There has been much discussion on this site, in comments on other sites and even in editorials referencing the man behind the curtain. Today’s Judicial Council, with a few notable and hopefully promising exceptions does not appear to deviate much from the Judicial Council of a few years ago. However, it is wholly conceivable that soon we might actually witness the assembly three dissenting votes! Huzzah! We’ve come a long way, baby!
While we no longer have people like Richard Huffman or King George sitting on the council openly insulting critics, I think it is important to note that they and others continue to remain the power brokers in Judicial Branch politics. Just appointed to the position of executive director of the AOC we have taking the helm the woefully under-qualified Mr. Steven Jahr who not too long ago basically indicated that judicial branch critics were so full of it that their eyes were brown. “But I did that as a private citizen” he tells us.
So he’s flip-flopped now and we’re supposed to believe that is a credible, honorable act? It was no more credible when Mr. Kerry did it. It was no more credible when the Chief Justice did it and frankly all three flip-flops were outright embarrassing to their respective constituencies and gasoline for the fires of critics.
Then there was the decision made by the Central Politburo to have the Ministry of Truthiness make an after-hours announcement after lining up the “brilliant choice” and “we had the best leader in our own back yard” comments. Mainstream media rapidly caught on to the release regarding the appointment of Mr. Jahr to an agency under fire but there are several reasons they (nor we) didn’t and/or couldn’t scratch the surface to see what lies beneath. The timing of his announcement had the intended media consequence of mostly turning the focus away from an outright judicial branch revolution to the thought that the right man has been selected to put out the Hindenberg fire.
Little do they know that he only brings only a glass of water to the table – and he intends to drink it.
Good luck there buddy. The train of revolution is rolling your way and we happen to be occupying the same set of tracks. Unfortunately for you that mile-long, fully laden freight train has grown from its humble roots of marginalized dissent into a roaring lion; the king of the jungle. All the while King George supporters including Mr. Jahr are beginning to look more like backers of George of the Jungle.
.
.
While there remains a significant presence of King George loyalists throughout the branch, we think it is safe to day that the so-called legacy of King George and his purported accomplishments amount to a 15 year game of three card monte. For every new central courthouse you open, several other courthouses will be closed down, shuttered or fall into a state of unsafe disrepair due to a lack of operating and maintenance funds. We’ve shown just one example where millions were spent to fix a building and permitted to immediately fall into a state of disrepair. This is happening statewide. While Judges would get the benefit of salary increases and SBX211 exoneration, they would lose their ability to independently command the courtroom through a myriad of circumstance, relegating most to in-chamber mandatory settlement conferences and other tasks.
Thousands of court employees would lose their jobs serving the people in pursuit of funding the now failed legacy that is CCMS. Those in power wish to blame us for their failures, for if we just had remained silent and permitted them to siphon off up to 3 billion dollars to digitize every court record in the state, they would have been able to deliver to you the judicial nirvana of venue transparency.
And it would only cost you about x% of your courts annual budget for AOC clawbacks, fueling the fire of providing the only solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, more commonly known as a racket and racketeering. One only needs to only look at recent AOC improprieties and follow the money before they time out the statute of limitations, which is their only real goal at this point. Sadly, AOC management commits another RICO crime on a routine basis and the judicial council permits it to happen. The courts feel powerless to act wanting to keep this war out of the decorum of the courtroom less it paint the judiciary in an unfavorable light.
And that’s a big problem and why any financial crime committed under this scheme is the perfect crime.
Nobody can investigate it, even though every major indicator is present going back for a dozen years. Nobody can prosecute it if no one can investigate it. Thus far, nobody has successfully argued the issues in any court of law and we all know it would be overturned by the “old court system” regardless of the decision anyways. This would only serve to paint the poor judge as a target for Judicial Council & power broker retaliation and AOC to court funding cuts.
What makes this all a fascinating story is that judges themselves cannot come out and say “Hey, that is illegal, unlawful or unconstitutional” so there exists this natural void between judges and mainstream media because if they are unwilling to say it, mainstream media is unwilling to investigate it. Yet you can and all have bared witness to all of the press and media building the media files of anecdotal evidence that all points to a series of suspiciously monumental problems that are always solved by the time the media story breaks. Snapshots in time. New program management that is the same as the old program management. Situations resolved of actual impropriety by retaliating against those that brought it up. Software that works, just not in any court. $2,000.00 light bulbs, because your ignorance of real world maintenance costs permits it and they point out that you don’t understand. And so on and so forth.
Would a few retired judges be able to outline the indictment, share it with the press and endure the fallout?
While the SEC report was a remarkable document, it is what it did not say that was as equally remarkable because it was largely composed by judges and justices. What we read in the SEC report with respect to Mary Roberts alone was carefully tiptoeing up to the line, thoroughly outlining the indictment in the most judiciously innocuous terms yet not being able to openly come out and say fire the bitch!
And it is because of this that Mary “The Lizard” Roberts is still there in the catbirds seat controlling outcomes by establishing and enforcing unwritten judicial branch policy much like any attorney for the mob would.
Imagine for a moment what a simultaneous report released by someone like, say, the Center for Investigative Reporting or Frontline might focus on if they were sitting in the same rooms and attending the same meetings and fact-finding sessions of the SEC committee.
Imagine how fast federal indictments would follow such a report.
All of this things happened under the watchful eye of those in power today no less! Uncomfortable but it is an indisputably accurate description.
So why have they consistently pretended to look the other way and tell us these issues are solved, in the past or don’t exist?
It’s pretty obvious to the thousands that read this site and the hundreds of guests that post.
There is something deeply wrong at the core of all of this yet those that know the most just can’t come out and say it. Don’t believe for a second that attorneys are disinterested either as we already share information with attorneys statewide that see the problem and are also trying to figure out a way to take down Goliath without running afoul of preserving the sanctity of the California courtroom and those that work hard to deliver justice every day. It’s a quandry; an infinite loop problem that ties everyone’s’ hands and keeps them mostly silent.
“How did this happen?
Who’s to blame?
Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense.
Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to King George. He promised you order, he promised you peace, he promised you stable court funding and new courthouses and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.”
“Thomas Paine”
Indeed, we are all to blame. It now falls upon us all to fix it and preserve access to justice. This would start with the democratization of the Judicial Council as something we can do.
Dan Dydzak
August 4, 2012
Great commentary. Notwithstanding “past” fixing of cases, Mary Roberts and others will NOW be sued in a new lawsuit including RICO violations and a Class Action. Mel Belli, Esq. hired me and he would have done the same thing. Judges are already waking up across the state and elsewhere; where a judge or judges impermissibly and unethically talk with Ms. Roberts and/or Beth Jay and others to fix cases, a NEW Belliesque lawsuit is on its way. And it will be shortly filed and the U.S. Supreme Court will hear about it. I still believe that there are fair judges out there that do NOT want to continue the King George reign. And they are speaking out loud and clear. GET the legislature to either ABOLISH the AOC completely and start anew, or, in the alternative, CUT OFF THEIR FUNDING AND MONIES. Mary Roberts and company will not want to stick around when their fat paychecks are cut off. Again, Ms. ROBERTS knows that my lawsuit is coming–and since she is such an unethical attorney, she will be named as the FIRST DEFENDANT, then RONALD M. GEORGE et al.
Assemblyman CALDERSON should be contacted to abolish the AOC or cut off its funding. In fact,this weekend I will shoot off an email to his Chief of Staff asking him to do that. Mr. Jar, are you listening? Keep up the fight. I
Cole Day Rain
August 4, 2012
This article was written well, and the ending hypothesis is something I have arrived at similarly. To what level can the racketeering machine be cranked up before things wobble? Greed and lust for more power see that machine cranked up passed safe (for judicial corruption) levels.
The result is the current inter-branch war like we’ve not witnessed before. What isn’t being discussed anywhere near enough is are the cases the AOC mucked with to cover its butt before all of this.
Where state authorities and prominent public figures have clout enough to be heard, the beleaguered yeomen class continue to get quietly sucked into the AOC’s court system like geese through a jet engine.
We’ve all seen that public figures are sounding off, but the People of California — YOU are still not being heard. Until such time, California government’s kabuki theater continues.
There is more than enough evidence to illustrate the CJ’s utter and competence — if not outright Bad Behavior. Where ate the mobs of properly outraged citizenry milling outside of Judicial Coincil? Where are the journalists, intent on covering the real story like in times of yore?
It takes more than agreement to make needed change. It takes action. And not just any kind, either. Until Californians decide to actually fight and sacrifice for each other (not just themselves) there can be no end to this plugged but flushing toilet.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
August 4, 2012
Hear, hear! CDR!!
