AOC under-reporting of special funds account balances
Before we get to the meat and potatoes of this mornings post: Remember the recent scandal where State Parks were pleading poor and unable to keep state parks open? The parks director resigned and her deputy was fired when the department of finance found that state parks had under-reported, by 54 million dollars the balance of a special funds account that could have kept state parks open statewide.
Well guess what? Apparently, the Department of finance is supposed to check the account balances of what is being reported to them against what is on deposit with the state controllers office. They have dropped the ball on this for years. This apparently has been going on for a really long time with some agencies. A recent look into special accounts as a result of that scandal has uncovered 2.3 billion dollars in under-reported special funds accounts hiding in plain sight. Okay, so there is 2.3 billon dollars in special funds accounts. So what? Well for one thing – if those accounts are not emptied to pay for existing state operations, the governors tax increase has no chance of passing in November. Flat zero.
Included in that total is 26.8* million dollars under-reported to the department of finance by the Administrative Office of the Courts. We’re gathering that one of our favorite poster boys and an esteemed member of the exclusive digital purgatory club, possibly soon to be announced future executive director of the AOC was the individual who started this under-reporting to DOF. We’re also gathering that it continues under the tutelage of the new AOC finance director. While our courts crumble, the AOC has been stashing away mad money to support their largesse.
Should the AOC finance director be canned for this under-reporting? You betcha. Will he be canned for this under-reporting? No, more likely he will be rewarded with a 30% raise because that is the way the AOC does business. They generously reward the incompetent and drum out competency. It is the AOC way.
_____________________________________________________________________
AOC censorship of their misdeeds
Yesterday after complaining that we had verified that timely SEC comments had been rejected for one reason or another, two comments that we had firsthand knowledge of being submitted were posted. We knew that Attorney Barbara Kaufmann and journalist Alan Phillips (Note that this is a link to a related CNN story) had submitted SEC comments in a timely manner and they weren’t posted.
When they were posted, they were posted with the name “Jack Halpin” redacted from them. You remember Jack. He is the individual who has been assigned in-perpetuity to the Shasta bench for over 19 years by the AOC allegedly retired from AOC in-perpetuity bench appointments in Shasta County, yet continues his in-perpetuity assignment to the Shasta bench after a short vacation. These were two comments we knew about.
What blindsided us was a well researched comment by one Mr. DeWitt Barker. It appears Mr. Barker did not know as much as one of our posters found out about the censored name in his letter. Michael Fraga has worked as a trainer for the AOC’s CFCC Program and is on the Sonoma County Bar Association’s “Court Involved Therapist Referral List”. Now that wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for this little missive courtesy of the Department of Industrial Relations – the workers comp agency of the State of California. A quick review of the judgement handed down by an administrative law judge at the department of industrial relations has deemed Michael Fraga unfit for performing qualified medical exams of injured ADULT workers. Yet he is considered qualified by the AOC to offer his opinion to the California courts in making life-altering recommendations for families and children. If he is unfit to work in one arena of state government, he should be unfit to work in another arena of state government and we understand that someone actually is looking up a law they believe that supports this conclusion.
______________________________________________________________
Today’s Judicial Council Muppet Show
.
Later this afternoon around 6=7PM we intend to post a transcript of the judicial council meeting courtesy of WearyAnt. Of interest: It appears that the AOC used WearyAnt’s last transcription copied off this site for their last judicial council meeting, which speaks volumes to the credibility of this site.
______________________________________________________
Dear Members and others,As you know the Judicial Council is subjecting the recommended reforms embodied in the SEC report to a “rolling comment” period. The purported deadline to submit comments last Sunday was, as it turns out, a mere suggestion. For those of who you have not yet submitted a comment, please do so immediately and encourage your colleagues to do so as well by simply emailing your comment to
We are hopeful that this “rolling comment” period will not violate the Rule against Perpetuities— 21 years plus a life in being— but we have our doubts.Attached to this email (link) is a summary of those comments posted as of 7/24. You will see that over 90% of judges responding support full and immediate implementation of the SEC recommendations. The sheer volume of responses is overwhelming and we encourage you to take the time to read the comments by clicking on this link.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – A retired California employee can advance claims that California Prison Receiver J. Clark Kelso spiked his pension by washing his salary through the Administrative Office of the Courts, a judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson appointed Kelso to oversee California’s s prison medical program in 2008. Former state employee Donald Francis now claims that Kelso agreed to joined AOC payroll to get a pension from the California Public Employees Retirement System pension. Since his new federal salary counted as his highest year of compensation, Kelso would retire as one of the highest paid CalPERS recipients and would still qualify for lifetime health benefits at taxpayer expense.
Francis petitioned the Superior Court in Sacramento for a writ of mandate, but Kelso, the CalPERS Board of Administration, the AOC and the California Prison Healthcare Receivership Corp. claimed that Francis lacked standing.
Judge Michael Kenny found otherwise last week, finding that Francis meets the public interest exemption to the requirement that he have a special interest in the outcome of his lawsuit.
“In such a case, the petitioner need not show that he or she has any legal or special interest in the result, since it is sufficient that he or she is interested in a citizen in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced,” Kenny wrote.
“It is undeniable that issues such as the proper administration of public pension systems, the long-term fiscal viability of such systems, the making of pension benefit determinations with long-term fiscal ramifications with limited or no public accountability, and individual cases of pension ‘spiking’ for high-level government officers, have become matters of critical, and legitimate, public concern,” he added. “In these times of fiscal crisis, the public duty of pension administrators to act in compliance with the law is sharp, and the public need to provide a means of review and accountability when they allegedly fail to do so is weighty.”
Related articles
- State parks scandal: Honor system used to keep track of $37 billion in public funds (mercurynews.com)
- Join the AOC – Travel the world – and telecommute! (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Chief Justice – Democratize the Judicial Council (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Overcoming “Foxhole Syndrome” (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- We wish you were here (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- SEC Recommendations Subject to “Rolling Public Comment” – No End In Sight (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Jerry Brown’s what-me-worry moment (utsandiego.com)
- State parks official caught in unauthorized vacation buyout scheme (abclocal.go.com)
- Top lawyer for state parks departs in wake of hidden-funds scandal (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
- Following scandal, hotline, email set up for California state park tipsters (sacbee.com)
- Brown downplaying $54M+ Parks Department surplus (abclocal.go.com)
* Corrected to reflect accurate under-reporting.
wearyant
July 27, 2012
JCW: you have hushmail
lobstahsmaht
July 27, 2012
No comment on the new director?
Been There
July 27, 2012
They have picked someone, but are delaying the big announcement for reasons already speculated about on this site.
Dunno about Mr. Nash’s appointment, Unionman, especially after Judge Czuleger publicly outted him for his Enron-style activities. But heck, they’re on a roll at 455 Golden Gate. Why stop now?
Judicial Council Watcher
July 27, 2012
I still think Nash was the first choice – before unionman, JCW and Czulegar properly tarred and feathered his executive director aspirations and his opportunity to come home on the state dime. That would make Jahr a second choice and not a competent choice at that. He aided and abetted the Jack Halpin debacle. No matter what court construction budgets are, Shasta is getting a new courthouse as he will ensure it. And we expect no change whatsoever in the current management structure of the AOC.
As I said in the last thread, it is time to take this matter to the legislature because all of your wonderful effort of public comment is going to fall on blind, deaf and dumb ears.
It’s obvious that our two years of work has only just begun.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 27, 2012
Jahr won a Ron George award and opposed 1208 which in our minds makes him worm dung. A little time is required to find out more about the gentleman – and I use that term loosely..
Edited to add that our inbox is getting flooded with messages indicating he is firmly committed to the status quo.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
July 27, 2012
Jahr is definitely a house pet in every sense of the word. Probably the owners of the HMS Titanic thought a retired Judge would have cred with the Legislature, but I am sure the Legislature will know that his selection is a signal that nothing has changed aboard the HMS Titanic.
