Trial Court Judges as The Enemy to Defeat?

1. 
   

   unionman575
   

   February 24, 2012

   JCW I just love the internal AOC doc’s. Keep them coming!

   Reply
• 
  

  antonatrail
  

  February 24, 2012

  Won’t you need a bucket nearby when you read them? I sure do.

  Reply
2. 
   

   Guest
   

   February 24, 2012

   This must be the new trend in Judicial Leadership. Get everyone fighting, sit back and watch and then deal with the survivors. Meanwhile the public suffers, noticed only by those who remember why we do this while those who don’t “lead”.

   Reply
• 
  

  althepal55
  

  February 24, 2012

  Dear Guest,

  THANK YOU! Thank you for not forgetting about we the indicator species of people who have had our lives ripped apart by the sociopathic Family Law Industrialists…
  Thank you for remembering… From the sad sidelines in Shasta County, we suffer in protracted silence, YET, we are grateful for you all in your fight… Good Luck!

  When the Pharaoh (of Exodus fame) wanted to protract slavery and oppression, his most favorite tool was to get the slaves to fight among themselves…

  Alan Ernesto Phillips
  https://plus.google.com/115902390478619061589/about?hl=en

  [Today is DAY 350 since my oldest daughter was illegally abducted from her little sister and me… in spite of the clear evidence, the AOC, JC and the CJ sent us into the spin cycle as a way to wash their hands and insulate themselves… Ok, I’ll shut up for another couple of months.]

  Reply
3. 
   

   Nathaniel Woodhull
   

   February 24, 2012

   The Chief may have felt betrayed by the draft report she received from Justice Scotland that was so critical of AOC operations. The CJ keeps saying that she is not responsible for what came before her and wants to make positive changes, yet all she does is re-arrange the deck chairs and appoint “newer” judges to critical positions on the Council and/or committees because they are “supportive” of her views. This approach does not demonstrate much understanding or appreciation of good management.

   In reality, the Chief should take a few steps back and get some “independent” perspective of Branch operations. Replacing Justice Scotland with two judges who have less than a decade experience between them, thereby having no understanding of historical perspectives, does little to help provide the Chief with objective information. The initial “draft” that was submitted by Justice Scotland will never see the light of day. Some nice sanitized report will be submitted; likely long in volume and short in substance.

   One should ask, why is it projected to cost $93,000,000.00 to build a 9 room courthouse in Porterville? (Tulare County) The same construction firm, Sundt, built a 10 room courthouse in Mesa, Arizona (opened in 2010) that included many more offices than are to be housed in Porterville, for $37,000,000.00. That is about 1/3 the cost. The Mesa Municipal Courthouse is beautiful and was built under the same LEED standards, any additional regulations are those being forced by the State of California.

   CCMS was a folly from the outset. It is a case study of how not to develop a computer system. After 10 years and God knows how many hundreds of millions of dollars, this turkey truly does not really exist. Despite the “Fact Sheet” and protestations of Justice Bruiniers to the contrary, even those who formerly said the system “worked” in their courts are starting to defect. Whatever CCMS is, it is not an integrated system that can work other than on a local server under very simple and restrictive conditions. It never will be an integrated Statewide system, even if the AOC throws Two Billion Dollars at it.

   One must ask, why would leadership at the JC/AOC get in bed with Deloitte Consulting given their track history? How about the Denver Airport, Los Angeles School District, Detroit, and Marin County debacles. Why is it that companies like AMCAD can develop and deliver integrated case management systems for courts throughout the United States and American protectorates on-time and on-budget while we are floundering with whatever CCMS is not. The State of Arizona signed a contract with AMCAD in August 2007 and their system first went online in July 2008.

   Ask yourself why….follow the money…

   Reply
• 
  

  Wendy Darling
  

  February 24, 2012

  As usual, General Woodhull, you’re right on the money.

  And as for “why would leadership at the JC/AOC get in bed with Deloitte Consulting given their track history?” Well, you are who you choose to sleep with. And it was, is, and continues to be, a deliberate choice.

  Long live the ACJ.

  Reply
• 
  

  Been There
  

  February 25, 2012

  Thank you, General Woodhull for another outstanding post.

