It took us some time but we finally were able to get our hands on the chief justices order of December 18th 2012 to Judge Jack Halpin. We’re having a little more difficulty coming by the letter that the AOC wrote to the Attorney Generals’ office indicating that the quo warranto is a moot point.
Video from the never elected Jack Halpin’s third retirement in April of 2012
Here is the Chief Justices order to the “honorable” Jack Halpin that strips him of all of his power to sit as a judge in any case in Shasta County. Quo Warranto Chief Justices Order to Jack Halpin 004 Now, most might accept this order on face value except for a couple of problems:
1. The Chief Justice is providing cover for every ruling that Judge Jack Halpin made while usurping his extrajudicial powers by making the effective date December 18th and ending “Judge” Jack Halpin’s unelected 22 year reign on the Shasta bench.
2. That the Chief Justice has left open the door to again reappoint “Judge” Jack Halpin back to the Shasta Bench literally the day after the AG tosses the Quo Warranto, if they toss it.
3. That after 208 consecutive, nearly uninterrupted re-appointments to the bench of “Judge” Jack Halpin, they would only order him removed when a small town attorney rightfully points out the constitutional and sufferage issues being denied the citizenry by the top enforcer of those rights, and then only after a Quo Warranto request is made, even though the citizens have been complaining about this and writing Chief Justices about it for at least five years.
4. That “Judge” Jack Halpin in his own response to the Attorney General appears to hold as void the chief justices order removing him from the bench. Halpin Quo Warranto Response002
On December 31, our media partner made an inquiry about “Judge” Jack Halpin with Shasta Superior Court. The questions were: Is Jack Halpin hearing any cases today and the answer was that he did not have anything on calendar for today. The second question was: Is Jack Halpin an active judge and the answer back was that Judge Halpin is a retired judge that still sits on the Shasta bench. The third question was: Does Judge Halpin have anything on calendar in the future – and our partner was urged to call back Wednesday.
So it appears that as long as these four situations exist, the issue of a quo warranto is not a moot point. In light of the chutzpah of declaring the chief justices order void both the AOC and the Chief Justice now have an obligation to stand back and permit the attorney general to permanently remove “Judge” Jack Halpin from office by operation of law.
Related articles
- People of the State of California vs. Judge Jack Halpin (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Cantil-Sakauye: These Handcuffs Are Great! (legalpad.typepad.com)
- Shasta County “Judge” Jack Halpin Gets Sued! (towardchange.wordpress.com)
unionman575
January 1, 2013
I said it before and I’ll say it again…
unionman575
January 1, 2013
I’d give this one a whirl each and every court day (Select “Halpin”) and see what your get…
Too much time on my hands…
;
)
http://www.shastacourts.com/Cal/cal_menu.php
unionman575
January 1, 2013
Or run the above with “Assigned Judge Halpin”.
http://www.shastacourts.com/Cal/cal_menu.php
JusticeCalifornia
January 1, 2013
you are the best, unionman.
so funny that on December 18 the chief justice issued an order stating that Halpin has no authority to serve as an assigned judge in Shasta County, but he still has all kinds of matters on calendar in Shasta County.
Looks like the CJ is trying to dodge a bullet (quo warranto by the AG) by issuing the order and then having the AOC say the point is moot. . . .and then she wants to go back to business as usual.
Meanwhile, it does appear both Halpin,and the Shasta Court are continuing to keep Halpin matters on calendar, thereby knowingly and purposefully violating the chief’s order by holding Halpin out as an assigned judge in Shasta County. ummmmm……. can they be found in contempt? Or worse?
The branch has gone crazy– a retired judge and entire court gone rogue and ignoring orders issued by the Chief Justice?
Hubris. “We can do what we want to, and no one can stop us. Not even the Chief Justice.” I don’t know. . . . . if I were Mr. Jahr (current AOC director, former Shasta County judge) and Mr. Baker (current Judicial Councilmember, and current Shasta County judge) I would be reading the riot act to those in Shasta County responsible for thumbing their noses at the CA Constitution, all three branches of government (including the CJ), and the public in such a flagrant manner.
Unless of course they are supporting this mess. Or unless they, along with the CJ, lack any control over anyone. The plot thickens.
It’s pretty damn embarrassing when an 86 year old man who only served as a real judge for two years (1962-1964) — and NEVER was elected by the people– and who is NOT subject to oversight by the Commission on Judicial Performance– shows such little respect for the CA Constitution, court orders, and a chief justice who has been writing his meal ticket for the last two years. Hey if he and the Shasta Court act like this in the face of Quo Warranto proceedingS and an order by the CJ, just imagine the miserable private Halpin world parents and children and other Shasta litigants have been forced to live in for the last 20 years, with NO relief from ANYONE.
The Governor, the AG, and the legislature really need to deal with this. Elderly private citizens on limited incomes should not have to play watchdog over wayward third branch bad actors, on behalf of the people of the State of California. That is exactly what elected officials should be doing.
JCW, you should print out and post the two calendar pages from the Shasta court website identified by unionman– for “Halpin” and “Assigned Judge Halpin”.
Wendy Darling
January 1, 2013
“The branch has gone crazy– a retired judge and entire court gone rogue and ignoring orders issued by the Chief Justice?”
Yep. And, as they like to say at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, who’s going to stop them?
And so the “new” year begins. . .