Sad. Another opportunity squandered by the insular Mandarins at 455 Golden Gate.
JusticeCalifornia
July 27, 2012
Excellent post JCW.
Alan, your CNN i-report rocks.
How about we try democratizing the Judicial Council?
After all, Darrell Steinberg once told the branch to deal with critics and challengers by building as big a wall as possible and playing defense. Well, we can see how that’s working out. . . .
JusticeCalifornia
July 27, 2012
unionman575
July 27, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18716.htm
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_21176925/new-administrator-calif-courts-is-selected
http://hosted2.ap.org/CARIE/7f780b0f92634e54be4b48f9179deaa4/Article_2012-07-27-California%20Courts-Appointment/id-87f27caf33aa4d63b8981f1852b65ca6
wearyant
July 27, 2012
Unionman575, VERY good stuff you’ve put up. Glad there’s an infomaniac on JCW!
Been There
July 27, 2012
The Merc gives a release time of 5:44 pm — on a Friday. Almost sounds as if they are expecting some blowback on this appointment.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 27, 2012
It appears to have been released to the courts an hour before it was released to the media. They were expecting blowback.
From: Chief Justice
Date: July 27, 2012 4:39 PM PDT
To: “Justices; Judges; Subordinate Judicial Officers; Clerk/Administrators and CEOs”
Subject: Appointment of Administrative Director of the Courts
Colleagues:
I am very pleased to share with you that today the Judicial Council unanimously approved the appointment of Judge Steven Jahr (Ret.), as the new Administrative Director of the Courts for California, effective October 8, 2012.
Following an extensive nationwide recruitment and interview process utilizing a professional search firm starting last fall, and led by a representative group of Judicial Council members, Judge Jahr who retired from the Shasta Superior Court emerged as the ideal choice for this critical leadership position for the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) as the staff arm to the Judicial Council. The Judicial branch will be well served by the depth of his experience—22 years as a trial court judge, including four years as a presiding judge, and as a leader in statewide judicial branch initiatives. Those who have worked with Judge Jahr have consistently remarked on the strength of his character, his integrity, his ability to listen, and his openness to new ideas.
Judge Jahr is passionate about the law and about the administration of justice. He has a clear understanding of the administrative challenges and opportunities for the judicial branch and the AOC. His combination of judicial experience and administrative qualities make him uniquely qualified for this position. I know that Judge Jahr will be accorded the respect he has earned within our branch and that he will embrace the opportunity to work with all of you to preserve and improve our system of justice.
The members of the Judicial Council and I welcome Judge Jahr’s enthusiastic acceptance of this statewide leadership position and we look forward to working with him in his new role. The news release announcing his appointment and providing more detail on his professional career is attached.
Judge Jahr plans to take an active role in this transitional time before he officially takes over the directorship in October. I want to acknowledge and express my great respect and appreciation to Jody Patel who has agreed to continue to serve as Interim Director and to assist with the transition.
I look forward with great optimism to partnering with Judge Jahr, and appreciate all of your continuing hard work on behalf of the judicial branch and the people of California.
Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chief Justice of California
Chair of the Judicial Council
Welcome back unionman! Our resident infomanic was missed. We got email, phone calls and posts wondering if you were sitting on a beach in hawaii drinking mai tais.
unionman575
July 27, 2012
unionman575
July 27, 2012
Official
July 28, 2012
Unionman!!! Who knew you were an Eminem fan??? LOL Love it.
unionman575
July 27, 2012
http://www.kswt.com/story/19135027/new-administrator-of-calif-courts-is-selected
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/efb2072ae9fb4c77bfa9d3334699e46b/CA–California-Courts-Appointment
JusticeCalifornia
July 27, 2012
Doesn’t surprise me at all. Back when we were all speculating about who the new director would be, and I referred to someone flying under the radar, I thought it would be Stephen Baker. Then I realized he didn’t have enough experience and started looking at Carlson.
It’s a darn good thing JCW has lots of locals in the North Counties to keep Shasta County honest, now that one of its own is top dawg. I mean if Jahr can’t control what’s going down in his own home courts. . . . .yep, Shasta County courts better be on their BEST behavior.
Hey Steve, bounce Halpin, will ya?
Curious
July 27, 2012
Please see
wearyant
July 27, 2012
This VERY interesting pdf was posted just above by Unionman575. Yes, EVERYONE should examine this letter from retired Judge Jahr. Note the word “unflinchingly.” Very, very telling comments especially in view of what we’ve all seen recently.
b
July 27, 2012
Steven Jahr, now I know where he fits into the puzzle. He is a longtime HRH-1 pet and I often wondered why he had not been rewarded with a seat on the appellate bench. He has often posted comments on various sites supporting the status quo.
JusticeCalifornia
July 27, 2012
JusticeCalifornia
July 27, 2012
sorry for the redundancy, curious, but can we put an exclamation point on this?
Curious
July 27, 2012
I’m with you, Justice Cal. Prima facie evidence if I ever saw it. Very few judges, especially retired ones, felt the need to come out against 1208, the first reform bill in over a decade. He did, though, and quite vehemently. Seemed almost angry at the allegations that the AOC was wasteful, bloated, etc. Wonder how he likes the SEC report? Tells us a lot about the man.
JusticeCalifornia
July 27, 2012
Let’s put this all in a very interesting political perspective.
Didn’t the recent redistricting put MARIN COUNTY in the same district as certain NORTH COUNTIES? How the heck did that happen? Could those counties be more night and day in terms of perspective and wealth?
Well let’s see.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission
wearyant
July 27, 2012
Regarding comments submitted on the SEC report, it’s really awful that an AOC person would go into a comment submitted by someone and redact something. I think it’s similar to looking up someone’s petticoat. It’s disgusted and outrageous. Not to mention our liberty to speak freely. How long will we be made to suffer this unjust agency, the AOC, supposedly the administrative arm of the judicial branch?
courtflea
July 27, 2012
OMG it is NOT Jody, Roddy, Nash or ANY of our guesses here!!!!!!!!!!!!!
courtflea
July 27, 2012
The new Dirketor is…………..Retired Shasta Superior Court Judge Steven Jar!! Sent to the Courts at 4:30 pm today.
courtflea
July 27, 2012
ok you guys scooped me!!
unionman575
July 27, 2012
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/07/finance-department-preparing-to-release-audit-data-next-week.html
unionman575
July 27, 2012
http://www.calinterpreters.org/news/cfi-leadership-defends-interpreter-budget-during-judicial-council-meeting/
unionman575
July 27, 2012
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/27/48786.htm
courtflea
July 27, 2012
I believe that Marin County is part of the Bay Area Counties otherwise know as BANCRO
JusticeCalifornia
July 27, 2012
The most corrupt county in which I have practiced is Marin. Lots of great records of corruption there, IF they were not destroyed by Marin, with or without top leadership’s blessing. Looking forward to a national/international study of what has happened to those who passed through this amazingly corrupt court in the last two decades, and its wayward administrative officers, judges and trend-setting court “experts” and “appointed” counsel and referees.
The second most corrupt court I have practiced in is Santa Clara. Various of us made a great record there involving Kiri Torre, bench members, and unfortunately Justice King, who writes the family court treatise– Hogoboom and King. Ever so damning. Looking forward to a national/international review of Santa Clara court case studies and progeny as well.
I have been told by very many that Shasta County makes Marin look like a walk in the park.
I have just begun making a record here in Shasta County. Let’s see. Steve, you gotta know I am going to be watching and documenting you and yours. Just make sure YOU, and the AOC, and the SHASTA COURTS are committed to following the law, and most especially the US and CA Constitutions. As far as I am concerned, since you came from the Shasta County Court, you and Shasta County just became the CJ/Judicial Council’s view of the “gold standard” of CA court administration. So glad I am here to monitor your progress.