  I do not dispute your scenario in which the Chief Justice may have felt betrayed by Justice Scotland ‘s draft report, but if so, what did she think Art Scotland, of all people, would offer? Whole fiction? A giant softball down the middle? I would have hoped she was a good enough judge of people to have known better.

  Personally, I like Art Scotland. I have seen him stand his ground in JC Committee meetings in the face of near total opposition from every other member of his committee. If he believed something was the right thing to do, he could be determined, he could be gracious, but he never waivered from what he believed was right. Every member of the committee and every member of the AOC staff knew this and respected him for it. I find it hard to believe that the Chief Justice misjudged the character of the person she appointed to head the SEC Committee.

  It will be a tragedy that the draft report will never see the light of day.

  Reply
4. 
   

   anna
   

   February 24, 2012

   So the AOC can sue, yet can’t be sued? What the hell?
   I’m sure they did a great job on discovery[not].

   Reply
5. 
   

   Wendy Darling
   

   February 24, 2012

   Published today, Friday, February 24, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:

   Main Private Beneficiary of Court IT Project Lobbied Against Reform Bill
   By MARIA DINZEO

   SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A bill that would limit the power of California’s court bureaucracy in spending hundreds of millions on an IT project has an enemy behind the lines in the form of Deloitte Consulting.

   The principal private beneficiary of that project spent $124,000 last year lobbying against AB 1208. The firm’s lobbying report includes a $2827 bill for an event at Sacramento’s exclusive Sutter Club, for a select list of legislators and Assembly staff members.

   The bill recently passed California’s Assembly and is now pending in the state Senate. Deloitte’s interest in the bill correlates with its extensive invoicing of California as the developer of a $1.9 billion software system for the courts.

   As passed last month by the Assembly, the bill requires that any technology projects receive written consent from 2/3 of the trial courts with voting power apportioned based on population. That provision puts a check on the ability of the Administrative Office of the Courts to embark on projects like the Court Case Management System, a nine-year-old project with Deloitte as the principal consultant.

   In Deloitte Consulting’s report to California’s Secretary State, the firm of Ochoa & Moore in Sacramento is listed as the lobbying firm in opposition to AB 1208. But the report was filed by attorney Steven Lucas of Nielsen Merksamer in San Rafael. The firm’s name partner Steve Merksamer was chief of staff for Republican Governor George Deukmejian in the 1980s.

   Neither Lucas nor Ochoa & Moore answered a request for comment.

   Read the full article: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/24/44170.htm. As always from Maria Dinzeo and Courthouse News, well worth the read.

   Long live the ACJ.

   Reply
6. 
   

   anna
   

   February 24, 2012

   Gee, and we wonder where the money went.
   All it would take is a “competent” attorney through discovery to find the money trail. One who wasn’t afraid of retaliation by the the State Bar. Too bad Joe Dunn et all won’t let that happen.

   Reply
7. 
   

   anna
   

   February 24, 2012

   Justice in this is state is now a “pay to play” institutional game. However, the forgone conclusion is that the state and taxpayers will be the losers.

   Reply
8. 
   

   anna
   

   February 24, 2012

   Considering the ” Duke” was a big “personal responsibility” guy, so much for corporate or govt. responsibility.
   Good to know who we’ve been raped by, and how far it goes back.

   Reply
9. 
   

   Nathaniel Woodhull
   

   February 24, 2012

   For those relatively new to JCW or the old “AOC Watcher” please don’t get off the message that we all should be focusing upon. The State Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (Lockyer-Isenberg) was well intentioned. It took the egomaniac, Ronald George, coupled with his side-kick, Bill Vickrey, to take that legislation off-track. The whole point of Trial Court Funding was to ensure a consistent and steady stream of funding to the entire Judicial Branch (get it; the Third Branch of Government!). There were many small County Courts within California in the 1980’s and 1990’s that would actually run out of money by March or April of each fiscal year and would have to go begging to keep their doors open.

   Trial Court Funding was never designed to create a mega-bureacracy that is now the AOC and “run” by the Judicial Council (aka: those who swear allegiance to the Chief Justice.) Trial Court Funding was never designed to grant powers to the Judicial Council that they don’t have, but have attempted to exercise since 1998. The Judicial Council “recommends” policy to local trial courts, they are not “The Policy Making Body of the Judicial Branch”.

