October 2, 2012
Dear Members and others,
We write to alert you to a disturbing policy recently implemented by Branch leadership.
As you know, since the Alliance formed we have taken the position that the public’s business should be conducted publicly and transparently and that the decisions on how public dollars are spent should likewise be open and transparent.
That is why the Alliance supported the Bureau of State Audits report on the wasteful CCMS project. That is why the Alliance participated in legislative hearings that revealed wasteful spending on courthouse maintenance projects.That is why the Alliance blew the whistle on the pension giveaways enjoyed by the top 30 AOC bureaucrats. And that is why the Alliance – backed bill to restrain the Judicial Council from raiding the Trial Court Trust Fund was so essential.
You need to know that the Alliance regularly requests information from the Administrative Office of the Courts. We do this because a hand picked Judicial Council has proven itself incapable of properly overseeing the actions of the AOC. We believe that every judge has a responsibility to inform themselves of how our branch leaders are spending public dollars in light of the fact that valuable court employees are being laid off and courthouse hours of operations curtailed.
We attach for your information a letter sent on September 10th by former Alliance director and retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Charles Horan to the Chief Justice and cc’d to various branch leaders and staff. Judge Horan lays out in detail the disparate treatment being meted out to Alliance members who are requesting information about the activities of the AOC and Council. To date, the Chief Justice has not responded. If and when she does, we will provide you with the response.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
__________________________________________________________________________
September 10, 2012
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye:
Over the years, I have made a number of requests for information from the AOC and/or
Judicial Council. All have been handled by email without that mode of communication
causing any difficulty for either party.
Recently, things have changed rather drastically. Suddenly, information requests that
the AOC believes do not fall within Rule 10.500 are immediately sent to Justice Harry
Hull for his handling. This includes even the most mundane, non-controversial requests.
Also, Justice Hull apparently sits as a de facto appellate arbiter of requests under Rule
10.500 that have been denied in whole or in part by the AOC, and those that the AOC
simply does not care to deal with.
Justice Hull, having been somehow insinuated into the process, has instituted his own
rules. He requires that any request thus forwarded to him by the AOC be resent to
him–only via US mail–by the requester, and that all further correspondence be between
him and the requester, and likewise be by U.S. mail. This is supposedly to insure an
“accurate record of the communications.” We all know, or should by now, that email
provides an everlasting and wholly accurate record for both sender and recipient. U.S.
mail is slow, and provides no verifiable record at all. Justice Hull’s only stated reason
for insisting on U.S. mail is not grounded in this reality, and his practice is apparently
due to something else altogether.
Oddly, this situation seems to exist only with judges identified with the Alliance of
California Judges. I, for example, am a former director of that organization. I have
spoken to the current directors of the Alliance about this, and they have also suddenly,
and for the first time, had their information requests referred to Justice Hull. We know of
no other judge or justice who has the burden of going through this process.
Last week I sent a three line email to Chad Finke of the AOC that simply sought to
determine whether the AOC would reimburse appellate justices and/or trial court judges
for attending the upcoming CJA conference, and if so, who had authorized this. Rather
than simply answering the question (though his office will reportedly handle the
reimbursements) Mr. Finke refused, referring the matter to Justice Hull. My dealings
with Mr. Finke have always been cordial. I do not imagine that Mr. Finke has taken it
upon himself to unilaterally change AOC policy–or his own formerly well-documented
and normally cooperative practices–toward only certain judges. I imagine Mr. Finke is
simply following orders. I mention this instance only to show you how petty and
ridiculous the situation has become. My request to Mr. Finke was obviously an
appropriate one, but even that simple request has been shunted to Justice Hull, who
will, if things don’t change, insist on a plodding course of U.S. mail exchange obviously
designed to make it more difficult for certain judges to obtain needed information in a
timely fashion.
Mr. Finke has also lately refused to turn over employee personnel information of the sort
routinely revealed in the past, and clearly nonexempt under Rule 10.500. For example,
the AOC has already revealed that 5 individuals were promoted at the AOC in the past
few months, including one from the OGC. Mr. Finke refuses to divulge their names,
claiming that this is personal, private information. (Under that rationale, the public
would presumably have no right to even know that Ms. Patel and Mr. Child were
recently promoted, I suppose.) In contrast to his denial of my request, recently the AOC
obligingly released a list of roughly 100 AOC telecommuting employees to the press–all
employees identified by name.