I am not kidding. As a start, bounce Halpin and clean up your very troubled home court.
Wendy Darling
July 27, 2012
Published today, Friday, July 27, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Retired CA Judge to Head AOC
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – At a closed meeting Friday, California’s Judicial Council chose retired judge Steven Jahr as the new head of its central bureaucracy. Jahr steps into an agency that has been under heavy criticism from judges and legislators over its size and spending and the cloaked manner of its decision-making.
Retired Justice Arthur Scotland called the appointment “a grand slam home run.”
Jahr’s appointment comes after six months of searching for a replacement for former director William Vickrey, who retired in September 2011 amidst growing controversy over the agency’s spending practices and mismanagement of a statewide IT project for the courts.
Jahr will take charge of the agency in October.
For the last two decades, Jahr worked as a judge for Shasta County Superior Court, before retiring in 2009.
“I understand the world of the courtroom,” said Jahr, in a press release by the Administrative Office of the Courts. “As a former presiding judge, I know and appreciate that taking care of the administrative side of a courtroom helps make a judge succeed.”
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said, “The depth of his experience in the judicial branch-as a trial court judge, as a presiding judge, and as a participant in statewide judicial branch initiatives-makes him an ideal choice.”
In the past two years, the central court bureaucracy that Jahr will lead has been hammered by criticism from trial judges, legislators and the state auditor for its handling of an ambitious and ultimately extraordinarily wasteful IT project while hiding the complete costs of the half-billion-dollar project from the Legislature.
Concerned that money meant for the courts was being funneled away toward such projects, reform-minded judges introduced legislation in 2010 to ensure that all the money allocated to the trial courts goes to the courts.
Jahr, who was chairman of a task force on trial court funding during the tenure of former chief justice Ron George, opposed that legislation.
In a letter to the council and chief justice, Jahr wrote that judges supporting AB 1208 had justified their position “based upon allegations that the Judicial Council had ignored a requirement set out in the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 to promulgate rules of court which would ensure strong and independent local court financial management. Since I had been involved in the trial court funding reform process on behalf of the Judicial Council during those years, I was aware of the steps which had actually been taken and knew these allegations to be untrue.”
Provisions of AB 1208 were enacted through the budget process in June 2012, with legislators voting to put strict limits on the judiciary’s spending on statewide projects, such as the failed IT system, and prohibited taking any money for such projects from a trust fund meant for trial court operations.
The reform group behind the legislation, the Alliance of California Judges, has moved on to pushing the courts’ governing body, the Judicial Council, to adopt the sweeping changes to the central bureaucracy that were recommended by a committee appointed by the chief justice. In its report, the committee called for the central bureaucracy to be dramatically downsized, to become more transparent and to focus on serving the judiciary.
The Alliance urged Jahr to support that report.
“In light of Judge Jahr’s public and written opposition to the trial court funding reform advanced by the Alliance, we have concerns,” said the group’s statement. “Nevertheless, now is the time for the Judicial Council and the new director to embrace the future and fully endorse immediate implementation of the recommendations of the Chief Justice’s Strategic Evaluation Committee.”
In the few hours since the council’s unanimous vote, Jahr has enjoyed enthusiastic support from council members and colleagues. Presiding Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County, head of the council’s presiding judges’ committee, said, “A judge in charge of the AOC and a former PJ to boot. Just what the doctor ordered.”
Presiding Judge Suzanne Kingsbury of El Dorado County, also member of the SEC, said in a statement, “I’m absolutely delighted that a former judge is assuming the leadership of the Administrative Office of the Courts. I’ve known Steve Jahr forever as a judge and branch leader and he’s an outstanding choice. He will understand the concerns of the trial courts and open the lines of communication so that the branch can move forward in a positive fashion.”
Retired Justice Arthur Scotland, who served as chair of the SEC for a brief period before stepping down to represent California’s legislative leaders in a lawsuit against Controller John Chiang, added, “The Chief Justice and Judicial Council hit a grand-slam home run in selecting Steve Jahr as the new Administrative Director.”
“Judge Jahr is widely respected for his intellect, knowledge of courts and the judicial system, management experience, and good judgment,” he said. “An exceptional communicator with vision and unquestioned integrity, he will be a superb leader of the AOC and an ideal ambassador for the judicial branch. Simply stated, it is a brilliant choice.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/27/48786.htm
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
July 27, 2012
Let’s see. Dude, your home court is your biggest test. LOL.
wearyant
July 27, 2012
Why would merely re-posting a news article merit a “thumbs down”??
Just curious.
Recall Tani!
Long live the ACJ!
Democratize the Judicial Council!
Implement the SEC recommendations!
wearyant
July 27, 2012
Los Angeles Judge Lance Ito is just finding out about Kelso’s enviable retirement package. 🙂 Hope he makes giant WAVES!
Recall Tani!
Democratize the Judicial Council!
Implement the SEC recommendation post haste!
Judicial Council Watcher
July 27, 2012
Wearyant, you have lots of hushmail. You might want to read them all before responding so you’re not totally confuzzled. Some is zip and others pdf.
courtflea
July 27, 2012
I forgot who Judge Jar reminded me of…Brad Hill before he got “promoted”. It will be interesting to speculate why he was appointed rather than a “civilian” like Roddy or Nash. To appease Judges?Appease small courts? I am not sure I get it. I cannot wait to hear judges comments on this appointment.
Wendy Darling
July 27, 2012
Appease the State Legislature.
Long live the ACJ.
b
July 27, 2012
Flea, JCW may be correct — he was a second choice. He is loyal, very eager to please, and malleable. Odds are the more favored candidate is a resident of Digital Purgatory and for some reason (!) the powers that be did not relish the heat their tarnished candidate would generate on this site and others. This may be the first time they have ever blinked under the pressure of public scrutiny.
But this is no change in either leadership or direction. Jahr will be a very loyal soldier for the people behind the curtain.
The work continues, the truth will continue to be brought into the open, and the fight to save the California courts for the people of California will go on.
AOCTracker
July 27, 2012
Scotland’s comments to the Courthouse News about Jahr’s appointment as AOC Director being a “brilliant choice,” mirror comments he made a few years back to the Met News about Tani’s appointment:
Justice Arthur Scotland called her a “brilliant choice…she is an exceptionally smart, diligent, articulate, collegial, thoughtful, respectful colleague,” he said.
God, protect us from these “brilliant choices.”
Wendy Darling
July 28, 2012
I;m afraid, AOC Tracker, that God isn’t listening. The only real hope is if the State Legislature is paying attention, and will take corrective action to rectify “the mess in the judicial branch,” as said by One Who Knows.
Long live the ACJ.
Official
July 27, 2012
“On a statewide level, in addition to years of faculty service for the state’s judicial education programs, Judge Jahr served as a board member and vice president of the California Judges Association. Immediately before his retirement, he was appointed by Chief Justice Ronald M. George to the Commission for Impartial Courts.”
Just reading all this… Initial impression: ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Another Ron George lackey??? God help us.
Wendy Darling
July 27, 2012
Yes, Official, “another Ron George lackey.” Are you really that surprised?
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
July 28, 2012
“Another Ron George lackey???”
Yeah, there’s a lot of money at stake. The JC/AOC/CJ will never change without a good, swift kick in the ass. Who can do it? They’re feeling pretty good and pompous right now. We all better start hounding our legislative representatives.
Recall Tani!
Long live the ACJ!
Implement the SEC recommendations!
Democratize the Judicial Council!
unionman575
July 28, 2012
“ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? ”
I love that! I agree!