   Ronald George tried (on more than one occasion) to slip through an Amendment to Article VI of the California Constitution that would actually grant the Chief Justice and Judicial Council the powers which they were routinely exercising post Trial Court Funding and Court Consolidation. These efforts were thwarted by members of the Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch. Despite the fact that they do not have the power, Ronald George and his hand-picked successor, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, act as if they have powers which they lawfully do not possess. The problem is that there is no one, other than the Legislature, that can make this clear to the Chief Justice.

   Anyone who has attempted to raise question about this unlawful practice have been slapped down, denied appointment to committees or had their efforts to attain higher stations within the Branch thwarted by the Chief.

   Believe it or not, there are people out there that believe that public service is vitally important, despite the personal sacrifice. It would be easy for many of us to make at least ten times the money that is made serving the public, but that is not the point, nor what motivates many of us to serve others.

   What we all should be focusing on is educating the Legislature regarding the history of the Judicial Branch and working toward democratizing the Judicial Council. Judges in California serve as elected State Constitutional officers. There is nothing that makes any judge an “employee” of the AOC, Judicial Council, nor of the Chief Justice. Judges stand for election every six years; facing the constituents whom they serve. Appellate Justices, including the Chief, simply stand for “retention” every twelve years.

   Three things need to be achieved in 2012:

   1. Passage of AB 1208;
   2. Implementation of a process to democratize the Judicial Council;
   3. Killing CCMS.

   Reply
• 
  

  anna
  

  February 26, 2012

  General Woodhull,

  I don’t disagree with you, however, what does the “Trial court funding ” bill have to do with “judicial branch entities, [AOC or JC] or reviewing courts?
  Trial courts are just that. The AOC and the JC are appendages of the Supreme Court [which is a reviewing court only] The Constitution makes clear, that in this state, we have two types of courts. Trial courts, and reviewing courts. Judges cannot belong to both.
  My point which, is the same as yours, is that the JC, along, with the AOC and HRH George stole that money which, they had no right to.
  They are not trial courts. The only oversight the Supreme Court and the COA’s have is thru written opinions. [Or a valid complaint from the CJP, however, that can only apply to the individual judge, not the trial court itself.]
  No one disputes that the funding should have been there for the small trial courts. However, the JC. AOC, or the CSC are not parts, appendages etc, of a trial court. They are separate courts altogether, if taking the plain meaning of the English language and legal definitions, which, according to Edv. Code 451 [e] all courts are bound.
  It’s conflict of interest, [at the very least] for an judicial branch entity of the Supreme Court, to have any control over the ” presumed” independent trial courts. According to law, they are subject only to reviewing courts,[not some cretin from the AOC/JC or CJ] and only then, under certain reviewing tests, [abuse of discretion, de novo, etc.
  It’s a matter of jurisdiction. The AOC/JC does not have jurisdiction over trial courts. Only reviewing courts do, and only, when jurisdiction has been properly established. Talk about overreach of the CSC.

  Why in the hell, does not one judge write and tell the public the difference?
  It’s not just judges who have been slapped down.
  Any person, or advocate who tells the judiciary, that their powers only go so far, has paid dearly.
  The term void ab nitio have no meaning for these cretins. Fundamental jurisdiction has ceased to exist in this state, and the meaning thereof.

  Correct me if I’m wrong.
  Aren’t the Duke and George connected through past law firms?
  Or did the Duke appoint George to the Supremes?

  Reply
• 
  

  anna
  

  February 26, 2012

  Sorry, to address you as “General” rather than Nathaniel.
10. 
    

    Hear Hear!
    

    February 25, 2012

    Nathaniel, you are dead right-on in your history and in your recommendations. You have done much to drive home these most excellent points, which are at the heart of the current debate. Unfortunately, many judges have not taken the time to educate themselves, and see only the tip of the iceberg. Newer judges have no frame of reference. It’s like being born into servitude–freedom, never known, must seem strange and frightening, if it can be contemplated at all.