GREAT piece!!
Although it all seems more like a Noh Drama to me, a Public-coalescence is perhaps a key component in supporting the Yeoman/JCW/ACJ classes in motivating the media…
The media tend to thrive on smoking guns and bleeding orifices. Covering Black Collar crimes usually get covered briefly (See Kids for Cash, Child-whipping and Penis-Pumping Judges), then, the stories quickly grow stale. Keeping an issue like this alive, with frequency and targeted reach, are other important components. To that, the JCW staff and commenters are our state’s heroes and healers. The media could celebrate that.
I “came out”… and as a direct result, against clear and convincing evidence, my daughter was illegally abducted (I allege) by JACK HALPIN and his local colluders under the protracted protection of the AOC/JC/CJ. A recent attempt was waged to do the same to my youngest daughter… It failed – in part, because I am now SO public with my annoying gabble and my singular Everyman campaign! There are MANY more of us out there.
Realizing that many on this thread get annoyed with my “Indicator Species” gabble, I continue to pledge myself (with my life, perhaps…) in helping to right the ominous and tyrannical wrongdoing trickling down from the Chief and HER colluders in crime – old and new – whom bring harm our children and protective families every day.
“We are each of us,
Angels with but one wing,
and we can only truly fly,
embracing each other.”
Good for you CDR and Dan, good for you!
My mirror is clearer,
and my children grow nearer…
Alan
Cole Day Rain
August 4, 2012
I sued the AOC for violating the public records act and also my privacy, and scant days later I was put on the Vexatious Litigant List in an action brought against me by the Fifth Appellate Court itself — the defendant was the court itself!
Despite Bodie v. Connecticut, the Elkins Family Law Taskforce findings and Mahdavi v. Superior Court, I was vex lit’d in a separate action brought by the appellate court itself for appealing rulings in my separate divorce case. The AOC is specifically tasked with administrating the Vexatious Litigant List so I am fairly certain that certain AOC insiders overreached their authority and manipulated state resources to stop me from filing. Why? Because whistle blowing on judicial corruption gets the AOC’s attention. And not in a good way.
I and an increasing level of others are waiting for the larger public to realize California ceased having a legitimate, integrity driven court system for some time now. Substantial effort must be made to ferret out all of those cases where the AOC used its control over the courts to manufacture judicial rulings in its favor and attack litigants unethically.
Anyone who believed the AOC’s incompetence is limited to “it’s the economy stupid” doesn’t espy the rest of the iceberg.
While it has provided me and others a modicum of justice and healing to see the Legislature stand up to corruption, the truth is there will be no substantial justice until the Legislature commissions public committees to investigate the AOC’s geometrically-proportionally expanding case-fixing which continues in earnest as I write this.
Until the Constitution lives and represents in what is still the AOC’s backyard, starving only one head won’t stop the other heads from feeding.
INVESTIGATE THE AOC FOR RAMPANT CASE-FIXING!!!
Wendy Darling
August 4, 2012
Case fixing at 455 Golden Gate Avenue? Sadly, not even surprising.
The State Legislature, or the Attorney General, of the U.S. Department of Justice, or any law enforcement agency, investigating the AOC for fraud or corruption? Now, THAT would be surprising. Given the Legislature’s, the Attorney General’s office, the U.S. Department of Justice’s, and law enforcement’s, demonstrated indifference over the last 4 or 5 years, however, to do any such thing, despite overwhelming evidence, chances are pigs will fly first and h*ll will freeze over – at the same time.
As they like to say at 455 Golden Gate Avenue: We can do whatever we want, because there’s no one to hold us accountable.
Long live the ACJ.
Cole Day Rain
August 4, 2012
There are a lot more pigs flying around these days do cross your fingers. 🙂
unionman575
August 4, 2012
http://www.sciarcalumni.org/?p=1875&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=administrative-office-of-the-courts-long-beach-courthouse-by-nick-seierup-b-arch-1979
JusticeCalifornia
August 4, 2012
Yes. The CJ and AOC and related others fix cases. Of course they do, because they can.
And lots of people have documentation.
JusticeCalifornia
August 4, 2012
I invite branch leadership to cry “foul” about this very serious charge of misconduct in “fixing” cases. I invite branch leadership to ask the BSA to perform an audit regarding these charges of CJ/AOC “fixing” of cases.
LOL, LOL.
Dan Dydzak
August 4, 2012
Ms. Darling and Justice CA, I have the legal mind and experience to call them on their “fixing” tactics. I will keep on suing where appropriate and per reasonable basis in law and fact. I will keep everyone apprised. Also, Assemblyman Calderon is being apprised of the situation. Thanks for all the support out there. It is comforting to know that the vast majority of JCWatchers are on my side in the battle. As I told you, K. Harris and her contribution to stealing of the 560 Mortgage crisis fund and illegal involvement in CA All are being exposed in litigation and she and her coterie of friends, such as that unethical lizard, Mary Roberts, are legally going to be held to account. Now whatever judges I am assigned in whatever case, they can either follow the law and CA/U.S. Constitutions or face the consequences of my legal remedies against them. Having improper ex parte communications is illegal and actionable. Luke Skywalker eventually won.
Wendy Darling
August 4, 2012
Please just call me Wendy. Ms. Darling was my mother.
And we all live for the day that the people responsible for the mess eminating from 455 Golden Gate Avenue, such as Mary Roberts, and others, are legally held to account.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
August 4, 2012
Just curious, didn’t the feds at one time take over some of the Pennsylvania courts due to corruption? I am just curious who has jurisdiction to investigate the AOC, which of course is not a court but part of the 3rd branch, and since the State AG said they lacked jurisdiction….who in the heck has it. I know this was discussed on the AOC watcher a long time ago but i don’t recall the answer.
Wendy Darling
August 4, 2012
That was the Pennsylvania “Cash for Kids” scandal, Flea.
And, according to the AOC and the Office of General Counsel, they have “jurisdiction” over themselves.
Long live the ACJ.
Dan Dydzak
August 4, 2012
The AG’s No. 1 client is the People of the State of CA and the AG is required to support the enforcement of the civil and criminal laws, as set forth in my disqualification motion in Dydzak v. Dunn.
Cole Day Rain
August 4, 2012
The AG’s number one client is the AOC against the People. The proof is at http://www.californiacourtshavefallen.webs.com.
Cole Day Rain
August 5, 2012
I know it’s frowned upon to discuss individual cases but I just found it telling (in the briefs filed in the finished case) that the AG’s office, which represented the AOC against me, defended the AOC by asserting that the AOC was not a state agency so was not subject to the California Public Records Act. When I then asked the obvious question, why then was the AG representing a non-state government-controlled corporation, they claimed the AOC was a state agency. The judge didn’t render a decision of any substance, opting instead to just say “Good cause appearing” as a legal basis for denying my case. It was obvious to me I was not going to get anywhere in a case so controlled by graft and payola. In a court system that wasn’t one. I don’t have anywhere near the legal savvy of Dydzak, but I feel I made a good point of illustrating something foul going on in the case. Not long after, the AOC had me vex lit’d through the back door to shut me up.
courtflea
August 4, 2012
Wendy, this was before the Cash for kids, this was back in the late 80’s early 90s I believe. Its kinda like the feds taking over the department of corrections here in CA.
Ha, leave it to general counsel….gee not a conflict ya think? Humm I say an outside opinion is in order.
Michael Paul
August 5, 2012
Mr. Peter Krause of the AG’s office outlined in a telephone call to my attorneys that which just happened (Jacobs would walk on the unlicensed contractor charges and AGS would go into adr and in the end, they would also pay nothing. )
In essence, I was informed in advance by the so-called prosecutor, Mr. Krause who represents only the AOC that this would happen and I put it in writing in advance of the actual trial to all of you – and the judicial council that this would happen.
I didn’t read a crystal ball to come to this conclusion.
According to my attorneys, only the FBI/USDOJ has jurisdiction in these matters.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 5, 2012
You might remember this little tidbit from february of this year where Hull, Rosenberg, Carlson and Miller all indicate “The Chief Justice, the Judicial Council and the AOC are all in this together”
It’s always quite fascinating to look back at other posts that in essence, wrote the history that is tomorrow.