😉
Lando
July 28, 2012
This appointment is just one more blunder in the increasing long list of HRH 2’s failings. While Judge Jahr is a decent guy he claimed earlier in the year that some committee he chaired in the late 90’s actually set forth a trial court bill of rights required by the 1998 trial court funding legislation. Sorry but I’ve never seen any such protection provided to the trial courts. Moreover, Judge Jahr actively was against AB 1208 so we all know he is just another “insider” that will resist and fight reforming the AOC. After the SEC report and the overwhelming comments by over 90% of the individuals responding to J Miller’s latest “transparent” survey, one would think the JC would have hired someone not tied to Ronald George and his now completely discredited legacy. Once again we need to democratize the JC, recall the CJ and implement the SEC report .
unionman575
July 28, 2012
I was looking to have ACJ Director Judge Steve White retire from the bench, take over the Death Star and “clean AOC house” from top to bottom.
Oh yeah that was just a dream…
The OBT
July 28, 2012
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. You really can’t make this stuff up. After a two year search , the Judicial Council has selected a Ronald George loyalist to head up the AOC. Thanks J Hull for refusing to get out of your tower and see what is happening all around you. Is anyone at the Judicial Council or in the Office of the Chief Justice reading the SEC report or the comments that followed on their very own website? The continued arrogance of the insular insiders that make up the current Judicial Council is staggering.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 28, 2012
Our analysis:
Here is where I think most trial court judges *may* be missing the boat. There is the “old” state court system and there is the “new” state court system that includes the trial courts. The “old” system, which includes many of the players we’ve discussed here has circled wagons against the “new” state court system because in all of the fallout of unification, they got control of the purse strings.
The representation on the council by the “new” state court system is token at best and consists of individuals that are either tainted themselves or brown-nosing their way to a higher office, EXCEPT for representatives of L.A. courts, whom the AOC is absolutely terrified of because they are the big, mean 800 lb gorilla in this fight and the “old” court system that includes the AOC knows it.
The 800 lb gorilla spoke with nearly 450 comments and statewide support. The elephant in the room (ie the AOC) got very desperate and shoveled Jahr out in front of them to try and deflect the heat.
While we speak of supporters lining up behind him, what is obvious by the contents of the old hushmail inbox is that there is going to be two camps. Those that line up behind him and those that are “cautiously optimistic” as a means of being polite, knowing in their minds and their hearts that an insider was chosen that is a strong supporter of branch AND LAW centralization under the Judicial Council and the AOC. In either case, a whole lot of time will be bought so that the Office of Governmental Affairs can ‘educate’ newly elected representatives coming into office into their line of thinking.
Put this in your pipe and smoke it – there are over 175,000 active lawyers. Not one single law firm or lawyer commented on the SEC report that didn’t obtain funding from the AOC, except for Barbara Kaufmann* who has been incredibly active in the reform movement.
They are scared to step between two locomotives on the same track barreling towards each other.
*corrected
wearyant
July 28, 2012
JCW: You do have it right! And I had to laugh at myself. I finally looked up the word “decentralization.” I actually believed it to be the opposite of what that definition was. The judiciary has been run under centralization, it was evident to me — one dictator commanding from the very top — but the slimy court admin kept insisting this was decentralization. After watching the trial courts and what’s happening to them for over three decades, I actually believed decentralization was the meaning of centralization. What a joke on me. The court bureaucrats are slick! That makes ME a Kool-Aid drinker in a way! As Delilah has said, “black is white, down is up, right is wrong, horizontal is vertical” — and etc., etc., etc.
unionman575
July 28, 2012
hmm…look at the cast of characters on this comittee including Jahr…
unionman575
July 28, 2012
A little Jahr History here on Pages 9 & 10 from 1997…
I can’t help myself…my dad was a high school history teacher… 😉
“Trial Court Budget Commission:
Prepared to Meet New Challenge”
wearyant
July 28, 2012
The quotes from 1997 attributed to Sheila Gonzalez-Calabro, RonO and Steven Jahr are absolutely priceless! Well worth the read. Then you get to Fritz’s comment — I burst out laughing. Gawd help us all!
unionman575
July 28, 2012
Recent Jahr committee appt last month he has to “know” about $$ since that committee has an oversight role in state and federal monies (just a guess) yall help me out here…
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/5210/5227/department.html
unionman575
July 28, 2012
Jahr has a background in certain “issues” we are all interested in dating back to at least 2002…look here at pages 34, 35, 36 & 37 – I will spare you reading all 54 pages unless you really want to…
Judicial Council Watcher
July 28, 2012
Jahr is one of the architects of the current disaster. He was trying to centralize control of probation and funding under George and Vickrey. He’s coming “home” to defend his grand plan.
They truly were trying to assemble a shadow government (by absorbing a county executive function) absent any checks and balances.
unionman575
July 28, 2012
unionman575
July 28, 2012
Now will all we start to see together “who” the new Direktor is….any tidbits yall have, pleas do share…
Judicial Council Watcher
July 28, 2012
🙂
JusticeCalifornia
July 28, 2012
JCW is that your theme song? 🙂
unionman575
July 28, 2012
😉
unionman575
July 28, 2012
My. my, my, here is Jahr’s handiwork in all its beauty…I say take pride in one’s work…
PO Box 990428, Redding, CA 96099
December 9, 2011
Re: AB 1208 Proposal
Dear Chief Justice and Members of the Judicial Council:
Last Spring, a legislative effort was initiated by some judges which would have
deprived the Judicial Council of its fundamental statutory role in trial court
budgeting, not to mention its constitutional role as the rule-making body for the
judicial branch.
AB 1208 was then justified by its supporters based upon allegations that the Judicial
Council had ignored a requirement set out in the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court
Funding Act of 1997 to promulgate rules of court which would ensure strong and
independent local court financial management. Since I had been involved in the trial
court funding reform process on behalf of the Judicial Council during those years, I
was aware of the steps which had actually been taken and knew these allegations to
be untrue. I sought to correct the record on that subject by my letter dated March 2,
2011, a copy of which is attached.
Now these judges have, according to their letter dated December 5, 2011, with
enclosures, abandoned those allegations, redrafted their proposed statutory
language, the May 18, 2011 version of which I have now read, and supported this
effort with allegations of waste and inefficiency on the part of the Judicial Council
and Administrative Office of the Courts in the management of trial court operations
funding.
As for the redrafted statutory language, it accomplishes the same objective as the
earlier version. It empowers a strategic minority of courts to gain control over the
budgeting process, via an insurmountable veto power over budgeting initiatives by
the council (GC 77202(b)(3)); an essentially static annually recurring pro rata
distribution scheme (GC 77202(c); and a structure(GC 77202(b)(1)) enabling,
indeed incentivizing, direct lobbying of the legislature by strategically aligned
groups of powerful courts to favor as few as two courts at a time with special
allocations, unlimited in number, dollar amounts, or defined purposes, to be
withdrawn directly from the overall legislative appropriation for all the trial courts,
BEFORE any of the remaining funds are disbursed to all the courts statewide.
The structure, if enacted into law, will not only sideline the rule-making body of the
state’s judicial branch, it will ensure the Balkanization of the branch, from which
will emerge a few powerful courts, able by size and legislative constituencies to
exercise enormous influence over annual court operations budgets for the entire
state. If one set out to create a scheme whereby the “rich get richer and the poor get
poorer”, one could scarcely do better than this. But to do so would defeat the
defining goals of our branch to provide equal access to quality justice for all
Californians regardless of whether they happen to live in our most populous
counties or places like Ventura or Contra Costa, let alone Stanislaus, Marin or my
own county.
As for the present allegations offered by these judges, I will be the first to say I have
no first hand information to offer. My involvement in budgeting matters took place
in the 1990’s, and a decade has gone by since I served on the Judicial Council myself.