    Reply
• 
  

  anna
  

  February 26, 2012

  Since when are new judges, some poor frightened little rabbit? They are experienced attorneys, who are “presumed” and required to know the law. They were advocates for god’s sake, prior to being nominated.
  My God, jurisdiction is the first thing they teach in law school. Lack of it means, you have no power.
  What, someone is appointed to a judgeship do they lose their minds, years of experience, etc? Call these new judges what they are.
  Brown nosed suck-ups, who owe their allegiance to the powers that approved their nominations… the current CJ.

  Reply
• 
  

  Nathaniel Woodhull
  

  February 26, 2012

  Anna,

  Historically, the California Judges Association (CJA) provided judicial education throughout the State, as well as giving courses in ethics and writing ethics opinions. Slowly, the AOC created CJER and moved the neutral CJA to the curb. About 1999, the AOC completely took over NJO (New Judge Orientation). It is a week long course that is designed to indoctrinate new judges into believing that they actually work for the JC/AOC and are subservient to to the whims of the Chief. It is made very clear to them that they have lost their First Amendment rights and that the CJP (Commission on Judiclal Performance) is just waiting for them to do anything that is politically incorrect or that might offend the “powers at be”. This later threat is borne out by the fact that Judy McConnell and Fred Horn (appointed by the Chief) are continually overseeing a CJP and that they are going into areas way, way, way out of their jurisdiction. The only recourse to an action taken by the CJP is to appeal to the Supreme Court. Since the Chief appoints the bulk of the voting members on the CJP, the Supremes are certainly not going to overturn actions taken by the CJP.

  Sadly, many judges have a right to be paranoid. I have talked with many colleagues whom have been appointed in the past ten years and I have been shocked to hear their views on the way the Judicial system operates and how it is being managed. Much of their information and perspective is what comes down from the AOC. The AOC/JC probably generates fifteen emails a week and is continuously re-writing rules and procedures. Unless you were on the inside twenty, thirty or more years ago, you wouldn’t understand what has happened to this crazy Branch. New judges are required to spend the bulk of their time learning how to be judges and understanding subject matter. It is very common to have newly appointed judges assigned to handle subject matter completely out of their comfort zone. For example, a former deputy district attorney may be thrust into Family Law. An experience civil litigator will likely find themselves doing criminal, traffic and small claims. It is a right of passage. Unless these newer judges want to spend countless hours outside of “regular work hours” studying how things used to operate, they will never know.
• 
  

  anna
  

  February 27, 2012

  So, judges don’t know how to research what area they are in?
  I’m well aware of the garbage McConnell et al. are engaged in. Horn is a disgrace, and McConnell is nothing but a toady for Huffman.
  The CJP is not an appendage of the Supreme Court. Why doesn’t someone go the the legislature and report this crap?
  Why doesn’t someone lobby for the legislature to take away the appointment power of the CJ. The CJP is a creature, and remains so, of the legislature.
  Savvy attorneys don’t understand the limited jurisdiction of the AOC/JC when they become judges? Then my respect for the judiciary has even dropped further.
  They are disgusting.
  It’s antithetical to the concept of “character” of what is required to even be a judge.
  A week long course of what? Crap?
  Do savvy attorneys park their brains at the door?
  Other than underscoring the notion that “the trains need to run on time” what the hell is the AOC doing?
  New judges don’t know that this state in a “non-collateral bar rule state?
  New judges don’t know what fundamental jurisdiction is, or lack thereof?
  Then whoever is appointing, or nominating these “sheeple” [sheep + people] is nominating unqualified candidates. These are peopled who are not doing their minimum due diligence.
  These are attorneys who don’t research their work, have relied on paralegals, or low grade associates to do their research, they don’t belong in a courtroom , let alone on the bench.
  You’re right, I have been around for at least twenty years.
  I don’t know what is more depressing, what you have told regarding the qualities of the lack of backbone in the “new judges,”[which makes them unqualified as a matter of law] or the strong arming of the AOC.
  How the hell does an “appendage” of the CSC, of which most are not attorneys, get to tell judges anything? Isn’t that engaging in UPL, The unlicensed practice of law? It’s a felony.
  This makes the appointment process of judges, nothing more than a popularity contest of, and for the CJ.
  Where is Vickery’s law degree?
• 
  