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/the-aocs-priorities-for-the-new-year/
unionman575
August 5, 2012
Yeah we are all in this together:
Lando
August 5, 2012
Well said by the “insiders” . They are all in this together and look at the consequences of their “insular” “insider” rule. 1. Millions wasted on CCMS after the State Auditors report. 2. Delaying and reexamining the SEC report which finally exposed to the public the failings of the Judicial Council and AOC .3. Fighting AB 1208 and the legitimate reform it would bring to the branch 4.Delaying the process for selecting a new AOC Executive Director, hiring a nation wide search firm to identify candidates for the new head of the AOC,ignoring their process only to end up picking a retired Judge from a tiny county who has no actual relevant administrative experience. 5. Wasting millions on courthouse construction projects when courthouses all over the state are closing due to significant branch cutbacks that happened on their watch.6 A total failure to care enough to try and bring the branch together again, by pretending that calls for reform were merely the statements of a misinformed and insignificant number of rebel judges. Thanks indeed to the leadership of J Miller and J Hull on the Judicial Council. They can claim anything they want but the stark reality are the facts stated above. By the way, how much did the Judicial Council and J Hull’s group spend on the process of selecting Mr Vickrey’s replacement , only to find the most qualified man in the nation to run the AOC in Shasta County? Perhaps J Hull could provide the taxpayers of California with that specific information.
Michael Paul
August 5, 2012
I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the amount the executive placement firm was being paid was $200,000.00. I’ll have someone look it up to be sure.
The “we’re all in this together” commentary came out in an AOC managers and supervisors meeting with Patel, Hull, Miller, Carlson and Rosenberg.
There is an old naval security reminder that loose lips sink ships. I submit that this is one reason they’re trying to ensure everyone signs non-disclosure agreements and why “those that are in this together” will do everything they can to stay together. None of those people wants to lose their 125K+ salaries and the JC/AOC insiders don’t want any of this group to drive another torpedo into an already sinking titanic.
JusticeCalifornia
August 5, 2012
I would like to know the timeline re the completion and distribution of the “brochure” for the AD job, and the solicitation of Mr. Jahr.
I have also been told the Feds are the ones with jurisdiction over the branch.
However, check out CA Penal Code section 182.
unionman575
August 5, 2012
I just liove that grocery list Lando.
😉
Res Ipsa Loquitor
August 5, 2012
Someone on this site predicted that the executive placement firm’s “national search” was merely expensive window dressing to create the illusion of a national search, but the final result would be the selection of an insider from among the Usual Suspects.
I do not think, Justice California, that Steve Jahr was the insider they had in mind at the outset. JCW has posted that another, respected candidate was offered the job and turned it down. It would be interesting to know who that might have been.
I think Jahr was a last minute choice who was safe, loyal, and would follow orders. Sort of like the family’s pet dog.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 5, 2012
We knew what Hull and Miller were up to from the onset with a bogus national search. While we can find the notes related specifically to the national search being bogus and that ultimately an insider would be chosen, we also held the belief that it was our best friend down in San Bernardino that we were discussing as being that insider. On that call we’re only batting .500.
unionman575
August 5, 2012
Once Jahr “retires” here in a year or less…look for Mr. Radioactive Money Man to return from his plush digs in San Bernardino to Death Star Centrial in SF. His math skills are exceptional – nobody slides money around like that boy.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
August 5, 2012
JCW, I think you may have been batting 1.000 until the nexus of the State Parks fund scandal and Mr. San Bernardino being outted in the SEC comments for doing the exact same Enron-esque maneuvers with the AOC funds. Suddenly Miller and Hull had a candidate that was too radioactive (thanks Unionman!) to handle right now.
Unionman, I think you are spot on. Jahr will be around for maybe two years or less.
unionman575
August 5, 2012
“I think Jahr was a last minute choice who was safe, loyal, and would follow orders. Sort of like the family’s pet dog.”
Woo hoo Res – I agree!
😉
Wendy Darling
August 5, 2012
“It will be said by the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council that they searched the world over, high and low, looked under every rock, interviewed all qualified potential candidates, and low and behold, the most qualified person, and the top choice by all, will be an insider from within their already established orbit.” Wendy Darling, April 28, 2012
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 5, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/jcmeetings.htm
Next Big Top Circus / JC Meeting:
Thursday August 30, and Friday August 31
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 5, 2012
As always, unionman575 is correct. Jahr was a last-minute “selection” since the two people they really wanted were slammed so hard in the JCW. Word is they didn’t want to take a chance at this point and HRH-1 felt Jahr was a good “selection”.
As to Ralph Andersen & Associates, $200k would be a minimal amount to be in the ballpark for headhunting. Normally for statewide searches these companies want at least the equivalent of one year’s full compensation package for the candidate, which would certainly be far more than $200k. These companies have a stable of ponies that they trot out for these competitions, plus whatever candidate may individually apply for a given position.
I cannot believe that Andersen is too happy with the results of their “search”.
unionman575
August 5, 2012
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
August 6, 2012
This publication and our esteemed commenters express only the epitome of sweetness and light!
We would never denigrate the pages of this publication with scurrilous accusations and slamming people!
We just have a bad habit of turning over rocks and showing people the crud beneath them.
Wendy Darling
August 6, 2012
And who the crud is stuck to.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 6, 2012
ok, well there is that…
unionman575
August 6, 2012
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crud
unionman575
August 6, 2012
“We just have a bad habit of turning over rocks and showing people the crud beneath them.”
Funny we both have the same hobby JCW.
😉
unionman575
August 5, 2012
More devastating service cuts:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/68106-Placer-20120801.pdf
unionman575
August 5, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-aoc.htm
Judge Jahr Speaks with the Press
On July 30, Judge Steven E. Jahr participated in a conference call with the media on his appointment as incoming Administrative Director of the Courts. listen (22:30)transcript
Okay let’s get started, it is time.
Well good morning and thank you first of all folks for taking you’re time to meet with us. I’m much obliged to you. My name is Steve Jahr and I bring my trial court judging experience to some very challenging times. We have as you know, some serious budget issues confronting everyone in the state, the branches of government, and of course the Judicial Branch. Simultaneously we’re dealing in the Judicial branch with a healthy public self assessment process that was initiated by our Chief Justice shortly after she took office and which is now in the process of Council review and evaluation, and I look forward to participating in that process to ensure that the Administrative Office of the Courts which is a service agency, has the very best and most effective direction for providing customer service to the Council and to the courts throughout our state. And I’m happy to answer questions that you folks have. Please.
Great. My name is Paul Jones, I’m with the San Francisco and Los Angeles Daily Journal. And I have a sort of two-part question about the process. My understanding is that your name had come up before the committee searching for a replacement for the AOC Director, earlier on in the process but that they began seriously discussing pursuing you for the position in June or July. I’m just curious, when were you approached or did you approach them and put your hat in the ring
Yeah of course I don’t know the internal processes of the search committee and I would only be speculating concerning who they consider in what order and in what structure. I’d certainly invite you to contact Justice Hull who chairs that committee or chaired that committee as you know. But, in answer to your question, I can tell you that colleagues within the branch in the last few months inquired of me as to whether I would be interested in applying for the position and obviously I was more than a little flattered that they would think of me in those terms. More recently I was asked to really give it some serious consideration and so my wife and I began to view it through a very different prism. We took a couple of days to seriously assess something that had not been in our long-term plans and concluded that I could provide service that might be of assistance and so I offered my name to the search committee. And it was then that I had my initial contacts with the committee and the interview process began of course and I provided them with my resume, there after you’re aware that I was favored with the appointment of the Council.
Thank you.
Hi Judge. Yes. Hi, Ken Ofgang of the Metropolitan News in Los Angeles. Good morning. Good morning.
I took a quick look at your Bio on Friday and I noticed that you have lived and worked in very different parts of the state, and I was wondering how that relates to your taking on this statewide responsibility?
Well for whatever it’s worth that’s a good question because I’ve often thought that that fact that I learned to ply my trade in the Los Angeles Superior Court and then ultimately practiced law for some years before I became a judge in the Shasta County Superior Court and obviously the surrounding counties of each provided me with a good perspective on how the business is done in our courts. So I suppose the answer to that question is, that my perspective is one which embraces the experience of judges in large and medium and small jurisdictions as well as administrators in those jurisdictions and the particular problems obviously that arise in all have common features, but at the same time they’re different depending on population and all of those other considerations.
Thank you.
You bet.
Hi Judge, this is Cheryl Miller with The Recorder Newspaper.
Good morning.
Good morning. I’m wondering if you could tell us a little bit about what your role is going to be given that the SEC Report makes some recommendations about pretty significant restructuring of the leadership roles at the AOC. What have you been told about what your position is going to entail and how do you see that working?