But I do know that as one of her first initiatives, our Chief Justice established a
Strategic Evaluation Committee to assess the operations of the AOC, top to bottom,
which will necessarily examine the assertions raised by these judges. Such an
inventory and assessment is wholesome and it is due. Furthermore, the Chief Justice
appointed retired Justice Arthur Scotland to chair that effort. The conclusions and
recommendations reached by a committee so guided will be unflinching and they
will be thorough. It is by those means that the present allegations can be addressed
in a way that most benefits the public we serve.
The state funding of trial court operations reform was, and remains, a truly
progressive legislative enactment by which equivalent access to justice for all
citizens can be attained. The present efforts to dismantle that process, while everchanging
in the specifics, represent a reaction to the balanced governance of the
judicial branch by a process which is designed to ensure that all trial courts,
however situated, will receive the equivalent consideration that we, as judges,
afford the litigants who appear in our courtrooms.
I respectfully urge you firmly to oppose AB 1208. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Steven E. Jahr
unionman575
July 28, 2012
Page 10
JusticeCalifornia
July 28, 2012
This puts the AOC censorship of the two SEC comments that mentioned Shasta County “retired” Assigned Judge travesty Jack Halpin into perspective, doesn’t it? The AOC knew that Jahr himself sat around and let — or asked that –Halpin be “temporarily” re-appointed every 30-60 days from 1994 through 2009 when Jahr retired. 15 years. Two-plus election cycles. That shows a marked lack of disrespect for the Constitutional provision that CA judges are supposed to be elected by the public or appointed by the Governor, and subject to oversight by the Commission on Judicial Performance. I hope the mainstream media picks up on this as part of their coverage of Jahr’s appointment.
Further, one of top leadership’s biggest “sales pitches” is that they provide uniform rules, and their boogeyman threat is that if local control is restored the public and lawyers would once again have to navigate 58 sets of rules. Lawyers already navigate different sets of local rules in each county. At least, in most counties they are written down. Shasta County has more unwritten local court rules and local procedures that are not memorialized anywhere than any county I have ever seen. I like the court personnel I have met, but honestly, they are being forced to operate without an operating manual. How are they supposed to know what the rules are, and refer the public to the rules, if the rules are not written down? This is clearly the fault of administration.
From a selfish standpoint, I look forward to Director Jahr having to personally answer for the state of the Shasta Court, and his participation in the Halpin debacle—and to having Jahr and Fowler Bradley being on the hotseat and obliged to make Shasta a model court in all ways.
So I am going to give Jahr the benefit of the doubt.
His first test? Let’s see how he handles the abuses of the AOC’s Assigned Judge’s program.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
July 28, 2012
Hear, hear!!
Today I am floored! I have been to many a Shasta County “community-enriching” function where Mr. Jahr was in attendance and/or speaking. I was assigned to those confabs as a fact-finding Counselor and Parenting Educator for court-mandated litigants (and, as a journo-photog on two occasions) since 1998. He seems fun, funny, and is quite articulate. I also believe he has done some good work locally with respect to streamlining drug courts, rehabilitation programs for repeat offenders, and Prop 36 handling in our insulated and highly ‘At Risk’ Shasta County.
Mr. Jahr presents VERY well publicly as one heck-of-a-nice, glad-handing, toothy-smiled guy that puffs up the “fairness in our courts” and cross-systems angle with an enjoyable authority. It IS confusing however, that all the while, Mr. Jahr (et al PJs), engaged in an unending rubber-stamping of ‘the redacted-one” month after month, year after year while scores of protective families and their children formally and civilly filed legitimate complaints about His menacing misconduct, and that of our biased fundamentalist-bible-thumping mediation services.
Yet those otherwise productive citizen-parents, children and tax-payers suffer in systemic-isolation amid frequent allegations of AOC/JC cover ups, and what I would call, case dumping and abuse of judicial immunity protections. Say? Is there a Rehab for repeat-offending, dysfunctional public servants and judicial-gamblers? I wonder.
(I coincidentally had Jahr-Jarh in 2005/06 in an unnecessarily protracted FL case. As far as being truly child-focused in the Family Law arena, I would be ever so confident to sum up His status-quo-comfort-zone in a contraction: poker-faced. That, as he passed my children on to Halpin/AOC/JC/CJ and Co. for expanded protraction and disposal!)
The histrionic court messes and the invented-on-the-spot, undocumented verbal rules of court in Shasta County – however ‘small’ compared to larger systems – have been consciously managed and fiercely protected… for many years (since 1995 that I can remember) in part by Jahr. The uneven playing field in Shasta County – like any Casino for that matter – perhaps provides a fifth Ace for TANI CO to implement a holding action upon the SEC while sustaining malleability at the Jahr-Jahr Death Star.
Machiavellian and calculated, I would say. But what the hell do I know?!
However, and in respect, I will stand down with my flaming, uneducated, lay fears, lack of confidence and doubts about anything good coming from this calculated/secreted anointment, for now. I will try… and be hopeful that Mr. Jahr will reflect upon some of his eloquent Shasta County speeches and oaths from the past about fulfilling “honorable community service,” and to do so himself in what could be a most difficult sell if he were to embrace fairness beyond AOC/JC self-protections. I would enthusiastically support that kind of change.
With his position now locked, today is a good day for Mr. Jahr to seriously reexamine AB-1208 points, evidences, the SEC snowball effect with an open mind, and to consider giving the Governor his signature hearty-handclasp and toothy-smile soon… Tani’s getting closer to a recall and not getting any “cuter.”
[Today is also Day 506…]
Alan Ernesto Phillips
July 30, 2012
I believe this classic begs adaptation for current events…
(WARNING: As Master George Carlin uses ‘spooky words’ with focused impunity from time to time, one may wish to mind their speaker volumes… and children for that matter lest they be taken by colluding Family Law ne’er do wells.)
DeWitt T. Barker
November 29, 2012
Thank you for this excellent website. I would like to update readers as to my research on the corrupted system of “witness manufacturing” and the “slop-line” inherent in the creation and use of the “Court-Involved Therapist Referral List (CIT)” formerly utilized by the Sonoma County Superior Court and still in play within the Family Law Steering Committee of the Sonoma County Bar Association.
Hats off to Mr. Wishnak, the new manager of the Sonoma County Court’s Family Court Services (FCS) who recognized the impropriety of the CIT list and pulled it from use as a reference in the Clerk’s Office and the FCS office. Here is the acknowledgment by Mr. Wishnak that the CIT list lacked the required “judicial neutral stance of the court.” Questions still remain as to the involvement of Judicial officers in the creation and maintenance of the CIT list. The SCBA is in violation of their own bylaws as a non-profit in having the FLSC be organized on an “Invitation Only” basis, as per the admission of Sonoma County Court Commissioner Louise Bayles-Fightmaster…
I attended the “Town Hall Meeting” of the Sonoma County Bar Association’s (SCBA) Family Steering Committee (FLSC) on September 11th, 2012 in which Sonoma County Superior Court Commissioner Louise Bayles-Fightmaster stated that the organizational chart contained in the “Materials Part 1” handout given to Town Hall participants, revealing an “Invite Only” status of the FLSC membership was a violation of the SCBA’s charter as a non-profit. The SCBA has not obliged my request for copies of the last three year’s worth of tax returns, as required by law upon request from members of the public.
My question for you is this: What State agencies are responsible for monitoring non-profit’s compliance with their charter? It is my belief that the SCBA’s FLSC is operating as a chamber of commerce for the for-profit family law attorneys who have profited handsomely from their creation and control of the “Court-Involved Therapist Referral List (CIT)” deemed to constitute a lack of judicial neutrality by the new ethical manager of the Family Court Services Rick Wishnak.