Even more disturbingly, the clear policy of disadvantaging certain requesters seems to
be tacitly endorsed and followed by the Council. On 9/2/12 I sent an email note to
Justice Miller asking about the meaning of a particular motion re: the SEC report made
at the 8/31/12 Council meeting. I sent my request for clarification of the motion to
Justice Miller because he is the chair of the Executive and Planning Committee, which
is responsible for the SEC report and implementation process. Justice Miller did not
respond, and instead I received a letter from Justice Hull of the Rules Committee by
U.S. mail informing me that Justice Miller had referred the question to him. Justice Hull
asked that I mail him the question again, with my signature, and he would consider it.
This instance is but one of the latest examples that I, and others, have been singled out
for special treatment and retaliation. Justice Hull has no known authority or duty to deal
with information requests, and no particularized knowledge making him a logical choice
to handle all such matters, and certainly not the matters I have inquired about. Further,
the Judicial Council website states clearly that information requests can be filed by fax,
U.S. mail, or email. Furthermore, the AOC, Council, and Court of Appeal all provide a
fillable form for those who wish to use email, though its use is not required. This
information can be viewed at http://www.courts.ca.gov/publicrecords.htm.
It is obvious that Justice Hull has been personally assigned to me, and to the current
directors of the Alliance of California Judges, regardless of the nature of the request,
and regardless of who might actually have the information to answer it. It appears to
me and others that a high-level decision has been made to make life difficult for anyone
affiliated with the Alliance of California Judges when it comes to these requests. This
suggests a personal embroilment quite incompatible with fairness, and is quite
unprecedented. For example, when Justice Huffman–certainly no fan of the ACJ–
headed the Executive and Planning Committee, we were always able to communicate
by email, and to his credit, Justice Huffman always answered questions on his own
when he had the information. The recent conduct of Justice Hull, Justice Miller and the
AOC represents a step backward.
Chief Justice, I ask that this unfair policy immediately be revoked, regardless of who
originated it. I have already asked Justice Hull to cease his unreasonable practice of
requiring U.S. mail correspondence only–please see my email sent to him this date
which is set forth in full at the end of this email. The practice he has instituted violates
the spirit of Rule 10.500, which, among other things, specifically requires that
information be provided in electronic form when it exists in that form. It further violates
that rule’s express policy that no unnecessary action be taken to delay requests, and
the provision requiring that the rule be construed broadly to provide maximum access.
Most of all, it violates the often repeated promise of AOC and Council transparency and
openness.
I further ask you to remind the Office of General Counsel that Rule 10.500 is mandatory
rather than directory, and carries the force of law. Please also ask that OGC and others
consider that Rule 10.500 constitutes a floor, not a ceiling–the Rule itself provides that
the AOC is free to provide even greater access that that mandated by the rule. This is
equally true of requests made to, or handled by, the Judicial Council.
Information requests in the past have revealed numerous questionable AOC practices–
faux “hiring freezes”; the larding on of temporary employees to disguise hiring during
supposed freezes and to deflate publicly released employee numbers; violations of
existing personnel policies; unusual hiring practices relating to the OGC; inaccurate
reporting of data to the public and to the legislature re: the CCMS project; the failure to
accurately report work force numbers to the public; and a host of others. Many of these
matters found their way into the SEC report, as did the very great difficulty encountered
by the SEC committee itself when trying to obtain information from the AOC during its
55 week investigation. Certainly the revelation of certain information has been
embarrassing to the AOC and to some Council members, but this is no excuse to
stonewall information requests. The solution to bad publicity is not the hiding of
information.
On August 31, 2012, Justice Corrigan pointed out quite eloquently and correctly the
need for transparency, openness, communication and cooperation. She asked us all to
“resolve to work together as partners rather than fight as adversaries.” Today, Council
member Judge David Rosenberg publicly asked that all judges with complaints about
governance issues bring them directly the Council. Additionally, the Council recently
unanimously passed policies making it clear that the Council is under a duty to oversee
the actions of the AOC. I ask that you, as Chair of the Council, take steps to see that
the AOC and all members of the Council immediately and positively cooperate with
judges making legitimate and good faith requests for information rather than setting up
apparent discriminatory stumbling blocks.