Well, as I mention previously is a time of healthy self evaluation. The Council obviously, led by our Chief will provide the direction ultimately to the Administrative Office. [Julie Cheever has joined the call] Ms. Miller just to complete that thought, as I view it, mine responsibility will be to implement the guidance and direction given by the Council following this period of self-assessment and I believe also that I should provide obviously advice to the Council and suggestions to the Council in connection with that endeavor. But again and ultimately it is for the Council to set the course with the Chief Justice leading that process and for me as the soon to be director of the agency to see to it that we implement it for all the customers that we serve.
Ok, do you have anything more concrete that the Council has told you about? Is this going to be the same type of directors’ role that we saw from Mr. Vickrey? Is it going to change? What is it going to be?
No restrictions or limitations were ever suggested or implied during the interview process. My sense is principally from reports in the press, that the Council has an opened minded attitude about the self-assessment process and it will lead where ever it leads. But there obviously going about it in a very deliberate way and I saw nothing that suggested that there were any sorts of restrictions or limitations that were being placed on the position of the Administrative Director in discharging the duties that the director has.
Thank you.
You bet.
This is Paul Jones with the Daily Journal again. Just want to cut in with another question. Looking at your background, I believe that you were involved in the effort over a decade ago to sort of increase the central role of the AOC in serving the courts. I know that also last year there was the letter, a couple of letters actually that you wrote against bill AB 1208 that the Alliance of California Judges were backing that was going to restrict the Judicial Council’s funding discretion. I’m wondering if there is any concern on your part that because of those two things that there are going to be some judges like those with the Alliance who will view you has somewhat controversial. Is that something that you’re concerned of or aware of or do you think you’re going to be able to work with both, sort of I don’t know if faction is the correct term, both groups, part of the current political dynamics in the Judicial Council and court system.
I understand. What you’re talking about of course is the process of building and maintaining trust. I mean that underscores both points in your question. I guess I would observe that when I served on and ultimately chaired the Trial Court Budget Commission in those early days that you mentioned, there was an enormous amount of controversy as everyone knows as we transitioned from county by county funding of the trial courts to the funding through the general fund of our state. We had very significant differences of opinion as to how that structure should be established and the contours of it defined. I’d like to think that those who worked with me whether from the largest courts, smallest, in-between, rural, urban, suburban, will tell you that I offered an open forum, we had free exchange of ideas, we may determinations that we firmly believe were in the best interests of all the courts and that all the court were treated equivalently and we succeeded in moving forward in what was then a new system. As far as 1208 is concerned and the letters which I authored go, it’s important of course to remember that while I, like all of the judges in the state have my points of view, I authored those letters as a private citizen and I take my guidance from the Chief and from the Council. It is their determination, not mine concerning matters of policy of that dimension. So I suppose that in summation trust building is crucial, it was a duty that I had previously and it’s one that I view as being central now and also it’s crucial that there be an understanding that the role of a private citizen is one thing, the role of a servant of the Council on the Chief is another.
Thank you.
Certainly.
Judge Jahr, this is Julie Cheever, I wonder if I could ask you two rather mundane questions; One is, in the biographical information I’ve seen, I haven’t seen what you did before and after being a judge, so I was wondering if you’d mind saying that and also, then would you mind saying how old you are and my apologizes if you already answered those two questions.
Do I really have to answer the age part? Okay sure why not, I’m 63, I was born in 1948 and I’m sorry to report that in September I’ll be 64, but the clock keeps marching doesn’t it. As far as what I did before and after goes. Before, I served 12 years as an attorney in private practice, principally in civil litigation, half of it in Southern California and half of it in Redding, in Northern California. I was obviously an associate attorney and I was also ultimately a partner and co-owner of a law firm with some very fine people as co-partners before I accepted my first appointment. Since my retirement, I guess you’d say I’ve caught up on my reading. I’ve had a good opportunity to recreate and interestingly, first in decades opportunity to really engage in some reflection and observations which has been, I have to tell you, a treat.
Thank you very much.
Certainly.
Hi. This is Cheryl with the Record again. Just curious, you live in Redding. Are you going to be moving to San Francisco to take this job full time, how’s that going to work?
Well Redding’s home. My wife and settled there more than 30 years ago, didn’t know anybody when we arrived. We were welcomed and we very much enjoy our life in Shasta County. But I’m not going to be working from a distance so my expectation is and this is something obviously that we have ahead of us that we must work on instantly to take a second residence near work so that the work that I need to do which obviously is in-person and close-up can be done efficiently. I’m not planning on, in other words commuting long distances from Redding back and forth. That wouldn’t be good service would it?
I suppose I should add in response to the earlier question that was posed concerning what I’ve done since retirement. I know you folks have reviewed materials that have been provided to you and I’m sure you’re aware that I was a volunteer since my retirement in several capacities for both my former trial court concerning its court construction project which of have course is now on hold due to budget matters, and also continued as a volunteer on certain task forces. I, for example, have been a member of the emergency response and security task force of the Council. I’ve also made presentations at Council meetings when invited on certain topics. So I suppose that’s a more complete conclusion to the question that was posed earlier. I’m sorry
Judge, I’m wondering given that you’ve already enjoyed some retirement, if you consider this job something that you’ll be in for the long term or are you more of a short term while the AOC undergoes changes and the Judicial Council decides what its role is going to be. Where do you see yourself in the, I guess, short to medium term?
[Is that Cheryl speaking? Who’s speaking please?]
Yes.
No one has suggested that they’re asking me to plug a hole or to come in short term and that certainly was not my view when I put in my application. My understanding is that the Council is seeking a leader for the Administrative Office with whom they can work well in continuity. I will serve at the pleasure of the Chief and the Council and view it as an open-ended commitment I suppose that’s the best way of putting it.
Judge Jahr, this is Paul Jones of the Daily Journal again. I know that one of the complications that the group looking for a replacement had was that some of the people they looked at were put off by the cost of living in the Bay Area various the compensation. I don’t know if what your compensation is going to be has been made public. Is it going to pose a financial burden for you to take up a second residence and work in this area?
Well it certainly increases my wife’s and my monthly expenses. Plainly, I will be compensated with a salary which I intend to earn for this job and so we will be able to afford those additional expenses. And you’re right it’s not cheap to live in the Bay Area.
Thank you.
Well, I’ll dive in with one more question. Maybe you can just tell us Judge why you decided to take this job. I mean obviously the position is in a state of flux, there is a lot of change going on. It’s certainly a very turbulent time for someone who has already had a full career. What made you decide that you wanted to jump in and take this job?
Well it is a time of challenge and to me challenge always presents an opportunity. I love the branch. I gave it everything I had for twenty two years and I want to see to it that the service it has to provide to the public if our society is to remain strong and healthy is able as it possibly can be and it seems to me that this is an opportunity to further that and under the direction of the Chief Justice who in my judgment has really stood out in these tough times.
And, do you have immediate goals, things you want to attend to first?
Well the first thing obviously that’s important to me is to establish a very open but well organized communication within the agency to ensure that direction is plain and clear and also to ensure that the messages from those who are doing the work in each of the offices of the agency comeback to the executive office clearly so that we can ensure that we’re providing the services necessary that are compass course is clear and that we provide predictable and consistent service to the Council. I think that those are concepts that frankly apply to any organization private or public, and I’ll start there. With regard to particulars and specifics, I know you know because I’ve said it already that the period of listening and learning that I am just embarking on today in advance of taking office on October 8th will be intensive. I intend to get up to speed so that I can hit the ground running as the old saying goes on October 8th and it will be at that time that I obviously will be prepared to make more specific proposals and recommendations.
In that case then, one dichotomy that submerged in the debate over the AOC and its function and was mentioned in the SEC report, which I’m assuming you’ve looked over by now to some extent…
I read it is a private citizen and I read it carefully I even outlined it, go ahead, I’m sorry.
…Oh no, that’s fine thank you for that clarity. One of the issues that was brought up, there were accusations made at least and the SEC report somewhat agreed with them, not to be over simplistic here, that it had taken on a position that was not as focused on service as some people felt that it should be. Do you see the AOC has having a role in helping to regulate and manage the courts a bit or do you see it has fundamentally just a service provider to the courts in terms of your philosophy or is all of that going to be dictated by the Judicial Council and the Chief Justices position?
Well it seems to me that of course, the Administrative Office can provide information to the Council to assist it in making sensible decisions in terms of the guidance of the branch just as our trial courts are solicited by the Council to provide information. In the end when the Council makes its decisions and determinations it is incumbent on the Administrative Office to implement them, to carry them out. I don’t see the Administrative Office as having a role independent of the role that I’ve just summarize. I do see it as being a customer service agency first and foremost obviously to the Chief and to the Council and obviously and importantly to our courts
Thank you.
