September 12, 2012
Dear Members:
This week marks the three year anniversary of the Alliance of California Judges. We thank all of our members for standing with us and helping us continue to grow. We have added members every month since our inception and we look forward to working with you in the coming years to continue the reforms we have helped to institute. To those of you who were present at our formative meeting in San Diego in 2009, we offer you our special thanks for your help in getting this ball rolling.
Meanwhile, we note the confusion engendered by the Council and AOC of late. On the one hand, the Council publicly preaches openness, transparency, cooperation and civility, and Council members laud one another at every meeting for their new improved approach. On the other hand, while the AOC granted an interview with a reporter to discuss the reimbursement to be paid to certain CJA conference-goers, a judge’s request for that same information was shunted to Justice Harry Hull, who requires that all correspondence be by U.S. mail. And, of course, this procedure is in place only for requests originating with the ACJ and its affiliated judges.
What if the presiding judges of the state, fed up with daily AOC demands/requests for information from the trial courts–including, for example, AOC surveys relating to the private sex lives of judges–decided to treat each inquiry as an information request under Rule 10.500? Does simple communication really have to be that difficult?
Our questions over the years have unveiled some very disturbing facts about the operations of the AOC and the failure of the Judicial Council to restrain its growth. Rest assured that, whatever roadblocks may be set up to deter us, we will continue to ask the tough questions to get important information for our members and the public.
Thank you for your continued support.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
___________________________________
From JCW and our sponsors:
A congratulatory note from those of us at or involved with Judicial Council Watcher – plus a heartfelt thank you goes out to all 450+ members of the Alliance of California Judges. You saw the issues and your professional association encouraged hundreds of other judges to attempt to right a badly listing ship. While the underlying foundation of this slow motion train wreck has yet to be addressed, you have asked tough questions and come up with disturbing facts that has served as the genesis for change.
And on that note we have Mr. Hulls purported reply posted in MetNews. Frankly, it is a chickenshit reply tantamount to answering a different question than the one asked in an effort to avoid the two points the ACJ sought clarification on.
MetNews “No inappropriate conduct by AOC lobbyist”
Okay, so you can’t have it both ways Mr. Hull. Either Mr. Child was lobbying all on his own which would be inappropriate conduct or our esteemed chief justice is lying her ass off and you just threw her under the bus.
Oh. Wait. There is the ever useful “there is no one truth, only versions of it”. I almost forgot….
M. Votaw
September 12, 2012
Although I am 100 percent on ACJ,s side, the use of epithets such as “chickenshit” and “lying their asses off” does nothing to engender confidence in the credibility and of this organization, especially one speaking for 450 jurists. It is no wonder there is a loss of respect in our judicial system. Please stop.
Wendy Darling
September 12, 2012
Well, there’s the old saying, “If the shoe fits . . .”.
Curious
September 12, 2012
Mr. Votaw, with respect, you make assumptions that I am virtually sure are wholly unwarranted. This site is a public website, not run, controlled, managed, funded, or moderated by the ACJ. On public websites, any one with a computer may arrive and use whatever language the moderators allow. Do not presume or assume that the posters here are judges, or members of the ACJ, and certainly not those utilizing the language of which you complain. You are just dead wrong on this, my friend.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 12, 2012
Thanks, Curious.
This site is not run, controlled, managed, funded, or moderated by the ACJ or any other judicial officer.
Curious
September 12, 2012
Having now read the article linked above which contains the question asked and Justice Hull’s response, there is no doubt why people are frustrated with the Council for its game-playing.
The answer is not close to being responsive to the question. In court, it would be stricken as non responsive and he’s be told to try again. He answered, not the questions posed, but one he asked for himself.
The questions asked remain: Who wrote the bill, and on whose orders? Who told Mr. Child to Lobby against 68085?
Further, his conclusion that all is well is based upon…? Who know! Facts known only to him, apparently, for he certainly did not lay them out.