  anna
  

  February 27, 2012

  What you have explained about the CJP is equivalent of the State Bar. With one glaring exception. The Supremes have to hold a hearing and write a written opinion backing up the CJP. Look what they did in CJP v. Olberholtzer. They had to overturn that. That is more due process than attorney’s get in this state.
  No attorney gets to have the Supremes explain anything. Read the dissent in In re Rose, both Kennard’s and Rogers-Brown.[believe me, I never thought I would be citing her]
  So, it’s left up to you judges to at least demand the CSC follow the law.
  How would you suggest, someone go to the legislature?
  Do lay people go?
  This state is a disgrace.
• 
  

  anna
  

  February 27, 2012

  Nathaniel,
  While what you have conveyed makes me have less confidence than ever, in our judiciary, I appreciate your response.
  There has to be a way of saving our system of jurisprudence.
  Thank you for taking the time to answer some of my questions.
11. 
    

    Jon Wintermeyer
    

    February 25, 2012

    General Woodhall et all, the same firm Sundt built the Arnason Justice Center in Contra Costa that was completed in the fall of 2010 which was a 7 Court room building and it cost $64.5 million.

    Michael Paul and I were involved on that project when it started, but neither of us were still on the AOC team, when it was finished.

    Remember, we asked to too many questions about both new and remodel construction and also the out of control maintence contract expenses.

    Reply
12. 
    

    versal-versal
    

    February 26, 2012

    Well thanks Woodhull and Wendy for your usual great insights. I see now that the Trial Court Presiding Judge and Court Executive Advisory Committees met with the “OGA whatever that is, ” to discuss a process for “input and review of statutory efficiencies”. Apparently after that, suggestions will be sent to Presiding Judges and CEOs and then after that , Judge Rosenberg and CEO of Orange Alan Carlson will appoint a ” Trial Court Efficiencies Working Group ” all to study ways the branch can save money. Is Ms Patel who set all this in motion kidding? You really can’t make this up. I hope every State Senator considering 1208 is reading this. This is so typical of the AOC, to appoint layers upon layers of committees run by the same insiders to come up with the same predetermined result. Sadly J Rosenberg has proven to be one of the CJ’s and JC’s main apologists so none of his analysis can be objective or fair. CEO Carlson while a decent guy supports CCMS even though he knows in his county it is a complete work around with it’s own server and programs, so it isn’t really “CCMS” at all. Incredibly the AOC will go to any length to avoid the following reasonable ways to reduce their budget and save taxpayer money. We don’t need layers of committees and JC/AOC supporters to :
    1. Stop funding CCMS. 2. Eliminate the positions of Assistant AOC Director and Regional Manager. 3. Reduce the management of the AOC management by 25%.4. Finally show Ms Patel , Clark Kelso, and all consultants, and ” scholars in residence” the door .Those 4 changes alone will save huge amounts of taxpayer dollars and I guarantee more than J Rosenberg or any other AOC insider will ever come up with and you can put that in a “Rosengram ” for all the branch to see .

    Reply
• 
  

  Nathaniel Woodhull
  

  February 26, 2012

  Versal,

  I could not agree more with the excellent points that you made.

  “OGA’s mission is to promote and maintain effective relations between California’s judicial branch and the legislative and executive branches of state government and to present the Judicial Council’s recommendations on legislative matters affecting the courts.” This quote is from the Judicial Council’s website. OGA is headed by Joseph Goebbels, Curtis Child and Donna Hershkowitz. Oh, did I say Joseph Goebbels… I’m sorry, he headed the Ministry of Propaganda and National Enlightenment. That prior organization served as the model for the OGA.

  Remember your history boys and girls? As the Minister of Enlightenment, Goebbels was charged with two main tasks: 1) To ensure nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile or damaging to the Nazi Party; and 2) to ensure that the views of the Nazis were put across int eh most persuasive manner possible. Goebbels worked with the SS, Gestapo and Albert Speer. The former hunted down those who might produce defamatory articles about the Nazis and Hitler while Speer prepared public displays of propaganda.

  Look at the historical similarities between 1933-45 and the present regime. Many of us are reduced to guerrilla resistance campaigns due to the reprisals and threatened reprisals from on high. Isn’t it amazing that the JC/AOC staffs a full media-media station, including television production? The “Fact Sheet” seems to be modeled after “Triumph of Will”. If you say the same lie loud enough and often enough, everyone will then believe it.