The SCBA produced CIT list relies heavily on a three-time convicted felon psychologist found guilty of crimes of moral turpitude who makes a living testifying on behalf of over 50 murder suspects and child molesters around the State. The hyperlinks at the bottom of this email chain document these facts in internet accessible court records and a blog by crime reporter Henry Lee of the SF Chronicle. I have copies of the CIT list and the organizational chart of the FLSC if you would like evidence of this ethical misconduct on the part of the SCBA and violation of their charter as a non-profit.
I can be reached at (707) 508-6977 or at this email address.
Thank you for looking into this matter of great public concern,
DeWitt T. Barker
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: dewitt barker
To: Rick Wishnak
Cc: “nichole.rapier@sen.ca.gov” ; “veronica.stone@sen.ca.gov”
Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 9:12 PM
Subject: ‘Court-Involved Therapist Referral LIst’
November 4th, 2012
Mr. Rick Wishnak
Manager, Family Court Services
Sonoma County Superior Court
600 Administration Drive, R. 107-J
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Dear Mr. Wishnak:
I am in receipt of your letter dated October 25th, 2012 and I thank you once again for responding to my concerns. I also very much appreciate the principle of the required judicial neutral stance required of the court. In case your role encompasses the task of weeding out remnants of improper conduct you may find it useful to know the effect of the existence of the “Court-Involved Therapist Referral List” (CIT) in my own case, SFL-53925. In case there is evidence of similar abuses in other cases, I would propose that you disregard simple denials by perpetrators.
There are over 125 licensed psychologists listed in the Sonoma County phone book Yellow Pages. Unless I am mistaken, there are only eight psychologists on the “CIT” list. If in fact there has been no culling of the licensed professionals in this field by unidentified criteria, there is no reason for exclusion of the remaining licensed psychologists. On page 30 of the Sonoma County Bar Association’s Townhall Meeting for the Sonoma County Family Law Community “Materials: Part 1” (handed out to participants on September 11th, 2012) Dana Schneider MFT describes the “Court Involved Mental Health Professional Mentorship Program” curriculum guidelines including roles involving …”child or adult therapy in the divorce arena that has been referred via a court order, or child specialist consultation which is being conducted in conjunction with co-parent counselors referred to by the Superior Court.” On page 34 of the same document, line item #6 states “Upon receiving the Certificate of Completion, I [mentorship participants] have the opportunity to be listed in the Mental Health Resource List as a Court-Involved Counselor…” These statements are in sharp contrast to the disclaimer you quote at the bottom of each page of the CIT list that the CIT list is not vetted for accuracy and that “inclusion in the referral list is not an endorsement or recommendation of any mental health professional.” Indeed, the list participants pay the Bar Association $1100 to participate in the mentoring program, which is limited to 12 individuals who must provide references. Obviously there are criteria for getting on the CIT list and there is an inappropriate reluctance to disclose those criteria. Secrecy in violation of the SBCA’s charter as a non-profit is maintained by having the Family Law Steering Committee’s (FLSC) ‘Rules’ subcommittee and ‘Best Practices’ subcommittee be “Invite-Only” as evidenced by the FLSC organizational chart contained within the above mentioned “Materials: Part 1” handout.
It is no excuse that the CIT list was prepared by the “therapeutic community” if the court in fact limited its choice of therapists for evaluations to individuals on the list. This is exactly what happened in my case. The Sonoma County Superior Court Judge presiding over my case at the time selected Dr. Daniel Pickar to do the court-appointed evaluation without providing me or my attorney an opportunity to choose a service provider. Is it just coincidence that Dr. Pickar happens to be one of the eight psychologists contained on the CIT list? The proper principle for determining what evaluator to use is laid out in Hogeboom and King’s Westlaw Family Law Practice Guide: Judges should allow the parties an opportunity to reach a stipulated agreement as to the professional assigned the task of a psychological evaluation. Should the parties not be able to reach agreement, the proper procedure would be alternating choice of elimination from a list of potential evaluators, with the first party to choose a service provider to eliminate being determined by a flip of the coin [See Marriage of Cream (1993) 13 Cal App. 4th 81 applied in the case to division of personal property but applicable to selection of service providers]. A simple survey of other cases would reveal whether there has been a practice of improper reliance on the CIT list by court personnel.
I recognize that my perspective may be affected by my indignation about the treatment I personally received. However, I propose that we share a concern for protecting taxpayers from the cost of supporting a judicial system which has unnecessary contentious litigation due to deviation from prescribed protocols and procedures. Due process requires that a litigant be informed of the judicial procedures affecting the disposition of his or her case. Disclosing criteria for the selection of a service provider who will pass judgement on the litigant’s mental status and/or future access to their children is essential for due process.
Respectfully Yours,
DeWitt T. Barker
c.c. Nichole Rapier, counsel for the California Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary
Veronica Stone, office of California State Senator Noreen Evans, Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: dewitt barker
To: Rick Wishnak
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: ‘Court Involved Therapist Referral List’
Dear Mr. Wishnak – Mr. Peter Steiner, the Executive Director of the Sonoma County Bar Association (SCBA) was shocked and appalled when I informed him several months ago that a psychologist (Dr. Fraga) who has testified on behalf of over 50 murderers and child molesters around the State was being referred to children and families of Sonoma County by the Mental Health Liaison sub-Committee (MHLC) of the Family Law Steering Committee section of the SCBA. I asked him what he was going to do about it, and he replied “What can I do about it? This list is put together with suggestions by the Family Law Judiciary.” I very much appreciate your efforts in the best interest of children and families of Sonoma County, and I also appreciate the fact that mediator Dan Chester was no longer listed on opposing counsel’s Facebook friends list the day after I informed you of this apparent conflict of interest and lack of judicial neutral stance. At least the appearance of non-favoritism has been achieved in this particular instance. However, I feel obliged to inform you that contrary to your statement below that the “court does not select the persons for the list,” that is not what Mr. Steiner told me.
I want to provide you with full disclosure of everything my investigations have uncovered about this scheme. The analysis is not my own by the way. My father is an attorney who managed dozens of attorneys investigating insurance fraud in the 80’s and 90’s, and he has a keen nose for corruption. He doesn’t consider the scheme sophisticated or complex, “just follow the money”… His analysis is this: the attorneys who refer business to the CIT service providers who then bear false witness against one party or the other. Then Dan Chester recommends to the court that the parents continue to see (and pay of course) the CIT therapists “for the duration and frequency as determined by the therapists” – an open checkbook. In exchange the CIT service providers make other client referrals back to the collaborating attorneys in the scheme. The ability of the MHLC to tightly control the short-list of service providers is critical to the scheme. Of course the most important element is that the child custody recommending counselors and Judges disregard any determination by service providers not on the CIT list. I believe this may constitute a violation of Gov. Code 81001(a)(b): “The people find and declare as follows:
(a) State and local government should serve the needs and respond to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth;
(b) Public officials, whether elected or appointed, should perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interests of persons who have supported them.”