But it’s worse. The trailer bill was written, admittedly, by AOC. Someone authorized it. Justice Hull’s finding of “no wrongdoing” implies rather strongly that either Mr. Vickrey or the former Chief justice authorized the conduct, and that therefore no one in the Office of Governmental Affairs was to blame.
Likewise, “no wrongdoing” re: the lobbying effort, if true, means that Mr. Child did exactly what the Council told him to do, and lobbied against the bill in question. I tend to believe that. Then we have the biggie…why did the Chief Justice profess support of the bill after the fact having instructed Mr. Child to lobby against it?
Justice Hull, in his non-andswer, perhaps has imparted a good deal of information.
Wendy Darling
September 12, 2012
Curious:
Report of the Investigation by Justice Hull in connection with lobbying regarding possible changes to a 2009 budget trailer bill:
1. Justice Hull telephoned Curtis Child and asked Child if he did anything wrong in connection with lobbying regarding possible changes to a 2009 budget trailer bill. Child stated “no.”
2. Justice Hull telephoned Donna Hershkowitz and asked Hershkowitz if she did anything wrong in connection with lobbying regarding possible changes to a 2009 budget trailer bill. Hershkowitz stated “no.”
3. Hull reviewed the proposed changes to the 2009 budget trailer bill, and found the changes consistent with judicial branch policy of hypocrisy, lying, obfuscation, marginalizing the autonomy of the trial courts, and the culture of control of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
4. Hull then concluded the investigation and found no misconduct.
Wendy Darling
September 12, 2012
P.S. Curious: Move to strike Hull’s reply to the ACJ as non-responsive.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
September 12, 2012
Sometimes you have to admit, a turd is a turd. You have to call it as it is. I think there’s a latin phrase for that … remind me, someone.
wearyant
September 12, 2012
Whoops! This should have been a reply to M. Votaw.
wearyant
September 13, 2012
It’s “res ipsa loquitur” I’m thinking of, if it can be torqued to mean “it is what it is.”
Wendy Darling
September 13, 2012
Res ipsa loquitor =’s the thing speaks for itself.
One Who Knows
September 13, 2012
It wasn’t the ACJ that said “chicken shit” or that the chief was “lying her ass off” – those comments were made by JCW.
Wendy Darling
September 13, 2012
And it’s the truth, even if rawly stated.
Long live the First Amendment.
wearyant
September 13, 2012
😀
Robert Turner
September 12, 2012
M. Votaw. I agree with your interest in basic civility (not using profanity). I think the AJC letter above was 100% civil. It was the Judicial Council Watcher who used those “epithets” you found distasteful. The folks who post here on JCW are not all judges. We speak freely and take advantage of the 1st amendment which protects our speach even if the AOC, JC, and Chief don’t like it. I think you should thank the JCW for providing this forum. I know I appreciate it to have a place to talk about the messed up, unethical, greedy, corrupt, insider, and power hungry folks who run CA courts. See, I complained without profanity. But I respect those who lose it and have to say What the @#$% is going on? The sentiment is the same. We want real reforms.
Congrats AJC on your 4 years. I am glad you are all speaking out.
unionman575
September 12, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/68106-amador-20120911.pdf
unionman575
September 12, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CFWFG_091012.pdf
The OBT
September 12, 2012
I can sleep easier knowing that Justice Hull conducted an ” investigation”. If I wanted to get at the truth of this issue I think I would have hired an independent and trained firm to actually conduct a full and complete investigation. I think it is pretty clear that someone in the AOC proposed the trailer bill language . Justice Miller admitted this at a CJA meeting last year. Does any objective person really think that some AOC employee out of the blue suggested this radical change in the administration of the trial courts. Does anyone really think that some random AOC employee would have also had access to the legislative process to amend a trailer bill. Until all of this happened I had never even heard of a trailer bill. As chief lobbyist at the time it only makes sense that Mr Childs or his office was involved at some level. The real question is who directed Mr Childs or someone in his lobbying office to seek the trailer bill language. I’m no rocket scientist but I think I have pretty good idea who made this directive.Sorry Justice Hull. I am not buying what you are selling and my guess is not too many other people are either. Justice Hull’s ” investigation” .Please add it to the ever increasing lists of exhibits supporting the need to bring democracy to the Judicial Council and 455 Golden Gate.