  Always be vigilant my friends. Those in charge at 455 Golden Gate Avenue are not your friends, nor do they really care about those whom we in the trenches serve.

  Reply
• 
  

  Wendy Darling
  

  February 26, 2012

  The consequences of which, General Woodhull, is a California judicial branch that the public no longer has any respect for, or confidence or trust in.

  And who can blame them? How can anyone have any respect, confidence, or trust, in the branch of government that is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law, when the very people charged with that responsibility, at the highest levels of judicial branch administration, are themselves so blatantly lying, and disregarding, ignoring, and violating the law, and then ruthlessly punishing anyone who dares to question them about doing so?

  And no one, in any position of authority or responsibility, who can do anything to stop it, will. No one.

  Long live the ACJ.

  Reply
13. 
    

    lando
    

    February 26, 2012

    Wendy your posts are among the most compelling here but I am more optimistic about things changing. CCMS has proven to be the achilles heel of the insiders running the crystal palace up at 455 Golden Gate. The fact that they can’t let it go and propose to spend 245,000 a day on this failed computer system for the next three years is the best argument for AB 1208 . This “fact” is something the State Senate won’t ignore. In fact these spending figures which come from the AOC itself are consistent with the State Auditors report that concludes that CCMS will cost over 2 billion by the time its done. These numbers are so shocking and out of touch in this or any economic environment that the Senate will surely see that 1208 is necessary to stop the waste and bloat that has become a hallmark of those in charge of the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate. Other “facts ” the State Senate should look at when considering 1208 is that then CJ George ,then AOC CEO Vickrey and J Bruiners all lobbied heavily against the bill to have an independent CCMS audit. The results of the audit proved why these insiders lobbied so hard against open government. Other “facts” for the Senate to consider include the current CJ stating as “fact” that CCMS is “finished and works” and the same J Bruiners’ incredible claim made last March that CCMS was fully deployed. Since we know the CJ and J Bruiners are incorrect on their “facts”, the Senate then needs to ask why leaders of our judiciary are making these inaccurate statements. As Woodhull and others have pointed out, the answers to these questions aren’t difficult to ascertain. The insiders like the CJ and J Bruiners seek to maintain their power at the expense of a branch that should be run democratically. In addition as Wendy and others here have pointed out , “follow the money “. Wasn’t that the advice Deep Throat gave the Washington Post when another insular antidemocratic group of insiders was in power ?

    Reply
• 
  

  Wendy Darling
  

  February 26, 2012

  Lando – without question, the most important, crucial, and immediate need for the integrity of the California judicial branch as a whole is the passage of AB 1208. For those of us down here in the trenches, expendable and without power or protection, witnessing the most atrocious conduct going on within the AOC that is supported, endorsed, and protected by the Office of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council, we can only hope that the State legislature is indeed paying attention to the real facts, will do something about it, and that Darrell Steinberg will set his personal connection to the current Chief Justice aside, and do the right thing.

  Hope is all we have left, and it grows dimmer every day as we watch the branch fall ever deeper into disgrace.

  Long live the ACJ.

  Reply
14. 
    

    versal-versal
    

    February 26, 2012

    General Woodhull, thanks for the significant insights. HRH George’s takeover of CJER , the judicial school for new judges along with shoving aside the formerly excellent CJA ethics program was only one part of the plan to take over complete control of the branch. The next piece was of course the “trailer bill” where then HRH George and his CEO Vickrey attempted to consolidate power with legislation to allow them to pick local Presiding Judges and CEOs. CCMS was the next piece in an attempt to gain total control as it was designed as a means to insure that the centralized anti democratic JC/AOC could monitor the trial courts and insure their compliance to the JC through regular and repeated AOC audits. Trial courts not towing the line would be subject to financial punishment or dropping to the end of the line for valued perks like courthouse construction projects. To insure further control , HRH George used his standing with the Governor to insure that only his supporters would get elevated to the Court of Appeal. The last piece for full control was making sure the dissenters and voices of independence would be silent- enter the McConnell, Horn star chamber at the CJP, a star chamber that now has a 10 year plus life. The really scary thing is that HRH George and his supporters and AOC “managers” came so close to pulling all this off under the guise of uniform rules and ” access to the courts “. Luckily the spirit of democracy and principles as valued as freedom of speech run too deep within the fabric of our great society so the plans described above have been largely set back and/or delayed. Thanks to the many bloggers here who have helped in this fight to restore democracy to our judicial branch along with countless others in the state who care about the role of the courts and the citizens we serve.