In the short term, I ask that Justice Hull either forego handling information requests, or
that he handle only those appropriately within his purview, and without imposing
arbitrary and unnecessary new rules of his own. In the long term, I suggest training for
AOC employees as to Rule 10.500, and the case law interpreting its sister statutes, the
California Public Records Act and the Legislative Open Records Act, both of which are
referred to in the Rule as benchmarks for its interpretation.
I do not speak for the Alliance of California judges, but I am fairly confident that any
difficulties that exist vis a vis information requests can be worked out if good judgment
prevails over emotion. I would be more than happy to talk to Justice Miller, Justice Hull,
or anyone else you suggest about such a resolution. However, the current situation is
simply not tolerable.
Thank you.
Charles Horan
Judge, Ret.
Cc:Hon. Douglas P. Miller
Hon. Harry Hull
Ms. Jody Patel
Mr. Chad Finke
Hon. Steven Jahr, Ret.
Mary Roberts
Justice Carol Corrigan
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
September 10, 2012
Dear Justice Hull:
I have received your letter of 9/4/12. I repeat it verbatim here, in case you don’t have a
copy handy.
___________________
September 4, 2012
Dear Judge Horan:
It is my understanding that you have made a further informal request to Chad Finke for
information relating to AOC promotions in the last fiscal year.
It is also my understanding that on Sunday, September 2 you made an informal request
for information to Justice Doug Miller relating to the actions the Judicial Council took last
week in approving and implementing the recommendations of the Executive and
Planning Committee which dealt with the reorganization of the AOC.
Those requests have been referred to me.
So that I have an exact record of the details of your requests, would you be good
enough to send me a letter over your signature setting forth the information you are
asking for? I can then consider a response to your inquiries.
In the meantime, the report of the Judicial Council’s action last week relating to
restructuring of the AOC can be found at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/a8841.htm
And the powerpoint presentation used at the Judicial Council meeting as it relates to a
restructuring of the organizational chart of the Administrative Office of the Courts can be
found at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/council proposedAOCOrg.pdf
I might also note that, to the extent you are interested in requesting documents relating
to these subjects, the procedure for doing so may be found at the following website:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/publicrecords.htm
Thank you.
Harry E. Hull, Jr.
____________________
Justice Hull, I have already made my requests for this information via emails to Mr.
Finke and to Justice Miller. The Judicial Council website specifically and unequivocally
allows all information requests to be made by FAX, Email, or U.S. mail. In fact, it
doesn’t even foreclose telephonic requests, and simply notes that requests in formats
other than the three listed may cause delay. That information can be found at http://
http://www.courts.ca.gov/publicrecords.htm.
It is unreasonable for you to require that I make the requests again to you, via U.S. mail,
simply because it has been decided (by someone) that you will handle my requests and,
apparently, those of all individuals you perceive are affiliated with the Alliance of
California Judges. Further, you obviously already have the requests you now insist that
I mail to you, as your letter above fairly accurately summarizes their contents. Of
course, if you have misplaced or deleted the emails forwarded to you by Justice Miller
and Mr. Finke, I would be more than happy to resend those emails to you immediately. I
do not intend to type them out again and mail them to you when no rule or policy
requires it, save yours.
I have never met you, Justice Hull. I have never made an unreasonable or burdensome
request for information from the AOC or Council, and I don’t believe anyone will claim
otherwise. Your continued insistence, which began some weeks ago, of requiring U.S.
mail correspondence between us as to all information requests you have taken it upon
yourself to handle, so that you “may have an accurate record” of that correspondence,
is frankly insulting. If I have done something to cause you to believe I am not to be
trusted, please say so. Otherwise, I ask to be treated with the respect you would show
to any other colleague.
If you are truly concerned with an “accurate record” of the correspondence, I point out
again to you that electronic mail is quick, accurate, and leaves an absolutely
unquestioned record of the correspondence, for both sender and receiver, while U.S.
mail does not. Your practice seems more designed to ensure delay and to make it
unreasonably difficult for judges and others to obtain simple information, and to
disseminate it to others. This will certainly do little to ease tensions and foster future
cooperation and, respectfully, is not a wise use of your authority. I ask again that you
reconsider your practice.