unionman575
September 12, 2012
Flip a coin,, spin a bottle, stand on our head….ahhhhhhh now it’s all becoming clearer by the second…
😉
Wendy Darling
September 12, 2012
Don’t forget “fall down the rabbit hole,” Unionman!
unionman575
September 12, 2012
unionman575
September 12, 2012
Next Big Top Circus:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/jcmeetings.htm
Thursday October 25, and
Friday October 26
Lando
September 12, 2012
Wait here just a second. What Justice Hull concluded was that the AOC lobbying office and Mr Child did nothing ” inappropriate”. In Justice Hull’s world nothing ” inappropriate ” could mean Child was following orders from a higher up or in Hull’s opinion nothing was wrong with proposing a bill to take over the trial courts management. Either way the good Justice misses the point again. The AOC has no business running the management of the trial courts. Justice Hull. His actions are rapidly becoming one of the strongest arguments for reform of everything at 455 Golden Gate.
Justice Barbra
September 12, 2012
Thank you to M. Votaw. Vulgarity or profanity are not permitted in a courtroom. Because judges post here under pseudonyms, may I make a suggestion that ACJ develop and get its own web page? Clearly ACJ coordinates efforts with whoever controls this website, and is comfortable having its logo and missives blasted as breaking news. It would be reasonable for anyone who stumbles upon this page to think that this is ACJ’s official website. If ACJ wants to be taken seriously, I would suggest moving off this forum. This site is considered by many people to be a joke, or the equivalent of Gossip Girl for judges. I do not regret posting, but I do think the tenor and content is often a poor reflection of the courts. Thank you and goodbye.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 13, 2012
The ACJ has their own official web page. A link to it can be found in the navigator pane to the left..
As far as coordination: We obtain many of the same releases that any other media organizations receive. Most of those organizations do not publish ACJ media releases, In fact,I don’t think anyone but us has ever published any entire release.
If you view our about and privacy page, this site is available to anyone – even those with views in opposition to us – to submit articles for posting. Occasionally over our past two years of existence we’ve experienced drive-bys where people don’t seriously contribute to the dialogue of this site but “drive by” to suggest that others may wish to get their news or information elsewhere.
Yet we say the things other media won’t cover out of fear of losing access. Their access is of an official nature, complete with groomed words and views. If we were to rely solely on other media outlets, one would be under the impression that everything is just peachy with the Judicial Council and the AOC – because they want to preserve their access.
Our access is raw and is of an unofficial nature. We don’t submit requests for information to the AOC’s ministry of truth. Public information officers are the last place we ask about anything, though those same public information officers will occasionally supply us with the same information they’re supplying MetNews, Courthouse News the Daily Journal or the recorder – the big 4 in the California legal news.
We pick up the phone and will talk to those we know who will give us the real story. Much of what we have covered here people looked at with raised eyebrows and disbelief, until some half-million dollar consultant or 14 month study by judges themselves simply reinforced what we’ve been saying all along.
We know for a fact that members of the legislature not only read this site but some contribute to it as well. The same holds true with some media outlets, many of whom are subscribers to this site. Some of those people post here that which would never be published by their own rags and use pseudonyms to do it.
As far as “tenor and content often being a poor reflection on the courts”, the moderators do a thankless job of keeping litigants who believe they have been wronged by the courts or individual judges in their own matters from coming here and turning that poor reflection into a bloodbath of complaints about judges and the courts. Some, like the litigants we discourage posting about their cases, don’t agree with it and feel they’re being censored.
My point here is tenor and content could be far worse without our moderation team. You can pay your 500 plus dollar a year subscription to one of the legal rags but most of those in the trenches day in and day out can’t and won’t fork over 500+ dollars to get groomed information about the AOC or Judicial Council. They would much prefer to get that information for free from either courthouse news or us.