    Reply
15. 
    

    Lando
    

    February 27, 2012

    Right you are Versal but the JC/AOC still controls judge education from cradle to grave and nothing other than a new Chief Justice will change McConnell’s arbitrary and capricious grip over the CJP. The AOC despite all the turmoil remains controlled by the same elite and insular members of the JC and a Chief Justice that seeks only to preserve her view that like HRH George, she is entitled to having the power to run an entire branch of government. What a sad , sorry state of affairs.

    Reply
16. 
    

    Stuart Michael
    

    February 27, 2012

    As a thankfully retired trial court person with administrative & judicial experience who went through of most of the earth-shaking changes in the court system – from the old “block grant” days of the 80’s to emancipation from the counties and forced baptism as wards of the AOC and all that came about – for better and for worse – I now follow the struggle to save the trial courts from my safe computer perch – thanks to JCW and the contacts and links it has provided for all of us to explore. The facts, tips and analysis that each blogger shares are truly knowledgeable and insightful, and demonstrate the real commitment all have to returning the people’s justice system to where it belongs. Nathaniel Woodhull’s insights about judges and judicial education are really on point, as is most everything else he shares.

    New judges – mostly from civil firms or ex- DA’s, with an occasional elected wild card thrown in – have no idea before they’re sworn in about how the court system really works, or a clue about the realities of courthouse politics . They get minimal training before they’re tossed into the trenches, often presiding over crowded calendars in areas of the law they never experienced in their pre-judicial professional lives. Their judicial days are filled with trying to learn how to perform their new duties, mostly through their own OJT, often without much mentoring from others because everyone else is too busy with their own calendars and coping with staff reductions and computer failures. They don’t realize that CJER is not what it used to be – it’s morphed into an JC/CJP indoctrination and intimidation center. The last thing most judges want to do is to get involved in any of that “administrative stuff.” Much easier to leave it to the powers that be and those rare birds who really want to dive into that murky pool. They only get involved in what’s going outside the safe walls of their chambers when the Ponzi scheme fails to deliver their supplies or moves the cheese. Its hard to learn all the buzzwords, understand the administrative machinations, and follow the money trail. Why risk getting assigned to a courtroom in the basement or to the farthest courthouse in the county? Its much safer to allow oneself to be co-opted by those in power who can’t/won’t let go of the reins, and slip away from the daily calendar grind to travel on the public dole to all those fun-filled conventions and committee meetings conveniently held in more exotic climes.

    Thanks to ACJ and JCW for being the voice and the power for the silent (and not-so-silent) majority, and for everything you’ve accomplished so far, and for the battles yet to come.

    AB1208 must become a reality, or else what’s ahead for the trial courts will be even more brutal than what we’ve seen to date.

    Reply
17. 
    

    Peppermint Pattie
    

    February 27, 2012

    Published by The California Standard on February 24:

    California Asks Judges: Gay or Straight?
    Daniel Halper
    February 24, 2012 10:36 AM

    In order to make sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench, the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation.

    The announcement was made in an internal memo sent to all California judges and justices.
    “[The Administrative Office of the Courts] is contacting all judges and justices to gather data on race/ethnicity, gender identification, and sexual orientation,” reads an email sent by Romunda Price of the Administrative Office of the Courts. A copy of Price’s memo was obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

    “Providing complete and accurate aggregate demographic data is crucial to garnering continuing legislative support for securing critically needed judgeships,” Price writes.
    The process of self-revealing one’s sexual orientation is an element of a now yearly process. “To ensure that the AOC reports accurate data and to avoid the need to ask all judges to provide this information on an annual basis, the questionnaire asks that names be provided. The AOC, however, will release only aggregate statistical information, by jurisdiction, as required by the Government Code and will not identify any specific justice or judge.”