On another point: On 9/5/12 I sent an email to Mr. Finke. Here it is in its entirety:
“I have been told that the AOC will reimburse for up to $300 for appellate justices to
attend the next CJA conference. Is that true? Is AOC also reimbursing for judges?
Was this a decision of the Chief Justice, AOC, or…?
CH”
I immediately received this response from Mr. Finke:
Judge Horan,
In that your request is not seeking judicial administrative records, I am referring it to
Justice Hull for consideration.
Thanks,
Chad
If you follow your now-established policy of writing me a letter requiring me to restate
my question via U.S. mail to you, and then send your eventual response via U.S. mail, a
three week or more process will have been undertaken, all quite needlessly. The
information sought could and should have been quickly imparted via email to me by Mr.
Finke in the first instance, and would have been, had the request been made by anyone
not publicly identified with the Alliance. You and I both know that. The question was
properly directed to Mr. Finke, whose office will handle the reimbursement requests for
the CJA meeting. Additionally, Mr. Finke handles most, if not all, information requests
for the AOC. There can be no question but that the request was a proper one. The
AOC’s refusal to answer such a simple question appears to me to be stonewalling, plain
and simple. You should not enable or assist the AOC in this sort of obfuscation by
allowing them to forward such requests to you for your special form of handling.
Again, I object to the unwieldy and unfair process that has been instituted for me and
apparently also for others affiliated with the Alliance of California Judges. This smacks
of retaliation for speaking out, and sharing information–often obtained through the very
process under discussion–with our fellow judges and others.
Thank you.
Charles Horan
Judge, Ret.
Cc: Ms. Jody Patel
Mr. Chad Finke
Hon. Douglas P. Miller
Related articles
- Title 10 Rules of Court – Access to Public Records
- Transparency? AOC? Think again. – AOC to pay justices to attend Monterey conference? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- 2009 Email Surfaces in AOC Trailer Bill Ploy (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Justice Miller: In the interests of transparency and accountability, open your meeting (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
unionman575
October 3, 2012
More nice work JCW!
😉
Michael Paul
October 3, 2012
“I can then consider a response to your inquiries.” Plain and simple, a pompous, arrogant abuse of usurped authority.
Consider this Justice Hull – you’re a public servant too. In this day and age we generally like our public servants knowing how to use a computer.
JusticeCalifornia
October 3, 2012
This is why I have been a fan of Judge Horan since AOC Watcher days. . . .
Go Judge Horan.
The question of who made an appellate justice gatekeeper of information held by the AOC is an interesting one. Is he using and abusing his elected paid-by-the-public status as a judge to unofficially act in an official capacity for the AOC, and to discriminate against judges who are not towing the “party line”?
That sounds pretty darn serious to me. It is terrific that the Chief Justice has been put on personal notice of this untenable state of affairs. Let’s see what she does to remedy it.
Wendy Darling
October 3, 2012
“Justice Hull’s only stated reason for insisting on U.S. mail is not grounded in reality, and his practice is apparently due to something else altogether.”
Yep. More retaliation and that “culture of control” thing again.
And “not grounded in reality” — now there is a charactrer trait you want to have in an appellate court justice.
Long live Judge Horan. And long live the ACJ.
wearyant
October 3, 2012
My sympathies go out to Hon. Charles Horan, Judge, Retired. The pin-headed bureaucrats are turning a simple request into an exhausting — and wearying — process. The pointy heads excel at this. They have decided who their “detractors” are and proceed to bully and beat down who they determine as threats to their empire. Charles Horan is quite right to address Tani with this situation. Her first concern was to get the names of the ACJ. She is not intelligent — as bureaucrats are generally not wise or intelligent — but she and her bureaucrat counterparts are cunning. Similarly, criminals are not intelligent, but are cunning. Not trying to inflame here, just stating a fact. I’m frankly overly tired after reading what Charles Horan has been going through to get a simple answer and will take a nap. Meanwhile, I wish the ACJ well in this continuing, uphill fight for reason, openness and transparency from those who aren’t inclined to give an inch.
BTW, why is Harry Hull so against modern conveniences such as email? Is he billions of years old? Is he a horse lover and thinks he can save them by recreating the Pony Express? Does he own stock in USPS or have relatives employed there? Does he think a signature on a piece of paper is more reliable in a future lawsuit than an email? Is he merely stalling for time? Again, it may be just the old ploy to wear your “opponent” down until they drop. Wow. The arrogance knows no bounds.