We would welcome (and encourage) judges creating an additional source if they believe we’re not doing a good job but even if the ACJ stopped supplying their releases to us, it would not deter us from our mission. Our advantage is that we’re backed by independent media companies,the largest of which is owned by a former AOC employee, so anything posted here ends up on several hundred other websites. This unusual arrangement gives us substantially more internet muscle than even the ministry of truth can muster.
Our money is on the ACJ continuing to provide us their releases, primarily because we’re one of the only sources that publishes them in their entirety and they are read by as many as 4000 people each day off this site alone. Add to that syndicated reads from other sites and email posts that are re-mailed and the number easily is double that.
That is a whole lot of reading and a large following for a non-commercial site that also does not accept donations so it makes sense that the opposition would do anything possible to deter others from reading. AOC management regrettably does not control or influence this outlet in any capacity and it angers them that they don’t. Controlling the information is the only way to retain power and they know it.
Chipping away at credibility is a favorite past time of those in power. It is also one of the methods they’ve engendered to retain that power. Yet you don’t see any of the legal rags publishing stories about us or complaining about our tenor and content.
Finally, your thank you and goodbye and questioning the purpose of this site in other posts outlines your intent.
unionman575
September 13, 2012
JCW Bingo!
“AOC management regrettably does not control or influence this outlet in any capacity and it angers them that they don’t. Controlling the information is the only way to retain power and they know it. ”
😉
disgusted
September 13, 2012
Yes, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Your choice.
M. Votaw
September 13, 2012
@Curious. Thanks for the clarification. Duly noted. It is not so much being offended.
And I am big on fee speech. But if you want credibility. . .
Curious
September 13, 2012
Mr. Votaw, I do not disagree at all with the sentiment underlying your post. It is undeniably true that people are taken more seriously when arguments are made without profanity.
That, at least, has been my experience. I have made that point myself on this very site.
Not everyone in the world shares my views, however. Might be boring if they did.
Lando
September 13, 2012
That was well said JCW. I believe this website has been a huge contributor in the fight to reform the AOC and Judicial Council.JCW has been ahead of the curve on a number of issues including CCMS and many of the problems identified in the SEC report. Others here have provided valuable historical information and context to how and why the branch developed as it did. This site and the contributors to it have credibility. The result – many legislators,judges and branch employees at all levels rely on this site to help them understand the issues effecting us. JCW also represents the power and importance of the First Amendment. It is here that all within the branch are allowed to express their views. While I try to be respectful as most here are, every once in awhile some commentators in the heat of the discussion will take strong stands. This is allowed by something as significant as the First Amendment. I also like hearing from the other side. Justice Barbara , I appreciate your being here and while I disagree with you on some points , the whole point is that 455 Golden Gate needs to be opened up to a wide variety of views and that is what democracy is ultimately all about. My hope is that someday I can meet Wendy Darling, Flea, Curious, Woodhull, Unionman, OBT, Weary Ant and the many others here to thank them in person as they have had the courage and conviction to speak out and educate the public about the need to reform the crystal palace and our judicial branch.
wearyant
September 13, 2012
Thanks for your comments, Lando and JCW.
unionman575
September 13, 2012
http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27012:-new-lakeport-courthouse-clears-another-hurdle-in-latest-state-recommendations&catid=1:latest&Itemid=197
New Lakeport courthouse clears another hurdle in latest state recommendations
WEDNESDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2012 18:16 ELIZABETH LARSON
LAKEPORT, Calif. – The plans to bring a new courthouse to Lakeport are continuing to move forward at the same time as some courthouse projects in other parts of the state are facing delays.
Last Friday, following two and a half days and 26 hours of public meetings, the state’s Court Facilities Working Group reached recommendations on which courthouse projects would move forward and which would be delayed – some indefinitely.
Seven courthouse construction projects – two in Kern County, two in Los Angeles, one in Monterey one in Placer and one in Plumas – were recommended for indefinite delay, with 23 projects to proceed and move forward subject to funding availability or other considerations.