Certainly.
Have we covered it folks?
Well folks thank you once again very much for taking your time. Obviously we have some real challenges having to do with obtaining adequate funding to ensure that the citizens continue to have equal access and that we improve equal access those are the big challenges of the day and ensuring that the Administrative Office delivers it services in an efficient and effective way. Those are things that I’m dedicated to accomplishing and look forward to speaking with you in the future as we work toward those ends.
unionman575
August 5, 2012
Kings Case Management System Replacement; RFP #4-12-Kings:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18736.htm
Court Clerk Training Institute RFP #ASU TD 028:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18739.htm
unionman575
August 5, 2012
Time to generate cash for a new case management system in Kings while reducing services further…hmm…locked in the Death Star’s grip…
http://www.kings.courts.ca.gov/Lemoore%20Closure/Lemoore.asp
unionman575
August 5, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/483.htm
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 5, 2012
I understand that the current CJ recently gave a speech in which she described all the “difficulties” she encountered starting out as a lawyer. Apparently she talked about things like how she was confused with court reporters and clerks. She allegedly said that when giving closing arguments, she never discussed substantive issues for the first 5-6 minutes because she knew the jury was thinking what is a young Filipina doing up there.
If these statements attributed to the CJ were in fact made by her, I’d offer the following.
1. She graduated from law school in 1984. Due to a “tight job market” she was happy to get a job with the Sacramento DA’s Office. By 1984, I’d bet 30-40% of the DA’s Office was comprised of women lawyers.
2. The comments may have applied to a women practicing in the 1960’s, maybe even the early 1970’s, but by the mid-80’s there isn’t a chance any of that took place. It also contradicts the earlier statements she made when appointed CJ.
unionman575
August 5, 2012
I like your style Nathaniel.
😉
Jimmy
August 5, 2012
Although I cannot address the difficulties, if any, experienced by the CJ early in her career, I can tell you that female lawyers in the early 80s weren’t always treated with equality. I know woman lawyers who performed equal work for less pay than male counterparts, women lawyers who were chastised by male judges for (horrors) wearing pantsuits in court and women lawyers who encountered glass ceilings in terms of being promoted, both in the public and private sector. Most of those women soldiered on and achieved career success, but it wasn’t always easy. I usually agree with your comments on this site, General Woodhull, but not on this occasion.
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 5, 2012
I don’t question that it happened. However it wasn’t the early ’80’s and there is a big difference between crap that I saw within civil firms and what went on in DA’s Offices. She only worked in the DA’s Office before going to work for The Duke. That wasn’t my experience in Sacramento during that era.
JusticeCalifornia
August 5, 2012
General Woodhull you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. And I say that as a female who started practicing law in 1986, just about the same time as our gambling barmaid. I have never encountered glass ceilings, and was always treated with respect by those for whom I worked. I have had my share of run-ins with judges, starting in Marin County (after practicing in front of a multitude of judges in other counties without problems), but that had nothing to do with my gender or clothing. It had to do with my ongoing refusal to accept bias, prejudice, misconduct, cronyism and/or corruption in the courtrooms of certain judges — and the protection/coverup/promotions/perks for bad actors provided at even the highest levels. Jack Halpin is just the latest example. . . .
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 5, 2012
I can certainly understand Jimmy’s position and story. My Mom graduated from a California State College in 1935 with a four-year degree in Business Administration. The only job she could find was that of a secretary to a lawyer. While an honorable job, that wasn’t what she was trained for. She served in the WACS in WWII and was front and center as a part of the Greatest Generation. My Dad taught me to judge people by their abilities and integrity. His best friend was someone who was “hit” on D-Day and spent over 8-months in a hospital. Although his friend was black and I was white, I never was taught to even consider the difference in terms of our race.
When I was granted the responsibility in the early 1970’s I did what I could to ensure that there would be no barriers in the organization in which I was employed. Our entity was one of the first to hire women and “minorities” before it was fashionable. Bottom line, anyone who was “qualified” got a job. I wish we could all go back to that ideal, rather than focus on the b-llsh-t that is being forced down everyone’s throat under the guise of political correctness. In my humble opinion, everyone should be judged according to their abilities and persistence. In my first job, which I got at age 12, my employer said “no” over 70 times. Finally, I think they gave up and found it better to give me a job rather than see me pestering them the next day.
Look to the do as I say and not as I do model that was followed by HRH-1. Look at the composition of the Judicial Council throughout his tenure in office. Not a real pretty picture given the overall composition of the State of California.
unionman575
August 5, 2012
Hmm…did she or didn’t she? Hmm…
‘I Will not Squander the Public Trust’ says Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
unionman575
August 5, 2012
I think she did!
😉
Cole Day Rain
August 5, 2012
She did far more than just squander it; racketeering comes to mind.
unionman575
August 6, 2012
RICO
unionman575
August 5, 2012
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/cantil011712.htm
Early Career
After graduating in 1984, Cantil-Sakauye worked briefly as a cocktail waitress and as a blackjack dealer with former law school roommate Cynthia Couglin at a Harrah’s casino while waiting for the results of the bar exam.
Couglin, now a Sacramento attorney, notes with a laugh that “what they wear up there now is quite different that what we used to wear,” as the new outfits are much “more revealing.”
Cantil-Sakauye says she had planned to find a job as a corporate lawyer, but “it was a tight job market,” and she was fortunate to land a job with the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office, since some of the externs for whom positions had been held did not pass the bar exam.
“At this point, I didn’t know where the courthouse is,” the chief justice relates. “I’d never seen, in person, a courtroom.”
But her first week, she was assigned to prosecute a misdemeanor DUI.
“The case was a drunk person leaving a bar and the witnesses were bartenders and waitresses,” Cantil-Sakauye recalls.
Fortunately, from her own experience, she says, “I knew what bartenders and waitresses do,” and “I knew from my own work there was no way they were watching one patron drink”—but “if that person was drunk, they knew it.”
Cantil-Sakauye says that “I knew exactly what to ask them,” during examination and cross, and she ended up winning the case.
Being a lawyer, she says, was an eye-opening experience for her, since she “wasn’t really used to questioning authority, or questioning anyone,” and she was “used to…letting people finish their sentences.”
When dealing with other attorneys, she says, “you have to jump in,” since “some…don’t observe periods or commas” when speaking—“and that was new to me.”
Cantil-Sakauye recalls thinking she was going to stay with the D.A.’s Office “forever,” and “struggled” with her decision to join the staff of then-Gov. George Deukmejian—her fellow “Person of the Year” honoree—in 1988. She worked for the governor as his deputy legal affairs secretary and as a deputy legislative secretary.
Before Deukmejian left office, he appointed Cantil-Sakauye to the Sacramento Municipal Court, where she became its youngest judge in 1990.
“I admired all the judges in Sacramento County,” she says, reflecting “it was such a magnificent bench,” so “it was kind of scary” to join them.
The chief justice says she feels “gifted to be given such good people” to work with on the court, describing them as “so gracious and generous” to her.
One of them was Judge Cecily Bond, whom Cantil-Sakauye terms a “larger than life judge.”
She and Cantil-Sakauye served on the Sacramento Superior Court bench together, and Bond says her first impression of the future chief justice was of a “vivacious, articulate and bright young woman who I hoped would go a long way.”
Bond, now in private dispute resolution, says “it is not surprising to me” that “she certainly did.”
The chief justice, Bond relates, has “always been a very good multi-tasker,” and she predicts this “will stand her in good stead” in light of the multitude of duties and obligations Cantil-Sakauye bears in her role as the head of the judiciary.
unionman575
August 5, 2012
The chief justice, Bond relates, has “always been a very good multi-tasker,” and she predicts this “will stand her in good stead” in light of the multitude of duties and obligations Cantil-Sakauye bears in her role as the head of the judiciary.
http://www.jokeroo.com/videos/cool/funny-multitasker.html
courtflea
August 5, 2012
N Woodhull, I am sorry to report that women were still confused with clerks and court reporters in the 90’s. I worked with a female Judge who during a court recess was conferring with her clerk (in her black robe I must add here) when she was approached by a male attorney asking her clerical related questions. She attempted to direct his questions to her clerk but he instisted on pestering her. She finally had to ask him why he thought she was wearing the black robe. Perhaps he thought she was singing in the choir or was graduating from college. The jerk still did not get it. To this day wheather meeting a entry level clerk or a judge I treat them all with the same respect.