Long live Hon. Charles Horan, Judge, Retired, and long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
October 3, 2012
“The pin-headed bureaucrats are turning a simple request into an exhausting — and wearying — process.”
Now, that is “PC,” Ant. How tactfully and diplomatically put.
And what a stunning example of the signature lack of ethics and integrity that passes for branch “leadership” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. See any kind of behavior here that represents an example worthy of following? Anyone think that this would be appropriate behavior for a Presiding Judge? A Court Executive Officer? How about a court supervisor or manager? A courtroom clerk? Appellate Court Justices administratively behaving like idiots. And with the tacit blessing of the Office of the Chief Justice to boot.
It just says sooooooo much about the current state of the administration of the California Judicial Branch.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
October 3, 2012
Get me a bucket…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19186.htm
wearyant
October 3, 2012
Eeeuuuuuuuwww!
JusticeCalifornia
October 3, 2012
Judge Horan is making a beautiful record of obfuscation and disparate treatment among party liners and non-party liners, and top leadership’s intimate knowledge of same.
The dots — at all levels– will one day be connected.
JusticeCalifornia
October 3, 2012
Our own cj sakauye:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/13330.htm
Wendy Darling
October 3, 2012
Speaking of judicial branch administration behaving like idiots: Published today, Wednesday, October 3, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Battle of Information in Judiciary
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – A new controversy has erupted within California’s judiciary over a judge’s question on whether the administrative bureaucracy is planning to pay expenses for judges attending a judicial conference that has become an important political venue.
Retired Los Angeles Judge Charles Horan made the following email request for information from the Administrative Office of the Courts: “I have been told that the AOC will reimburse for up to $300 for appellate justices to attend the next CJA conference. Is that true?”
Horan also asked if the same applied for trial judges and who had authorized the payments.
The California Judges Association is the oldest and biggest of California’s judge associations. Its annual conference has become a front in the larger conflict over the bureaucracy’s effort to exert central control over the policy, operations and financing of local trial courts.
So a move by the bureaucracy to pay certain judges for attending could be seen through a skeptical lens as an effort to influence the proceedings.
While on its face a simple question, Horan’s request was quickly forwarded by administrative office employee Chad Finke to Appellate Justice Harry Hull who has a policy of requiring that all requests for information by submitted through the U.S. Post Office.
“The AOC is funneling all the problem children over to Justice Harry Hull,” said Horan in an interview. “When they stand up and ask for peace in the valley and say we should turn the page, they should look in the mirror and ask themselves why they are playing these games.”
The administrative office argued that the requests for information are time consuming and require research.
Horan answered, “Ninety percent of the work generated by information requests results from the gymnastic contortions the AOC and some Council members put themselves through trying to avoid answering simple questions.”
Hull said his policy requiring that questions be asked by letter sent through the hand-carried mail is necessary to provide accountability.
“For certain requests, I have insisted that the requesting judge make the request to me by standard mail over the judge’s signature rather than by e-mail for purposes of accountability and to avoid a later claim that the judge did not make the request,” he wrote in an email.
“I base this in part on 40 years of practice in both criminal and civil litigation,” he added. “It ‘makes the record’ and leaves no room for claims of tampering with the message or false authorship which e-mail allows for. With his or her signature, the judge owns the letter and the message and cannot later claim to the contrary.”
In a letter to Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Horan addressed that point.
“We all know, or should by now, that email provides an everlasting and wholly accurate record for both sender and recipient,” he wrote. “U.S. mail is slow, and provides no verifiable record at all. Justice Hull’s only stated reason for insisting on U.S. mail is not grounded in this reality, and his practice is apparently due to something else altogether.”
The letter argues that the administrative office and the Judicial Council that operates under the chief justice are singling out judges who belong to the Alliance of California Judges for special treatment. The alliance has campaigned to reform the practices of the administrative office, and regularly blasts what they describe as the insularity, arrogance and free-spending ways of the bureaucrats.
A spokesman for the central administrative office said, “We have to get better about answering information requests. The council has to create a policy on it and they haven’t.”