The original clues were provided to me a year ago by retiring local family law attorney Sondra Persons who after hearing my story and the names of the characters involved told me that I had been “railroaded.” My former attorney David Gonzalez referred to the “Court-Involved Therapist Referral List (CIT)” as “witness manufacturing” and the “slop-line.” After I obtained a copy of the CIT list and confronted Mr. Gonzalez with the question as to why he had not objected in court to this situation, he replied “you get a law degree and try practicing in this county for ten years, it’s the way it is done here.” Forty year local veteran forensic psychiatrist Dr. Donald Apostle described the CIT list as a “cabal,” and told me I could not be “wary or cynical enough” about the collusion between the for-profit family law attorneys and the CIT list members. His first words were “welcome to the Guy’s Club” – an apparent reference to the fact that men are the typical target of the scheme as they are typically the higher income earner, capable of paying the ransom to maintain a relationship with their minor children. Local social worker Bob Hart told me that years ago the State of California came in and told Mr. Dan Chester to stop making direct referrals to specific service providers at a time in which Mr. Chester was making direct referrals to Dr. Fraga while Dr. Fraga was the clinical director of the now defunct Ananda Institute. Family Law facilitator Joyce MacLaury told me the Chester/Fraga connection still exists within the secret cases of the Sonoma County Family Law system. The information above was submitted to the Sonoma County Grand Jury which handed the matter over to the Sonoma County Superior Court Presiding Judge a couple of months ago. The devastating financial and emotional damage to my family from this corrupt system of cannot be changed. I only hope that other law-abiding citizens of our County are not framed and set-up to be fleeced as I was. Don’t get me wrong, if I had to do it all over again I’d still pay the ransom in order to achieve 50/50 custody of my six year old daughter – love is more important than money. The details of my case are simple – Dr. Jacqueline Singer (a service provider not on the CIT list), submitted a declaration to the court after extensive in-person and collateral interviews and psychological testing deemed me in March of 2011 to be without any psychopathology whatsoever following a life-threatening adverse drug reaction to prescribed medication known as serotonin syndrome that put me in the hospital. On the day of the custody hearing, in violation of CCP 1005 (providing proper notice) opposing counsel Stephen Olsen submitted a declaration by Dr. Fraga who offered an opinion on my mental state and ability to parent without ever having met me (a violation of Bus. and Prof. Code 2936). Dan Chester, in violation of the Elkins Family Law Task Force Recommendations made a recommendation to the court without providing the required written basis for his decision. In mediation however, Mr. Chester told me he was overruling Dr. Singer based on Dr. Fraga’s diagnosis from afar. Dan Chester also told me “you are going to be sorely disappointed if you think you are ever going to get 50/50 custody.” On the day of the custody hearing 3.18.11 attorney David Gonzalez complained to Judge Bertoli that 95% of couples that go before Dan Chester, even when they are in agreement prior to meeting with Chester, end up with a recommendation from Chester for a change in the status quo historical custodial timeshare. Following Chester’s recommendation Honorable Judge James Bertoli then ordered me to have a psych evaluation performed by another CIT list member – Dr. Daniel Pickar – who acted outside the scope of his profession (as a non-medically trained practitioner) in stating in his report to the court that he doubted the medical determination by my personal care physician Dr. Harry Simms that I had suffered a severe adverse drug reaction. Although Dr. Apostle later confirmed this finding of serotonin syndrome and no psychopathology whatsoever, Honorable Judge Nancy Shaffer in her tentative ruling fails to mention any determination by a service provider who actually met me, and just repeats false and unfounded allegations made by Dr. Fraga.
I am telling you all of this because I have confidence that you are extremely ethical and capable of making a difference in rooting out this corruption, if you haven’t succeeded already.
Thank you for what you do!
DeWitt T. Barker
(707) 508-6977
From: Rick Wishnak
To: ‘dewitt barker’
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:29 AM
Subject: RE: ‘Court Involved Therapist Referral List’
Dear Mr. Barker:
Your concerns are of interest to me and the court. As a matter of our concern we have taken the “court Involved Therapist List” out of circulation from public access at the court. This was done not only because of your concerns but the concerns of others throughout the state not only about the therapist you mention but in regard to the limitations of lists such as this one.
The most important part of this is that the court is required to take a neutral stance and, therefore, cannot appear to endorse any organization or individual service provider that is not in inherent part of the court. Since these organizations and individuals are independent practitioners, the court cannot make direct referrals to them without a system in which any interested similar service provider has an equal chance to be referred to.
As far as the practitioner you refer to the court does not select the persons for the list, it is compiled by the SCBA as your mention in your note below. As long as the practitioner is licensed, it appears that they are eligible to be on the list. I believe that your concerns, if they have not already been directed there, should be directed to the California State Department responsible for the licensing of practitioners.
Most important is that I want to reiterate that the list is no longer available through the court as there are so many issues that prescribe its being a resource available at the court.
I hope this addresses at least some of your concerns.
Sincerely,
Rick Wishnak, Manager
Office of Probate/Family Court Services
Sonoma County Superior Court
600 Administration drive
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 521-6842
From: dewitt barker [mailto:dewittbarker@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 11:59 AM
To: Rick Wishnak
Subject: ‘Court Involved Therapist Referral List’
Dear Mr. Wishnak – I am writing to you in your capacity as a member of the Family Law Section Steering Committee of the Sonoma County Bar Association. I have a copy of the “Court Involved Therapist Referral List” which is put together by the SCBA’s Mental Health Liaison Committee and available in a binder in the Family Court Services office at 600 Administration Drive. Although there are over 450 licensed mental health professionals in Sonoma County, this referral list is limited to a select few, who themselves apparently control who gets on the list. This is understandable from an economic perspective – the less competitors on the list the more court-involved work is referred to list participants. My concern is that one of the individuals that families are being referred to by the SCBA and the Superior Court Family Court Services office is a three-time convicted felon found guilty of crimes of moral turpitude associated with the practice of his profession. He has additionally been found to be a “danger to himself and others” by the California Board of Psychology. I believe children and families of Sonoma County deserve more respect than to be referred to a psychologist legally defined as morally depraved who makes a living testifying on behalf of murderers and child molesters around the State.
I was told by SCBA’s Family Law Steering Committee chairperson Elissa Urlik that the SCBA cannot restrict access to the Referral List if a licensed therapist wants to be on the list, due to the non-profit status of the SCBA. I have suggested to Mr. Steiner the Executive Director that the SCBA should perhaps consider withdrawing from sponsoring the “Court-Involved Therapist Referral List” if the SCBA is not able to perform due diligence and vetting of the participants. It is my understanding that the local district attorney’s office will not use Dr. Michael Fraga as an expert witness due to his easy impeachability. Most counties of the State simply refer families to the yellow pages of the phone book if they desire the need for counseling or co-parenting services. ‘Prior conviction of a crime of moral turpitude is considered to have a bearing on the honesty of a witness and may be used for purposes of witness impeachment.’ People v. Wheeler, 4 Cal.4th 284, 295-296, 841 P.2d 938, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 418. Below are links to three cases involving Dr. Fraga that outline his extensive criminal history. In the Hans Reiser murder case from Alameda County described in the second link, Dr. Fraga attempted to discredit the testimony of a six year boy who witnessed his murdered mother being carried down the stairs in a garbage bag. Dr. Fraga never met with the child. I believe Sonoma County’s families deserve more respect, and should not be encouraged by the SCBA or FCS to involve themselves with an individual legally defined as morally depraved. As you are probably well aware, an unethical expert witness has a financial incentive to distort the truth in order to encourage one party or the other to call him back in order to impeach his testimony, which then requires the ‘expert’ being paid even more. Can Sonoma County families afford this? I appeal to you as a respected member of the government, someone in possession of a moral compass, and as a member of the Family Law Steering Committee to look into this matter of public safety.
http://blog.sfgate.com/localnews/2008/02/28/hans-reiser-trial-feb-28-2008/
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/C065162.DOC
Thank you for looking into this matter,
DeWitt Barker
Judicial Council Watcher
November 29, 2012
Thank you for your excellent research Mr. Barker. I would suggest that you contact some of our justice partners as they specialize in family law matters, legislation and lobbying.
Emily Gallup with familycourtreform.com
Kathleen Russell with the Center for Judicial Excellence
The Sonoma County chapter of the Protective Parents Association.
Obviously, these people who are making life-altering decisions need to be vetted better and there needs to be some legislation that takes it out of the hands of attorneys and puts it in the hands of well certified, vetted professionals. It’s quite amazing to watch the FLA therapists charge upwards of 400.00 per hour when a regular therapist makes about a third of that rate. I feel confident that if these characters were audited, money is being circulated beyond the therapists.
unionman575
November 29, 2012
money is being circulated beyond the therapists.