I agree that our Cj is probably just a big whiner. But I just had to share the story. Perhaps the CJ should have worn power suits. 🙂
Cole Day Rain
August 5, 2012
Of the many judges I’ve met from the superior court up, Extremely few were worthy of respect. Conversely, administrative law judges appear to be far more competent. Women’s lib movement was over by the 80’s. Now the discrimination is against men. Reversal is typical throughout history.
I’d rather get back to the AOC topic.
Wendy Darling
August 5, 2012
Whatever the reality was 30+ years ago, the reality today is that she is the Chief Justice of the California Judicial Branch, and her lack of leadership, and of permitting a “culture of control” and a practice of being “less than truthful” continue unabated at 455 Golden Gate Avenue is inexcusable and unacceptable.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
August 5, 2012
But N Woodhull, I am way with you on the political correctness crap. But the CJ would get more respect if she dropped the “little black dress’ with no sleeves!! I am sorry but I have never seen a female judge or attorney or a court administrator dress so casually. And I have worked in some of the hottest parts of the state. Maybe that is what they do in the Phillipines but honey, you are not there now or working the cocktail hour. No panty hose is ok but no jacket?and NO sleeves??!!! please, did you ever see any Chief Justice wearing shirt sleeves and no tie much less SLEEVLESS to address a group of whoever (wow that paints a picture HRH 1 in a wife beater T)??? Please read dress for success Tani. How you dress is part of how you let people know they are important when you address them. Hell, even Janet Reno wore a jacket albeit with short sleeves and she was from Florida and worked in D.C. No excuse in California weather for a sleeveless number. Ok my channeling Mr. Blackwell is over now.
Lando
August 6, 2012
Thanks Woodhull for putting things in a proper perspective. By the mid 1980’s there were many women lawyers in court and I saw them treated no differently than the men. Governor Deukmejian was great in appointing and or elevating many tremendous women judges. Thanks should also go out to Justice Baxter for his contributions in this area as the then Judicial Appointments Secretary . The current Chief’s complaints ring hollow particularly given the fact she was appointed a Judge by Deukmejian in 1989 a mere 5 years after she started practicing law.
The OBT
August 6, 2012
This stuff about the CJ being discriminated against decades ago, true or not is now irrelevant. She has achieved great success in her career and she deserves credit for that. What she doesn’t deserve credit for is the arrogant and incompetent way she has administered the branch now. Please implement the SEC report so the branch can move on in a positive way.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 6, 2012
Good Morning California!
It’s been about five days since the AOC posted what appears to be the last of the comments on the SEC report.
While we’ve been able to see the initial comments outside of the SEC report from the true believers that wish to convince you the best possible man was chosen for the job, it appears that the rest of the judicial branch may not be convinced. Maybe they have caught on to what is really going down and that the old state court system and most of their compromised players appointed from the trial courts continues to want to retain and flex their their power over the new state court system that includes the trial courts.
While the new state court system (including trial courts) looks forward to the promise of new courthouses the old state court system is mostly occupying new or more modern digs built or remodeled in the last 10 years.
Comments have either ceased to be accepted or the judicial branch is so disgusted with this choice of yet another insider that they’ve broken off contact and abandoned all hope that this group of numbskulls called branch leadership intends to implement any of the most meaningful parts of the SEC report.
What’s apparent over at the AOC is that Jody Patel is indeed reorganizing in classic AOC style and more are being promoted into manager/supervisor ranks. While it is impractical to make the organization more top-heavy, that’s exactly what is happening.
We’re guessing that it must be time for another study.This one will be commissioned by the AOC and a contractor that wants to stay on the AOC study train will be giving glowing recommendations to expand the AOC. Under Mr. Jahr, this will include taking over all county probation and parole as yet another important service the AOC offers.
JusticeCalifornia
August 6, 2012
Naughty, naughty courtflea. Now we may hear from Martha about how we are talking about clothes. And truth be told, I was going to argue with you, as I have been known to wear a black sheath dress with nice pearls to court a time or two. (Now Ron George showing up in a wife beater. . . ..yikes.) But I did remember being surprised at the informality of the chief’s dress at the Law Day event, and looked for the pics.
https://picasaweb.google.com/115502364419935744642/CaliforniaCourtsLawDay2012?authuser=0&feat=directlink#
talk about a picture being worth a million words. . . .the pic of Scotland and Tani. . . .
Speaking of men-tors.
I am interested in anybody buying the notion that Tani had difficulties getting where she is. Let’s get real, shall we?
Tani had a very average educational background, had never set foot in a courtroom, and was working in a casino as a pretty gambling barmaid when [by her own account] she lucked into her first legal job. After THREE years of practice she began working for a powerful white male governor and voila! She was appointed to the bench! I would love to know how many judges in this state—male or female—ascended to the bench that quickly, with such limited LEGAL experience.
There is no question that there is still racial discrimination in the branch and in this state– there is.
But it appears that rather than discriminating against Tani in any way, powerful white males have done her right all along the way.
The relevance of this discussion is that a) Tani’s favored (I’m a female of color born of immigrant parents and had a tough life) “poor me” tune is a disingenuous political ploy; b) I have personally watched her throw her support base (female immigrants of color) and in fact all parents subject to Family Court Services recommending mediation under the bus to please men-tor George; c) I imagine that to many, her selection as CJ is comparable to Jahr’s selection as AD and d) it is clear that the number one quality for ascension in Ron George’s unabashedly ambitious totalitarian version of the CA judicial branch is blind allegiance to the Team.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
What no one counted on was a revolution. Feather-lite credentials and allegiance to a corrupt totalitarian regime are now liabilities.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 6, 2012
We’ve mentioned that some get appointed to the star chamber because they did something wrong or illegal and rather than face prosecution, they are selected as malleable tools to be used by the power brokers.
In our ongoing investigation of how some of these compromised players got to the star chamber, we’re working on the story that will illustrate how our favorite hockey puck, Judge Dave Rosenberg got there. 🙂
Res Ipsa Loquitor
August 6, 2012
JCW — looking forward to the reporting on how certain players came to be appointed to the J
Res Ipsa Loquitor
August 6, 2012
The picture of Art and Tani . . . . well, Art should have/would have been appointed to the Supreme Court years ago, but for. . . . . He is Republican, a conservative, and well liked and respected within the judiciary. His only liability was that he was an older white male in a time when successive governors were making the face of the court more reflective of California’s people.
Tani was promoted, groomed and chosen not because she worked harder than others, nor because she was a great administrator. Tani is not half of the judge that Art Scotland is, and they both know it.
courtflea
August 6, 2012
Res, I agree Art Scotland would have been an excellent choice. but he is not a suck up. Sorry Justice CA, Mr. Blackwell screwed up a lot 🙂 most likely because he never wore a dress, in public that is. Great pics by the way.
yeah, JCW, who died and made Judge Rosenberg the spokesperson for the branch? he is always being quoted and sounds like an idiot to boot. I am looking forward to that 411.
oh its a wonderful day in the judicial branch neighborhood isn’t it?
Wendy Darling
August 6, 2012
Published today, Monday, August 6, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Last-Minute Judge Comments Urge Reform
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – Comments from California judges urging reform of their central bureaucracy continued to pour into a state website, with the governing body of the courts meeting later this week to consider the flood of robed opinion.
The big majority — roughly 90 percent — of the judges urge support for the fundamental reforms proposed by a committee of judges that include radically downsizing the central bureaucracy and taking away its role in setting policy.
Please do not squander this opportunity. Implement the recommendations immediately,” wrote Judge Bryan Stainfield from Kern County.
“I urge you to begin the process of implementing its recommendations as soon as possible,” Judge Jeffrey Penney from Placer County.
Since the unenforced July 22 deadline for comment, another 40 judges have published their opinions, with 35 of them pushing to enforce the changes proposed by the Strategic Evaluation Committee in a 221-page report.
They join another 400 judges who posted comments pushing for reform in the run-up to the deadline.
Included in the latest group are three judges from Riverside, Michael Donner, Kelly Hansen and Elisabeth Sichel. “It is clear to me that I needed to join each of my colleagues in the State who are urging the Judicial Council to accept and implement each of the recommendations that are expressed in the SEC report,” wrote Donner.
In another recent comment, Judge Harry Elias from San Diego wrote of the negative trend since centralization of court finances and rule-making – a consolidation that gave the bureaucracy an enormous amount of power – as part of legislation passed in 1998.
“After awhile, it seemed that the decisions of our court were being made more by the administrative wing of our Court than our judges,” wrote Elias.