“I have heard they ask some good questions, but they are not easy to answer,” said the spokesman who asked not to be identified.
In his letter to the chief justice, Horan noted that administrator Finke had been helpful in the past, but is now referring to Justice Hull all questions from Horan, a former director with the alliance, as well as requests from current directors of the reformist alliance.
“I do not imagine that Mr. Finke has taken it upon himself to unilaterally change AOC policy — or his own formerly well-documented and normally cooperative practices — toward only certain judges,” wrote Horan. “I imagine Mr. Finke is simply following orders. I mention this instance only to show you how petty and ridiculous the situation has become.”
He pointed out that Finke has refused to give the names of employees who had been promoted at the central office. The list of those promoted would give a strong clue as to the office’s direction, whether it is committed to reform or seeking to keep in place its old and often controversial policies.
“Mr. Finke refuses to divulge their names, claiming that this is personal, private information,” wrote Horan. “In contrast to his denial of my request, recently the AOC obligingly released a list of roughly 100 AOC telecommuting employees to the press – all employees identified by name.”
A number of personnel practices were criticized in a recent massive report by a committee of judges who proposed more than 100 reforms to the administrative office. The report highlighted the practice of allowing many highly-paid employees to telecommute, or work from home, one of them from Switzerland.
“It is obvious that Justice Hull has been personally assigned to me, and to the current directors of the Alliance of California Judges, regardless of the nature of the request, and regardless of who might actually have the information to answer it,” wrote Horan. “It appears to me and others that a high-level decision has been made to make life difficult for anyone affiliated with the Alliance of California Judges when it comes to these requests.”
Justice Hull wrote in an email that the Judicial Council is currently working on amending its method of handling records requests.
“This has become necessary because of the nature of certain requests that the AOC has been receiving over the past year or two,” wrote Hull. “That is, many requests from judges are for records, which requests are processed as any other request for records.”
“However, many requests the AOC has received lately are not for records but are for ‘explanations’ or simply ‘information,’ that is, not records requests at all.”
He said that between 300 and 400 hours of administrative office time had been spent on requests for information since June 1.
“We are trying to clarify the manner in which the AOC handles these requests and that it do so under the auspices of the Judicial Council,” wrote Hull.
Underlying the debate over requests for information is a dispute over interpretation of court rule 10.500 that calls for open access to information in many areas of court operations.
The lengthy and detailed rule states in the intent portion that it “clarifies and expands the public’s right of access to judicial administrative records and must be broadly construed to further the public’s right of access.”
“The rule itself requires that it be broadly interpreted,” noted Horan over the phone. “Rule 10.500 is based upon a California constitutional right of access. It’s more than just a rule of court we’re dealing with. They’re really under a duty to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens, including judges and not stand in the way of their exercising those rights.”
“It’s not like these records belong to them, they belong to the public. The rule is there and it should be interpreted reasonably,” Horan added. “I guess they are very upset with the manner in which we deal with the information we’re given. We make that information public.”
In his email, Hull said most of the requests he receives from judges are reasonable.
“Unfortunately, many that are received from Alliance members who have identified themselves as such are not reasonable (such as, why is the Administrative Director of the Courts is referred to as a member of the Judicial Council or why was a judge not given information at the same time it was given to the press or who was it at the AOC that actually authored an e-mail) and are, in my view, more intended to be intimidating and to provide make-work for AOC employees rather than legitimate requests for information,” Hull wrote.
In his letter, Horan said he has offered to work out some reasonable solution. “I am fairly confident that any difficulties that exist vis-a-vis information requests can be worked out if good judgment prevails over emotion.”
But, he said, he has not yet received a response.
Hull said a committee is looking into the matter, and any judge is welcome to offer input on how the administrative office should deal with records requests, adding, “We hope to get something to the Council in December.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/03/50936.htm
*************************************************************************************************
Note to Judge Horan: the folks flying the airplane up at 455 Golden Gate Avenue actually sit in meetings and openly discuss how the law (and that would include the State Constitution) doesn’t apply to the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC, and in the limited circumstances where it does, how to avoid compliance, especially when it involves a request for information that they dislike. But you probably already knew that. Justice Hull will probably send his response in December, inside a Christmas card.