    Philip R. Carrizosa of the executive office of communications at the Judicial Council of California, the Administrative Office of the Courts, confirmed the authenticity of Price’s email regarding gender identification and sexual orientation to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

    “Yes, the e-mail is authentic and accurate,” Carrizosa confirmed in an email. “The original bill, which simply provided for 50 new judgeships, was amended in the Assembly in August 2006, to address concerns that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not appointing enough women and minorities to the bench. In 2011, Senator Ellen Corbett expanded the reporting requirement to include gender identification and sexual orientation.”

    California state senator Corbett, the Democratic majority leader from the San Francisco suburb San Leandro, could not immediately be reached for comment.

    Price’s email also reveals that the Administration Office of the Courts (AOC) is asking for this personal information because of the new law. “For the past five years, the AOC has been required to collect and release aggregate demographic data relative to the ethnicity, race, and gender of justices and judges, by specific jurisdiction, on or before March 1 of each year. This requirement is associated with efforts to obtain new judgeships.”

    But as a result of Corbett’s 2011 California bill, the office has “expanded the collection and release of aggregate demographic data to include gender identification and sexual orientation.” Therefore, Price explains, judges and justices must reveal their “sexual orientation,” in addition “to their race/ethnicity [and] gender identification.” Price parenthetically adds, “The AOC has gender data for all judges and justices.”

    The AOC asked all recipients of the email to “please complete an online questionnaire by Friday, February 17, 2012.” Price made herself available if justices or judges preferred to provide the required information over the phone.

    Reply
• 
  

  JusticeCalifornia
  

  February 28, 2012

  Well, this is a delicate area, isn’t it?

  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that for very many and varied personal, professional, political and/or religious reasons a judge may, or may NOT, want to provide this information.

  Especially to top leadership, which has engaged in mudslinging and brutal personal attacks against those who don’t tow the party line.

  Are judges allowed to say: “Decline to state: My sexual life is nobody’s damn business but my own”?

  If not, the implications are far-reaching. In a perfect world, no one should be worried about reporting this information. But this is not a perfect world. Requiring a personal “outing” to the AOC in order to become or remain a judge seems. . . . .a lot of things, but patently counterproductive at best.

  Just my opinion.

  Reply
18. 
    

    unionman575
    

    February 28, 2012

    Agreed Justice California.

    Reply
19. 
    

    Wendy Darling
    

    March 1, 2012

    Published today, Thursday, March 1, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:

    Sexual Orientation Question Not a Hit With State’s Judges
    Cheryl Miller

    SACRAMENTO — When recently asked about their sexual orientation and gender identity, 40 percent of California’s jurists gave the same answer: None of your business.

    In a survey released Thursday by the Judicial Council, 672 judges and justices refused to say whether they are gay, straight, bisexual or transgender. Of the remaining 1,005 who did respond, 969 said they are heterosexual, 19 are lesbians and 17 are gay. One respondent is transgender.

    The optional, and controversial, questions about gender and sexual identity were asked for the first time in the state-mandated annual survey of bench officers, which also asks jurists to disclose their race, ethnicity and gender.

    State Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, authored successful legislation in 2011 to require the judiciary to ask about gender identity and sexual orientation.

    “It’s essential that a state as diverse as California has judges that reflect that diversity,” Corbett said in an email Thursday.

    But some judges said the new questions go too far.

    “I understand the desire to get the information in order to evaluate diversity and the comparison of the makeup of the bench with society as a whole,” said Yolo County Superior Court Judge Timothy Fall. “But … to see that 40 percent of the respondents did not provide the information tells me there’s a large number of judges who don’t feel this is anyone’s business except their own.”

    In many of the state’s trial courts, more than half of the bench refused to answer the sexual identity and gender orientation questions. In two smaller courts, San Benito and Mariposa, none of the judges answered. And in the Fourth District Court of Appeal, 13 of 24 justices, or 54 percent, did not disclose.

    Read the entire article (article does NOT require subscription access): http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202544179992&Sexual_Orientation_Question_Not_a_Hit_With_States_Judges&slreturn=1

    Long live the ACJ.

    Reply

1. the linguistic isolating of justice from money « power of language blog: partnering with reality by JR Fibonacci →
   October 17th, 2012 → 9:37 pm

   […] Trial Court Judges as The Enemy to Defeat? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com) […]

Leave a Reply to unionman575 Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Google account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.