😉
DeWitt T. Barker
November 30, 2012
The Redwood Empire Chapter of the California Psychological Association newsletter describes Dr. Fraga going to Sacramento to lobby against then Governor Schwartzenegger’s efforts to shut down the California Board of Psychology. Apparently Dr. Fraga has connections with the BOP as well, as although as Family Court Services manager Rick Wishnak acknowledges numerous complaints about Dr. Fraga from all over the State, he retains his license. The BOP refuses to disclose to me a copy of the review and the name of the psychologist who deemed Dr. Fraga to have not violated the terms and conditions of his license in my case (offering child custody recommendations and a diagnosis from afar).
I found similar instances of a psychologist who made child custody recommendations to the court without having met one of the parents, and that psychologist was placed on a five year probation. I have forwarded the following professional determination that Dr. Fraga indeed violated Business and Professional Code 2936 and the Court will not acknowledge that Dr. John Holden even exists (apparently because he is not on the “Court-Involved Therapist Referral List”). Here is a copy of Dr. Holden’s sworn declaration which is a standard practice review of Dr. Fraga’s declaration in my case:
From: Dewitt Barker [mailto:dewittbarker@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 10:42 AM
To: bopmail@DCA
Subject: Complaint confirmation
Greetings – I submitted a complaint regarding a Dr. Michael A. Fraga of Santa Rosa , CA (license# 17169) a couple months ago via your website complaint form. I have not as of yet received a confirmation letter that this complaint has been received by the BOP. This complaint is independent of my earlier complaint, as Dr. Fraga’s fraudulent Curriculum Vitae is an extrinsic fraud upon the court, independent of his involvement in my case.
Dr. Fraga submitted a fraudulent Curriculum Vitae on March 18th, 2011 in case# SFL-53925 before Honorable Judge James Bertoli of courtroom 22. This fraudulent CV listed Dr. Fraga as currently working as the Clinical Director of the Ananda Institute, although the Ananda Institute had closed it’s doors a year earlier, according to U.S. Bankruptcy Court records.
I have serious concerns about the lack of response from the BOP in my inquiry as to the qualifications and identity of the “expert psychologist who supposedly recommended no action on my previous complaint regarding a direct and obvious violation of Business and Professional Code 2936 by Dr. Fraga in his submission of a child custody recommendation without ever having met parent or child.
Please forward this letter to your legal department, as I may have to subpoena the “expert psychologist” who determined that Dr. Fraga’s unethical declaration in violation of American Psychological Association ethical guideline 9.01b met the standards of acceptability. Failure to identify the “expert psychologist” who made this improper evaluation is a violation of due process. I have a constitutional right to confront the witness. Here is a proper evaluation (meeting the standards set forth by the American Psychological Association) of Dr. Fraga’s unethical and illegal declaration filed with the Sonoma County Superior court 3.18.11:
J. Holden, PhD
Clinical Psychologist
Ca. Lic. PSY14333
Diplomate American Psychotherapy Association Diplomate American College of Forensic Examiners
Board Certified Behavior Analyst
(707)391-7247 3810 Lakeshore Blvd Lakeport,CA 95453 jholden@pacific.net
Friday, June 7, 2012
TO:Honorable Judge Nancy Case-Shaffer
Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma
Santa Rosa, CA
RE:STANDARD OF PRACTICE EVALUATION
REGARDING 3/18/11 MICHAEL FRAGA, PhD DECLARATION
In Dewitt Barker v Shannon Barker
SFL-53925
DECLARATION OF J. HOLDEN, PhD
Your Honor;
I have been retained by Dewitt Barker, petitioner in the above-referenced child custody matter. I have been specifically asked to review and comment on the standard of practice exercised in the 3/18/11 declaration of Dr. Michael Fraga, PhD, which included Dr. Fraga’s conclusion, opinion, and recommendation regarding Mr. Barker’s current state of mental health and regarding Mr. Barker’s access to his daughter. Dr. Fraga’s declaration was made in rebuttal to the 3/16/11 declaration of Dr. Jacqueline Singer, in which she states that she was retained by Mr. Barker’s attorney specifically “to evaluate Dewitt Barker and render opinions about Mr. Barker’s mental health, diagnosis and potential dangerousness to his daughter.” Although Dr. Fraga’s declaration references “the initial custody evaluation by Dr. Singer”, in fact Dr. Singer did not perform such a custody evaluation.
Dr. Fraga’s declaration concluded with his recommendation and opinion that Mr. Barker was currently mentally unstable and that “I am not in agreement with the proferred stipulation of unsupervised visitation at this time.”
I am a licensed psychologist and Diplomate of the American College of Forensic Examiners, with training and experience in psychological evaluations and child custody evaluations (see Exhibit A, curriculum vita). In performing this standard of practice review of Dr. Fraga’s declaration, I referred first to the California Board of Psychology’s ethical standards. Section 2936 of the California Business and Professions Code specifies that “The board shall establish as its standards of ethical conduct relating to the practice of psychology, the ‘Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct’ published by the American Psychological Association (APA). Those standards shall be applied by the board as the accepted standard of care in all licensing examination development and in all board enforcement policies and disciplinary case evaluations.”
In addition to their Ethics Code, APA has published relevant guidelines and standards in “Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings” (American Psychologist, Dec. 2010). Dr. Fraga’s review of Dr. Singer’s declaration appears to fall short on at least two elements of standard practice as articulated by those guidelines (p.866).
First, those guidelines specify [emphases added] that “multiple methods of data gathering enhance the reliability and validity of psychologists’ eventual conclusions, opinions, and recommendations.” In the present case, Dr. Singer’s conclusion, opinion, and recommendation contained in her declaration is based on “my interview, observations, review of records and collateral contacts” including Mr. Barker’s treating therapist as well as the results of administration of the Rorschach test. On the other hand, Dr. Fraga’s conclusion, opinion, and recommendation are based on what he describes as “a cursory review of the significant matters in this case as outlined solely in Dr. Singer’s declaration and the Supplemental Declaration of [Respondent] Shannon R. Barker.” Dr. Fraga indicates that he received Dr. Singer’s declaration “late” on the day prior to submitting his own declaration. He states that he had “not had the time and/or opportunity” to review any medical records or other sources of information before offering his conclusion, opinion, and recommendation that Mr. Barker is presently mentally unstable and should not be given unsupervised visitation at this time. This declaration regarding Mr. Barker’s psychological characteristics was made without ever having met Mr. Barker to evaluate his current mental functioning, which violates APA Ethics Code Section 9.01b, which states in part that “psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions.” Instead, Dr. Fraga’s conclusion and opinion of Mr. Barker’s mental status appears to have been based almost exclusively on allegations made in the 3/10/11 declaration of the opposing party to this matter, Mr. Barker’s ex-wife Shannon Barker.
In addition, Dr. Fraga’s declaration appears to violate the APA guidelines which state that “when psychologists are not conducting child custody evaluations per se, it may be acceptable to evaluate only one parent, or only the child, or only another professional’s assessment methodology, as long as psychologists refrain from comparing the parents or offering opinions or recommendations about the apportionment of decision making, caretaking, or access. Nonexamining psychologists also may share with the court their general expertise on issues relevant to child custody (e.g., child development, family dynamics) as long as they refrain from relating their conclusions to specific parties in the case at hand. “ Dr. Fraga’s declaration clearly offers his conclusion, opinion, and recommendation regarding Mr. Barker’s state of mental health and Mr. Barker’s access to his child.
Thus, it is my professional opinion that Dr. Fraga’s declaration falls below the standard of practice for psychologists in such matters.
Respectfully submitted,
J. Holden, PhD