An appellate court justice “not grounded in reality.” It just says it all.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
October 3, 2012
(1)The Judicial Council intends by this rule to implement Government Code section 68106.2(g), added by Senate Bill X4 13 (Stats. 2009-10, 4th Ex. Sess. ch. 22), which requires adoption of rules of court that provide public access to nondeliberative and nonadjudicative court records, budget and management information.
No matter how you cut it, a request for information about a management decision to pay certain entities to attend a private function is management information. The Judicial Council and the AOC are attempting to wrest control of the information and the message because they’ve been hammered for feeding us all bullshit. It doesn’t make it any less odorous when that same bullshit is spewed by a judge (Rosenberg) or justice (Hull, Bruniers) .
(2)This rule clarifies and expands the public’s right of access to judicial administrative records and must be broadly construed to further the public’s right of access.
Broadly construed – err on the side of turning over the information. When you fail to turn over the information and obfuscate, it makes you look like crooks that are doing something improper and you know it.
Wendy Darling
October 3, 2012
Say one thing on paper, Michael Paul, but do another in practice. Having worked at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, you know this all too well.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
October 3, 2012
wearyant
October 4, 2012
Lightning fast! They say the telegraph replaced the Pony Express. Not so for some of us, say, bureaucrats from Hull — I mean hell — who require a signature over a letterhead. The telegraph can’t do that! 😉
How old IS J Hull? 😀
Thanks for finding this sweet piece, Unionman575!
JusticeCalifornia
October 3, 2012
uh huh, yeah. Hull is, with the press, e-mail literate. LOL
JusticeCalifornia
October 3, 2012
you can’t make this s$$$ up.
Hull, IMHO, you have a press bullseye on your forehead.
Michael Paul
October 3, 2012
This is B.S. Anyone can write a letter, turn it into a .pdf and send it electronically. It will get there more reliably than the U.S. mail and can come with free delivery confirmation and read receipt at no charge to the sender or the recipient.
Justice Hull is making the process more difficult because the answer not only represents an embarrassing waste of public funds but an unfair choosing of how public monies are spent preferring one judges group over the other.
Lando
October 3, 2012
Justice Hull is showing the same distain for the ACJ and any judge that dare dissent as Ronald George and Richard Huffman did. As some will recall our former CJ stated at a CJA meeting that any call to democratize the Judicial Council would be tantamount to an act of war. He refused to even recognize the existence of the ACJ and derided them as insignificant as “ants on a trail”. J Huffman called one judge offering a dissenting view a “clown”. at a JC meeting. So it is no wonder J Hull is arrogantly ignoring the rules that exist for public disclosure of AOC records and information. Most telling, it is obvious he is treating ACJ members differently and or trying to retaliate against them for dissenting and offering perfectly reasonable contrary views to his own or the other “insiders” at 455 Golden Gate. I have posed this question before. Who put a Court of Appeal Justice in charge of entertaining requests to the AOC for public information and why was Justice Hull chosen for this responsibility? I doubt we will ever get an answer to either one of those questions.Thanks Judge Horan for raising this issue. It is one more exhibit in the ever growing list of compelling reasons why the Judicial Council needs to be democratized and the Chief Justice recalled.
unionman575
October 3, 2012
unionman575
October 3, 2012
Perhaps I should forward this by U.S. Mail. What do you think?
😉
wearyant
October 3, 2012
Unionman575, you never cease to be a scream! Thanks for posting this email user guide for beginners! 😀
Wendy Darling
October 3, 2012
Hey, Unionman, there wouldn’t happen be a video titled “An Idiots Guide to Email” would there?
The OBT
October 4, 2012
Justice Hull makes some incredible claims as quoted by Maria Dinzeo, including “that many requests for public information from alliance members are not reasonable ” and that in his view they are ” intended to be intimidating and to provide make work”. Thus Justice Hull says he wants everything in old fashioned writing to avoid the claim the judge in question can’t say they didn’t make the request. I hope everyone can see what is going on here. Justice Hull has arrogantly installed himself as the gatekeeper of AOC information requests and it is he who is attempting to intimate lawful first amendment protected activity as he has concluded ” many” requests from ” Alliance members” are ” not reasonable”. That is simply disgraceful. He is using his power to try and chill totally legitimate protected First Amendment activity . In fact the many inquiries he claims are not reasonable and intimidating have led to the revelation of highly relevant material about Judicial Council/AOC waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars.The actual reality is that Justice Hull has personally embroiled himself in attacking Alliance members without basis. Somewhere along the line the good Justice forgot that this country was build on allowing and respecting all points of view rather than trying to chill and intimidate free speech and dissent. The arrogance of power. You can’t make this stuff up. Really.
unionman575
October 4, 2012
OBT, I have been told I am “intimidating”.