The new Lakeport courthouse was one of those getting the green light to proceed.
“It’s very, very good news,” said Court Executive Officer Mary Smith. “We’re excited about it.”
Smith said staff from the Lake County Superior Court attended the hearings last week in San Francisco.
Justice Brad Hill, the chair of the Court Facilities Working Group, said in a written statement issued by the Judicial Council that, due to the $544 million cut the state judicial branch faced this last year, the working group “was left with the deeply difficult and disappointing task of delaying necessary court construction projects that would have gone ahead under a better fiscal environment.”
Hill and the working group invited each of the 24 courts with one or more of the 31 projects to submit a proposal, demonstrating why each project should move forward with the branch’s limited funds, the Judicial Council reported.
In Mendocino County, a new courthouse project in Ukiah also will move ahead with site acquisition, with the project to have one less courtroom, the state reported.
The Court Facilities Working Group’s recommendations will go to the Judicial Council of California for consideration at its Oct. 26 meeting.
The Lakeport courthouse – a 50,000-square-foot, $55 million project to be built at 675 Lakeport Blvd. – made a short list of critical projects statewide.
It gained its place on the priority list due to safety concerns and space constraints state officials identified for the courts’ current location on the fourth floor of the Lake County Courthouse, located at 255 N. Forbes St.
Those quarters have become even more cramped since the Lake County Superior Court reconfigured its calendars and relocated Judge Stephen Hedstrom’s Department 4 courtroom from Clearlake to Lakeport in August in response to an anticipated cut of more than half a million dollars for the new fiscal year, as Lake County News has reported.
Smith said all of the projects that are moving forward – including Lakeport’s – will through an evaluation committee that will look for ways to save money when possible.
“There is going to be some scrutiny on the project, but it’s going to move forward,” she said.
Lakeport’s courthouse project plans have been approved; now it’s waiting for funding to move to the next phase, which Smith said is working drawings.
The Administrative Office of the Courts previously had planned for the Lakeport courthouse project’s groundbreaking and bond issuance to take place in the spring of 2013, with construction to be completed in late 2014.
However, that schedule has been disrupted due to the recent changes in the state judicial branch’s fiscal situation. Smith said state officials haven’t recently updated the project’s timeframe.
While the situation is uncertain due to the state’s funding availability, “I’m very optimistic that it will get back on track,” said Smith.
The list of projects approved at last week’s meeting will be posted on the Court Facilities Working Group Web site, http://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-invitationstocomment.htm , for two weeks for public comment, and later this month the working group will meet to confirm final recommendations.
Once the Judicial Council reviews and either accepts or adjusts the Court Facilities Working Group recommendations, projects slated to move forward will be reviewed by a cost-reduction subcommittee chaired by Justice Jeffrey W. Johnson.
“Given the current economic environment, we remain ever vigilant stewards of the taxpayer’s money,” Johnson said in a written statement. “I predict that those projects recommended for construction will face considerable reductions in size, scope and cost.”
Email Elizabeth Larson at elarson@lakeconews.com .
wearyant
September 13, 2012
I hereby apologize if I have offended any sensitive souls who might cruise by here with a few caveats, the first of which of course is the First Amendment. Next, my humble upbringing. I saw piles of [gasp] chickenshit pile up underneath the cages at my grandpa’s chicken ranch, the sight was not distressing to a young tot and is simply a part of life — although gramps should’ve raked under there sooner for cleanliness sake. The word “ass” is bleeped on TV, I know not why. That word is found in the Bible and denotes a donkey or burro, doesn’t it? Another word learned at a young age, having been thrown into Sunday School from the age of two until I was too big to force into going every Sunday. Also, what’s the big deal about an ass? We all have ’em and have seen ’em. The sight of a bare ass on that 50s Coppertone billboard ad, the dog pulling on the pretty blond tot’s bathing suit — did y’all faint dead away at that sight? Calling someone “an ass” is as common as calling them “a clown” and maybe less insulting.