From San Mateo, Judge Mark Forcum wrote, “Since 1998 the Judicial Council and AOC have sought to centralize judicial policy making and take control over the trial courts. The quest for more control of the trial courts hit a low point when the AOC tried to slip by a trailer bill that would have allowed them to select trial court Presiding Judges and Court executive officers. Incredibly the leadership of the AOC blamed this trailer bill on the Department of Finance which we now know was untrue.”
Forcum goes on to blast the bureaucracy and the council for abject management failures and self-indulgent spending.
Referring to the failed software project called the Court Case Management System, he wrote, “Since 1998, the AOC has been responsible for wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on failed projects like CCMS, unnecessary courthouse construction, management salary upgrades, allowing thirty of their managers to not have to contribute to their retirements and providing their managers with floating holidays, while trial court employees had their salaries reduced by AOC mandated furloughs,” he wrote.
Calling for action, he concluded, “Equally troubling is that the AOC accepts no responsibility for this incredible waste of taxpayer resources or the impact their wasteful spending has had on the trial courts now laying off staff and cutting back on necessary and vital court services. The Chief Justice and the Judicial Council must act now to implement the thoughtful well reasoned SEC recommendations. To dither, delay and pick apart the SEC report will only continue to undermine judicial branch credibility with the public, the Governor and the legislature.”
Along the same lines, Judge Stainfield in Kern County wrote, “When the SEC report was first released, I was heartened to know that my viewpoint regarding these many issues did indeed have a voice. Unfortunately, since that time, it has become clear that this well considered report is being viewed as something to resist, rather than a road map back to credibility.”
He continued, “The AOC was created to assist the Judiciary in the critical mission of dispensing justice. This is a mission at the core of what makes the United States of America different from all others. Nothing should be allowed under our Constitution to thwart this brave endeavor. For too long, the AOC has existed in a morphed state belying their original charter.
A more pessimistic view was reflected in the comment of Judge Candace Beason of Los Angeles, who said some of her judicial colleagues had not bothered to comment at all, believing that the council would ignore them.
“I have spoken with several colleagues who did not submit their comments. I was informed that they did not submit them because their past dealings with the AOC and Judicial Council’s request for input has been a waste of time,” wrote Beason in a recent posting. “All three remarked that they believed this was just a stalling technique and nothing would be done. They believe it was all a waste of time.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/06/49035.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 6, 2012
I gather that what was starting to come in regarding Mr. Jhar was less than a glowing tribute so they cut off comments.
JusticeCalifornia
August 7, 2012
From the above 8/6 CN article –
“Comments from California judges urging reform of their central bureaucracy continued to pour into a state website, with the governing body of the courts meeting later this week to consider the flood of robed opinion.”
does anyone know the date and time of this week’s meeting?
Judicial Council Watcher
August 7, 2012
We reminded late last week that E&P indicated they would “start reading the comments” on Thursday, the 9th. I think it’s pretty clear by Millers actions and words that he isn’t going to give anyone but the response they themselves orchestrated much of a voice. Mr. “We’re all in this together” will be demonstrating why he should be out of a job too.
Curious
August 7, 2012
8/30 and 8/31. Supposedly, the public comment portion will be sometime on 8/31.
Dan Dydzak
August 6, 2012
It appears that CJ Tani lives in the same Nob Hill condo as R. George and I wonder if she pays any rent or puts it through the AOC gratis. Given that I have credible information that R. George cavorted with “party girls”, apparently on the government nickle–including confirmation with a Bay area escort– one has to wonder why he commutes to San Francisco so often when his home base is Beverly Hills. C J Tani lets her husband stay home in Sacramento with the kids during the week and hangs out with R. George. You draw your own conclusions and how she pulled all sort of considerations to get her job. Remember, R. George lobbied for her and did not put Baxter as CJ, so one has to wonder about aspects of their “relationship”. In addition, my sources tell me she is cozy with her money-manager, a well-heeled Middle East-American, who was a favorite of the Marcoses in assisting with money-laundering George could therefore count on her to be quiet and be an ally re AOC conversion of funds. Have you ever heard CJ Tani utter one criticism of any George ally, such as Terry Friedman or Vickrey or Overholt? A very cozy “relationship” indeed.
Word has it that many very prominent LASC judges are angry that Ms. ‘Lizard” Roberts, the Judicial Council and AOC, are not willing to call Mr. Thor home from Switzerland–very angry.
Mr. Jar, what are you doing about Mr. Thor? Nothing.
I have recent new info that George’s favorite consigiliere — other than his son– one Thomas V. Girardi tried to unsuccesfully compromise a high profile attorney with integrity with an offer of a lunch at the Chancery Club and “offers” of career advancement if that attorney went along with corruption. To his credit, that attorney did not compromise his ideals as others have.
Girardi-George-Roberts-Beth Jay-Alan Rothenberg–the money machine without integrity–Alliance Judges contact the legislature and tell them to abolish the AOC or cut off its funds.
Assemblyman Calderon has been contacted by me re all the illegal AOC activitity. I am upfront with Judicial Council Watcher, because I want to be able to sleep at night. I would rather fight the right fight than be “corrupted”. Mr. Jar. again, what are you doing about implementing the SEC report recommendations AND about recalling Mr. Thor from Geneva? Feel free to respond to my post and explain same. Thanks.
Been There
August 6, 2012
Who holds title to the Nob Hill condo? I am not trying to discount your information, Dan, but I can see a couple of scenarios where Tani stays there during the week but not necessarily as R George’s paramour.
JusticeCalifornia
August 6, 2012
Agreed Been There. I certainly would not draw the conclusion that Sakauye is a woman of loose morals because she stayed or stays at Ron George’s condo, if in fact that is true. (Although one could certainly argue, if she is staying at his place, with or without him, that this creates a conflict of interest– how is she going to sell her men-tor/landlord/friend-letting-her-use-his place down the river via implementation of SEC recommendations that are contrary to everything he stood for?) Dan, do you have documentary proof that she is staying at his condo? It is pretty important to be able to back up what is said here. . . .
Anyway, the point of my post from this morning is that as far as I can tell there is no evidence that Sakauye was discriminated against– in fact just the opposite. And I just think it’s silly for her to suggest, or for us to think, she “struggled” in her career when she was appointed to the bench after three short years of legal experience, and became chief justice of the largest judiciary in the Western World with a relatively light resume and apparently little to no relevant administrative experience. Period.
I do think she is struggling now, because she is in way over her head. As Jahr will be.
Been There
August 6, 2012
Justice California, I agree that as much as she tries to convince the public otherwise, Tani’s story of being a trailblazer for women in the courts just does not ring true. She, like many other lawyers who served the Governor as a judicial or legislative assistant, was rewarded with a judicial appointment at the end of the Governor’s term. And she was on the bench after three years of legal experience!
In the 1970’s women could be hired at the big name international law firms, but few made partner. And those who finally cracked the glass ceiling did it by working 90 hour weeks for 7 – 8 years, deferring parenthood and any semblance of a normal life until they were selected.
These women then went on to mentor those who came after them. These women were the real trailblazers. And I don’t think any one of them ever came back from court whining because someone thought they were a courtroom clerk or the court reporter. That just was not a big deal to them.
Cole Day Rain
August 6, 2012
I’m just tired of her femi-racist “I’m was born a poor filipino girl and look at me now” thing. Whether she’s male or female, regardless the hue of the human, it’s about competency. That’s my issue with her. She’s not only incompetent, IMHO she’s CROOKED and needs to go to jail much less go away.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 6, 2012
Public records indicate the CJ has a residence in The City – not on nob hill – so you might want to flush out that claim a bit.
Been There
August 6, 2012
I just went online and found it, JCW. It is a moderately priced (for San Francisco) condo in a transitional neighborhood. Perfect location and not likely to draw attention or criticism for ostentatious living.
unionman575
August 6, 2012
Correct JCW.
😉
JusticeCalifornia
August 6, 2012
I think we are getting down to the nuts and bolts of it.
Cole Day Rain, I am certain that you and I, and ever so many others of us on this blog and in the branch, would and could argue about a great many things. 🙂
But I believe we do agree (and it would be very hard to disagree) about this:
With respect to the ability to perform a job– especially one paid for by, and involving service to, the public–
“Whether she’s male or female, regardless the hue of the human, it’s about competency”.
Wendy Darling
August 6, 2012
Or the lack thereof.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
August 6, 2012
Hey, did anyone ever think that the AOC may own that condo?