LOL
wearyant
October 4, 2012
Unionman575, you don’t back down when you know you’re in the right so that’s intimidating to the pettifoggers.
Lando
October 4, 2012
Justice Hull is trying to set up a CJP investigation. As my mom used to say one shouldn’t wish for what they want for.Hull’s actions constituting embroilment, retaliation and an effort to chill First Amendment rights raise significant judicial ethics issues Equally important is the issue of who authorized Hull to get so embroiled in the first place. Any one here care to guess who is behind all this? Hmm I think I have a pretty good idea.
Robert Turner
October 4, 2012
My take is it is a shame a very highly paid Justice in CA is being used to review such requests. Shouldn’t he be focused on complex legal cases between parties and working on actual cases? Why is a justice acting as the gatekeeper on public records requests? That’s a clerical duty and totally overkill.
I’ll answer my own question by speculating that I think it is being done to intimidate judges or anyone from asking questions. When a Justice stonewalls and then eventually replies by mail it is a not too subtle reminder of the heirarchy of power in the courts so judges at the trial court are being told to “remember their place”. This is a culture problem in CA Courts. There needs to be a climate where questions from all levels are welcomed and appreciated within the branch. There are no democratically selected trial court judges on the Judicial Council. It’s a rigged committee. The Chief/AOC leaders want to control the message and it is not a process where debate is encouraged.
I like debate in cases, in policy making, and in the political process. Even for the highest office in the land we had a debate for President last night. That’s what is missing on the CA Judicial Council. There are no debates on policy. It’s a stacked committee all sitting around cheering on whatever posiition the Chief wants. It sucks!
courtflea
October 4, 2012
Figures the AOC says the law applies to everyone else but not them! ASSHOLES. I really hope the main stream media picks this up! You go for it judge Horan. You have my ever lasting respect.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
October 4, 2012
I am somewhat taken aback as I realize that one of the unintended consequences of the Reign of Team George is that appellate justices have been turned into flacks and hacks for the Team. Make way, ladies and gentlemen, for this generation of the ruthless, the ambitious, and the unprincipled.
Wendy Darling
October 4, 2012
The unethical, and the “not grounded in reality”.
Long live the ACJ.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
October 4, 2012
I nominate mr. Hull for the coveted ‘JACK HALPIN AWARD’ featured in mr. Jahr’s roster of accomplishments that secured His recent anointment by HRH2… and here’s to a most expeditious and deserving 15-minutes of infamy. In the least, a fitting attachment to mr. Hull’s CV.
[ Today begins Day 574… ]
silver price
October 5, 2012
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?
wearyant
October 5, 2012
silver price, good thought. That’s why it’s so helpful for people to log in with their thoughts on this current situation with the judiciary. Thanks for posting.
Rangoon
November 19, 2012
I cannot imagine what information the AOC or Judicial Council possess that should be confidential. It is all created at public expense. Therefore, every document created or received should be open public scrutiny.
And, if you agree with that proposition, it is very easy to post everything on a server so that Justice Hull or the AOC staff do not need to spend time answering troublesome questions from pesky reporters or Alliance members. Everything is available 24/7.
Come on AOC/Council/Hull: What is it that you do not wish to see the light of day?
unionman575
November 19, 2012
🙂
wearyant
November 19, 2012
Hi Rangoon. Yeah, I agree with your points. It would be nice to have Hull and Company’s response to what you say. But that will never happen. The AOC’s JC is not open to a free exchange of ideas. They aren’t interested in a search for the truth. Their self-importance is so exaggerated in their own minds (legends, heh heh) they think their ministerial bean counting acts are top secret. Are they paranoid or is it guilt, Hull and Company? Let’s have some sunshine, folks!
JusticeCalifornia
November 19, 2012
in fairness, pubinfo has been responding to some information requests within hours. . . .which is refreshing. . . .