I spent almost three decades sitting in courtrooms. Many, many times witnesses were asked on the stand to repeat vulgarities in their testimony and it came in as part of the evidence. It’s a part of life. It’s a part of our human experience in everyday life. It’s rough in the courtroom too for sensitive souls, but a weblog or website is not a courtroom to my humble knowledge. However, in deference to those horrified or put off by the very human vernacular, I will try to tone down my seething anger for the everyday game-playing activities of the JC/AOC/CJ Office that I feel are sending our justice system straight into the sewer.
unionman575
September 13, 2012
Ant-I have spent 24+ years sitting in courtrooms. As a result, I have developed a thick skin.
😉
Curious
September 13, 2012
Ant, you have never offended me for what it’s worth. You have a sense of humor that is very enviable, a great sense of the absurd, and a clear knowledge of the system. I think all a few folks are trying to say is that they agree with the sentiments expressed, but maybe they haven’t been around the block quite as much as some of the posters here. I think they are with you, and are just trying to say that others who make a quick pass by the site get turned off. People have differing sensibilities.
Frankly, I am much more offended by those who say one thing, and behave in quite a different manner. You know, talking out of both sides of one’s mouth, or utter evasion in the guise of cooperation. We see far too much of that in the confines of what is referred to here by some as the Crystal Palace. That is offensive–and damaging–in a way that simple vulgarity will never be. It is a shame though that some people easily overlook official bad conduct, but freak when it is described with a vulgar term. Whether it is called hypocrisy, dishonesty, sneakiness or something more colorful, it is dead wrong, and it continues to occur with regularity.
Wendy Darling
September 13, 2012
Well said JCW, Lando, Ant & Curious. The offensive and repugnant behavior is eminating from 455 Golden Gate Avenue, not here, on JCW. (And FYI, has Justice Huffman using profanity in an open meeting of the Judicial Council already been forgotten? No one took Huffman to task for doing that.)
Here at JCW, posters believe and practice calling a spade a spade, we don’t apologize for telling the truth, and we don’t believe is “shades” or “versions” of it either. If that’s offensive, get over it.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
September 13, 2012
Indeed, Wendy.
The ACJ has always comported itself with grace and reserve, even in the face of namecalling, insults and attacks aimed directly at the ACJ.
Here at JCW, JCW and posters say what others cannot say, and, with 4,000 reads a day, they seem to get the message across just fine that way.
The orchestrated utter lack of credible leadership in the branch under Sakauye and company is obscene. The waste and inept mismanagement under George and Sakauye is obscene. The obfuscation and misinformation dished out under George and Sakauye is obscene. The way the public is getting screwed is obscene. The fact that Team George appears to have thus far gotten away with everything short of murder is obscene. The fact that even after all the financial shenanigans involving waste of public funds that have surfaced not one of the three branches has undertaken a follow-the-money investigation of Team George is obscene.
What is not obscene: Calling out all of the above for the bullshit it is without mincing words or worrying about offending delicate sensibilities.
Many of the regulars who comment on this blog are warriors who have been and/or are in the court reform trenches, not diplomats. Based on our first-hand individual experiences and decades-long observations we predict what is going to happen and are right far too often.
This blog often scoops pretty much everyone and it also provides breaking mainstream news stories within minutes or hours of release (thank you Wendy Darling and Unionman). Important information is shared here.
Some of us who have posted regularly for a long time also endeavor along the way to entertain each other even if our humor is sometimes a bit on the sarcastic or rough side.
Thanks, JCW and fellow posters. I appreciate your way with words, and your way of getting out the word.