Cole Day Rain
August 6, 2012
That is a good point of topic. I can tell you that from my own research, many would be surprised from whom and where the AOC gets its properties. I believe the State Controller would be the one to audit their budget and provide a list of who the AOC does business with (shifts money from their budget to another state budget for).
For starters, the AG’s office does property deals with the AOC/JCC.
disgusted
August 6, 2012
“For starters, the AG’s office does property deals with the AOC/JCC”
Gee, who doesn’t the AOC/JC have in their back pockets?
Been There
August 6, 2012
Flea, the property was purchased by the Sakauys — h & w, and then conveyed by them into their living trust.
When I first saw Dan’s post above, I thought the AOC might have a “corporate residence” somewhere in SF that was available to Supreme Court justices who do not live in the Bay Area.
unionman575
August 6, 2012
FYI-
Word to the wise…never give a property address here for any elected CA Gov’t official.
You will get an immedaite 24/7 OERS response
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/oers.pdf
Been There
August 7, 2012
Ah yes, Unionman, I remember when a certain acting interim something or the other came unglued when the great unwashed masses who visit this site were able to view his nice landscaping on Google Earth :).
I will not post the address, I promise.
unionman575
August 7, 2012
I posted and there WAS a response. NOt doing that again.
Dan Dydzak
August 7, 2012
I am not going to give the exact address in SF of Ronald M. George for security reasons. However, this is his MO re real estate with his son: three valuable properties in BH, beach home, possibly duplex in Malibu (part of same used to be owned by Girardi), condo in very good area of SF (and it is not exactly a poor area, near embassies/consul generals), possibly a yatch. Now assuming that R. George made around 500,000 a year in gov salary, how does he and his son own (either themselves or through the family trust) multimillions in real estate?
My sources went to quite some trouble to get this info.
And, remember, I said draw your own conclusions. In an article published in LA Times, Tani said she spend her week in SF for Court business and commuted to Sacramento on weekends where, apparently, her retired law enforcement husband and kids reside. It is surprising that she did not put her kids in a SF school and commute on weekends to SF.
If her family trust owns an unit in the same building as R. George, boy, she certainly made a lot of money from a humble background. Two residences on a Court of Appeal salary in Sacramento the minute she descended to the CA Supreme Court. Went from a humble girl serving cocktails and babysitting to a very rich person with two residences. As I said, I have a definitive source that indicates she gets financial advice from a very prominent financial advisor in BH. Mr. Thor might be assisting her with banking and financial advice.
Again, the “relationship” of R. George and Tani is so cozy that she dare not say one word against him or his retinue of hangers on. A lot of powerful men, married or not, like party girls or mistresses. A Bay Area escort confirmed with one of my sources that R. George paid for sex with her. Again, draw your own conclusions.
Been There
August 7, 2012
Dan, I personally don’t worry about the private lives of public officials.
I know where R George’s SF condo is located, and he and Tani do not live in the same building or even in the same neighborhood.
As far as whether the Sakauye Family should have relocated to SF, I am sure the cost of real estate and the desire to keep their children in their current schools were important considerations.
unionman575
August 7, 2012
http://www.criis.com/index.html
unionman575
August 7, 2012
Half the battle is just knowing how to seek info in an effective manner. Enjoy!
Cole Day Rain
August 7, 2012
What keeps bothering me is how emphasis is made regarding the “judicial” comments to the SEC report instead of PUBLIC comments, which are FAR more important. Aside from the fact that California has… like two legitimate superior court judges at the moment, does anyone really think the ACJ will be any different to the public than the AOC has been? NO long live the ACJ. While I’m glad there is the appearance of judges standing up to the communist centralized judocracy that is the AOC, it’s only because the individual counties are tired of paying the AOC’s ever-increasing tithes.
http://www.awardsdaily.com/blog/2012/08/03/meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss-vertigo-and-citizen-kane-both-still-the-best-films-ever-made/
I’m more than willing to believe there are judges out there who want to fix the judicial branch toilet so that it finally is operative and flushable for the people. Like the Easter Bunny, it’s just not reality.
Until I see public committees that, when checked into further, aren’t made up of attorneys, judges, social workers, and JCC staff, the judicial branch of California cannot be trusted. There have simply been too many shell games of that sort that have gone on thus far. Even the SEC report itself is “diet” compared to what it would’ve been had a committee of PUBLIC citizens versed done it (yes I still have faith in the public to basically be smarter than the archons realize).
I see no mention of public review committees being considered regarding any “reform” of the AOC’s pirate fleet. Until then, whatever political body that purports to control that fleet cannot be fully trusted. Ever.
When one considers the fact that the JCC never completed the mandates required for trial court unification (which, let’s face it, is the root of the AOC’s money scheming), said unification was never actually lawfully completed.
Like an oaktree limb with mistletoe in it, the branch cant be saved. I say we “create jobs” for the public by creating committees bent on rebuilding the judicial branch entirely, to include bringing recognizing the county courts HAVE REMAINED county courts, and bring back the municipal courts. The JCC was never a properly constitutional governing body never mind it was improperly added to California’s mighty morphin constitution.
I personally am completely weary of corporations being handed faaaaaaar too much power only to have them bloat into inevitable corruption.
LONG LIVE THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA! TO HELL WITH ANOTHER POLITICAL JUDICIAL BODY THAT CAN’T BE TRUSTED.
Janette M. Isaacs
August 7, 2012
“What makes this all a fascinating story is that judges themselves cannot come out and say “Hey, that is illegal, unlawful or unconstitutional” so there exists this natural void between judges and mainstream media because if they are unwilling to say it, mainstream media is unwilling to investigate it.” Comment: I beg to differ with this commentary! It is not that judges themselves “cannot” come out and say “Hey”, etc.” It is that our judges “will not” come out and say “Hey”, etc. Typically, when push comes to shove, our judges wimp out. It’s all about politics and the typical CYA scenario. My question is, when will our judges crawl out of the closet and take a stance against the AOC and the JC? Can’t lives on won’t street. Hey judges – get serious and cross the line by saying what you really mean without such euphuism. If you really want some exposure on this issue, call Leslie Dutton, Full Disclosure Network (310) 822-4449.
Cole Day Rain
August 7, 2012
Agreed. Until we see judges actually standing up and championing a return to constitutional administration of justice, nobody trusts judges anymore for obvious reasons. The California judicial system is darker and more insidious than most organized crime syndicates and everyone not only knows it, but is swimming in it. It takes only a moment to realize that after the torch and pitchforks are done with the AOC/JCC, the acrimony won’t stop and will turn on the next logical head.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 7, 2012
Welcome to JCW Janette. Judges are prohibited from commenting on pending or impending litigation. Outlining a crime or challenging the constitutionality of something (like coming out and saying Jack Halpin’s in-perpetuity appointment violates the law or the constitution and most likely both) might leave them commenting on impending litigation.
I believe that there are internal mechanisms to report impropriety but the kind of impropriety we discuss here is something they can’t comment on because if USDOJ ends up kicking in AOC’s doors tomorrow over all that’s been revealed here they’ve just commented on impending litigation.
At least, this is our understanding of things. Your mileage may vary. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear. Never check for a gas leak with a match. etc.( those in the know: feel free to correct us if we’re wrong on this)
Alan Ernesto Phillips
August 7, 2012
Ahhhhh… the good ol’ days…
When the corrupt were tortured hanged and beheaded…
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/08/07/when-the-financially-corrupt-were-tortured-hanged-and-beheaded/
(The afore mentioned opinion is that of the originator and in no way intends to suggest violence as a solution nor tarnish the glorified images of oppressors, tyrants, despots, bad bosses, crooks and/or common thieves, or fearful Historians whom rewrote history, living or dead. Member FDIC)
courtflea
August 7, 2012
I had always heard that Ron George was wealthy pior to his judicial experience.
Dan Dydzak
August 7, 2012
Courtflea, not the kind of wealth he has now. That’s probably a rumor he tried to promulgate so that when he had the vestiges and possessions of a wealthy person, it would not raise suspicion. Also, if he was wealthy before he embarked on the bench, why would he have to be part of major Rico activities? Persons born into money don’t usually have an incentive to steal.
Ronald M. George is likely going to default in my case. Not exactly surprising. This is the same strategy adopted by son Eric before E obligated to file a responsive pleading. If he is so
innoccent, why the evasiveness and reluctance to respond to a lawsuit. Given that R. George has tried to rig or fix my case, perhaps he thinks he is “above the law” and need not respond to a lawsuit. The rest of us are mere feudal pions … the normal rules don’t apply to him.