog. Hopefully I’ll get to learn more about JCC and its criminal crud.
Fritz Koenig
February 19, 2012
I do not voluntarily participate in forums that a) that claim it is not a place for name-calling which have authorities who name-call, b) censor criticism of the central authority-the moderator, c) and limit to a mere toddler third order the exchanges that seek to find the Truth.
I get enough of in court.
I’ll not post here again.
Anna, I invite you to contact me. We are, individually, much more productive together than apart.
anonymous
February 19, 2012
Fritz Konenig, look around this post at all of the people who were happy that the exchange stopped.
You have a talent of clipping worlds and language out of the context that they were presented in – in an effort to change their meaning – and then make that effortless argument. Far from an intellectual exchange, when the moderator draws the line, you attack the moderator for having ulterior motives?
buh-bye.
Cole Day Rain
February 18, 2012
“This site is loosely moderated based upon a ‘benevolent dictator’ model. Just as you might expect to be gored to death if you walk out on in a field and slap the rodeo bull on the nose, so should you expect to be ‘timed out’ for jerking the moderators chain.
Edited for Mr. Koenig’s sake: The only tool available for blocking posts/timing out posters is to mark your last post as spam. That makes it appear as it went away when in fact it is held in a spam queue.”
C’mon, I know having to moderate is empowering as well as annoying, but do you have to lord it like a judge? Censorship in any form is a power that should not be exercised flippantly and instantly or one risks being Judicial Council-like in authority. It is a sad fact this blog is very interesting with the myriad points made by its posters but that it only takes one person suffering from borderline personality disorder to make it go on the fritz.
antonatrail
February 18, 2012
“… make it go on the fritz.”
Hahaha. I get your point.