DAN DYDZAK
September 13, 2012
The dissemintation of views and information is important. Hopefully, the legislators out there are listening and will pass legislation to democracize the Judicial Council. Apparently, however, there are legislators who are affected by illegal contributions and don’t want to change the Darth Vader, what’s in it for me culture at the AOC. Perhaps a group of fair-minded judges could go visit Governor Jerry Brown and confront him politely, asking him politically to twist arms and pass the appropriate legislation. I am sorry to hear so many hard-working employees were laid off recently. Unionman’s posts are instructive.
wearyant
September 13, 2012
Thank you all, fellow posters, for your comments in weighing in. I truly do not wish to offend anyone here but the JC/AOCMgmt/CJ. The reaction to their absurdities and obscenities in action make me want to laugh or cry. Watching good people get hurt and evil-doers IMHP prosper have the same effect. I want to see the wrongs righted, and it’s not happening. As we’ve heard many times, obscenity is difficult to describe in words, but we all know it when we see it. Watching the CJ lecture on civility and congeniality while she brings down the third branch to retain her will-gotten power is obscene. And I must say, I hesitate to post often after reading what others ring in with here where I’m obviously trumped by others’ intelligence and experience. 🙂
Wendy Darling
September 13, 2012
Personally, Ant, I find you endlessly insightful and delightful. 🙂
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
September 13, 2012
It’s much appreciated, Wendy D!
courtflea
September 13, 2012
Ditto Wendy!
I have confessed here before to being one of the worst offenders here in using questionable language. I concur with many of the remarks above especially that some of us have seen so much evil and so much BS some times you just have to laugh and joke or match BS with BS and sometimes an explicative is the only way to properly respond. I think many of us here can almost say we have seen it all, but of course the AOC never ceases to amaze us. I don’t know about everyone else, this blog is therapy for me! A great and healthy way to vent.
I KNOW that some of the folks that poo poo this blog and say it is a joke read it secretly. So there. whatever. Great site JCW and ACJ congratulations!! You are our champions on the white chargers in the search for truth and true justice.
Lando, et al. I hope to meet you some day too!
Michael Paul
September 13, 2012
As one of the principal underwriters of this and many similar efforts I think it is only fair that we reflect a bit on what was written:
ep·i·thet [ep-uh-thet]
noun
1. Any word or phrase applied to a person or thing to describe an actual or attributed quality: “Richard the Lion-Hearted” is an epithet of Richard I.
2. A characterizing word or phrase firmly associated with a person or thing and often used in place of an actual name, title, or the like, as “man’s best friend” for “dog.”
3. a word, phrase, or expression used invectively as a term of abuse or contempt, to express hostility, etc.
Chickenshit [Chik-in Shit]
noun
1. A military epithet referring to a (bureaucratic act or ) reply so silly or trifling that it does not rise to the level of bullshit.
2. A Chicken McNugget
“Lying her ass off”
An epithet representing an act that has consequences, like a loss of credibility.
If we are to provide a proper analysis of M. Votaw’s reply to this post, we must consider the definitions of various terms when doing so.
Measured in the light of definition we would have to consider that Mr. Votaw agrees that these are either 1) actual or attributed qualities, 2) a characterizing word or phrase firmly associated with a person or a thing or 3) a word, phrase or expression used invectively as a term of abuse or contempt or to express hostility.
The evidence submitted by JCW was an article that had expressed that Justice Hull had chosen to intentionally not answer Judge Lampe’s questions but instead asks his own question and answered it.
My conclusion would be that that’s certainly not a Chicken McNugget nor would it be a word, phrase or expression used invectively as a term of abuse or contempt or to express hostility.
My name is Michael Paul and I approve this post and the mission of this site.
Wendy Darling
September 13, 2012
Best laugh I’ve had all week, Michael Paul. Thank you.
Michael Paul
September 13, 2012
The place needed to lighten up a bit.
wearyant
September 13, 2012
[Chik-in Shit]
HAR HAR. Thanks for the belly laugh, Michael Paul! “A military epithet referring to a bureaucratic act … HAHAHA! I almost choked, I laughed so hard! “A chicken McNugget” Oh, man, I may not get to sleep for a while … HAHAHA. Only in American, a chicken McNugget. Good grief and gravy. Oh, man, I love this website …
courtflea
September 13, 2012
Love your definitions MP!! yes lets lighten up a bit…about that painting of J Rosenberg….:-)
JusticeCalifornia
September 13, 2012
LOL, LOL.
wearyant
September 13, 2012
FLEA! About the painting? Get the printer running and some darts ready! HAHAHA.
unionman575
September 13, 2012
His Honor sings too!
wearyant
September 13, 2012
OMG, Unionman, where do you find these things? HAHAHA! Thanks for posting. Nice, catchy tune. 🙂
unionman575
September 13, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/SP12-09.pdf
I N V I T A T ION TO COMMEN T
SP12-09
Title Trial Court Security: Petitions under Government Code section 69926
Proposed Rules, Forms, Standards, or Statutes
Adopt Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.174
Proposed by Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee
Hon. David Rosenberg, Chair
unionman575
September 13, 2012
“Hot Rod” news flash from San Diego…
http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/SDCOURT/GENERALINFORMATION/NEWS/RFPS/RFPLINK/DIVISIONHOURS-UPDATED_9-6-12.PDF
unionman575
September 13, 2012
Opps here’s another Hot Rod newsflash…
http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/SDCOURT/GENERALINFORMATION/NEWS/NEWSRELEASES/NEWSRELEASESPART1/09-05-12%20-%20SDSC%20BUSINESS%20OFFICES%20NOW%20CLOSED%20ON%20FRIDAY.PDF
Wendy Darling
September 13, 2012
“The noon closure is the first in a series of service cuts enacted in order to meet the historic funding reductions placed on the court earlier this year by the legislature.”
Gosh, Hot Rod neglected to mention that those “historic funding reductions” by the State Legislature was the direct result of current branch administration wasting well over a half a billion dollars on CCMS, of which Roddy was one of the biggest supporters. Funny how he didn’t mention that.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
September 13, 2012
http://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/court_news_and_notices/083112a.pdf
unionman575
September 13, 2012
http://www.humboldt.courts.ca.gov/files/NoticetoPublic_hours_8_31_11.pdf
unionman575
September 13, 2012
And now a word from David Yamasaki (Mr. Big Money Santa Clara CEO)…
http://www.scscourt.org/general_info/news_media/newspdfs/NRCERF.9.13.12.pdf
Guest
September 14, 2012
Didnt Roddy go with imaging and e-filing a few months ago? I guess if you want to see what Santa Clara is going to do next all you have to do is see what San Diego has already done. With Yamasaki being paid so much (as in the highest paid court employee in the state) you would expect an original idea instead of copying his Master, Mr. Roddy. Wonder how many times a day Yamasaki calls Roddy to ask what he should do next?
unionman575
September 14, 2012
Wonder how many times a day Yamasaki calls Roddy to ask what he should do next?
All the time.
They havwe found this method works the best and doesn’t crash…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPTTO4VeiWk
unionman575
September 14, 2012
wearyant
September 14, 2012
Hahahah! I’m still laughing from last night, then I see the upgrade from CCMS shown by Unionman! LOL
No wonder kids are told not to run with scissors; they might cut the string lines of communication. Better put that rule before the AOC’s JC for proper consideration …
Wendy Darling
September 14, 2012
First they would have to form a committee to “study” the proposal, Flea.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
September 13, 2012
ok, make sure you read the second Hot Rod newsflash. I have never seen a press release quite like it. To take care of a traffic ticket see the small claims advisor? If you want to do whatever blah blah blah…best make other plans? Now that is a classic!
unionman575
September 13, 2012
You just can’t make this stuff up: “best make other plans”. Really Hot Rod???
Wendy Darling
September 13, 2012
Surely everyone here at JCW can offer Hot Rod Roddy some “other plans.”
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
September 13, 2012
unionman575
September 13, 2012
I dedicate the video to you Hot Rod…
😉
courtflea
September 14, 2012
wearyant, believe it or not I did the dart number before but with a photo of Bill V in the bull’s eye!! Gave it to a friend who was a big fan of Bill V NOT! and he kept it in his office.
wearyant
September 14, 2012
Oh, my, CourtFlea! We have to cope somehow. It’s amazing how accurate you are with the right incentive. Yes, as you said that this website is therapeutic, yes, it is!