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
January 1, 2013
Hey, Halpin is simply fighting for his rights to double dip and to continue to live the lifestyle in which he is accustomed. Drive to a court away from home? Please! 😛
JusticeCalifornia
January 1, 2013
And if anyone, on this fine first day of 2013, wanted to know who was sitting on the family law bench in department 12 of the Shasta County Superior Court, they would be informed that it was retired assigned judge Jack Halpin.
courtflea
January 1, 2013
I bet you the AOC is advising Shasta court to keep Halpin on until the issue is resolved. Way too many conflicts here for AOC legal to handle this if you ask me. This is gonna get interesting!
Wendy Darling
January 1, 2013
“Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
We’re so glad you could attend
Come inside! Come inside!”
Welcome back to “the show that never ends” indeed.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 1, 2013
Emerson Lake & Palmer “Welcome back my friends” Live at the Royal Albert Hall
Here you go Wendy…
Wendy Darling
January 1, 2013
Thanks, Unionman! As Justice California has already pointed out, you’re the best!
And an interesting new year to all.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
January 1, 2013
Yes indeed this is interesting. We here on JCW certainly don’t need to worry about defending the Chief Justice’s honor regarding a rogue retired judge and court.
Among the many other remedies the Chief Justice must have at her disposal for those who disobey her orders while violating the public’s constitutional rights, she herself can support a quo warranto action against Mr. Halpin. According to an AG decision issued THE VERY SAME DAY THE CHIEF ISSUED HER HALPIN ORDER (Number 12-602, 12/18/12) the AG and the courts have consistently construed section 803 as providing “that a public official or agency may qualify as a relator.”
Seriously, just think how many public officials (the Gov., the AG, and all manner of state and local public officials in all three branches) could be put on the hotseat for a) not supporting the CA Constitutional right of their constituents to elect their state and local judges, and/or b) refusing to support the removal of retired assigned judges sitting “long-term” in violation of the suffrage rights of their constituents. . .
Really, though, the pending Quo Warranto is the AG’s bailiwick and responsibility, and Ms. Harris herself needs to step up. So does Governor Brown, who can direct Ms. Harris to step up, and other elected officials and members of the branch. They cannot expect a 79 year old man on social security to do their dirty job (policing the judicial branch) for them. Period.
In ANY case where the Attorney General’s standards for granting a quo warranto apply and are fulfilled, but the relator cannot possibly afford to bring the action (such as the Halpin quo warranto, involving a 79 year old plaintiff on social security, who if forced to bring this action himself on behalf of the AG and the public will have his social security income to fund a legal battle against at least six judicial branch opponents, namely an entrenched retired 19-year local “temporary” assigned judge, the current Shasta Court that has requested the 19-year “temporary” assignments, the AOC who promoted the 19-year “temporary” assignments, the new AOC director –Jahr–who personally participated in the 19-year “temporary” assignments, a Judicial Councilmember–Baker– who also personally participated in the 19-year “temporary” assignments, and a Chief Justice — Sakauye– who made knowingly and intentionally made and/or sanctioned the assignments for the last two years) the AG should step in and bring the action.
LOL, it’s so obvious, isn’t it. Kamala Harris and Governor Brown need to step forward and do this.
Wendy Darling
January 1, 2013
And Senator Steinberg needs to get out of the way.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
January 1, 2013
Why has this abomination gone on for 19 frigging years? The assigned judges program has often been manipulated as a financial boondoggle for certain judges who knew how to manipulate it to their obscene financial advantage, but at least the judges I knew always operated under the radar. This is so bad that you have to wonder why Jahr and the local bench continued with this visible train wreck for so many years. Loyalty to a local guy? Arrogance? Screw the voters, we can do whatever we damn please in Shasta County?
It is difficult to continually have to downgrade one’s perception of Jahr’s leadership. Jahr and Tani — what a pair!
unionman575
January 1, 2013
I”t is difficult to continually have to downgrade one’s perception of Jahr’s leadership. Jahr and Tani — what a pair!”
They are a pair of real “aces”.
Get me a bucket!
courtflea
January 1, 2013
Been There, I guess in shastas case that the attorneys and judges at one time was an old boys club. As the judge, Halpin probably helped some of the attorneys withtheir careers. As a result, no one is going to rock the boat. Memories are long in small towns.
elenabg27
January 2, 2013
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 2, 2013
As of today, “Judge” Jack Halpin has eight calendared cases between now and March 5th.
01/15/13 1330 CITY OF REDDING VS. FRAZIER
01/15/13 1330 SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF VS. JORDAN
01/18/13 1330 HARRINGTON, CRYSTAL MARIE OSC DISTRICT ATTORNEY
01/18/13 1330 HUTT, KRISHNA OSC DISTRICT ATTORNEY
01/18/13 1330 PERRY, PATRICK ALBIN OSC DISTRICT ATTORNEY
02/21/13 1330 HODGE, LONNIE DALE TRUANCY REVIEW HRG DISTRICT ATTORNEY
02/21/13 1330 ROOT, AMANDA TRUANCY REVIEW HRG DISTRICT ATTORNEY
03/05/13 1330 CITY OF REDDING VS. WOODWARD FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
I guess they figure they can blow the Quo Warranto out of the water and re-appoint him to cover these cases in few weeks?
Judicial Council Watcher
January 2, 2013
Lets add three more to that for a total of 11 cases…..
01/16/13 1330 SINGH VS. SINGH SETTLEMENT CONF
01/16/13 1330 WOBSER VS. WOBSER FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
01/30/13 0900 WOBSER VS. WOBSER NON-JURY TRIAL
unionman575
January 2, 2013
I guess the “Judge” has more “business” to attend to in Shasta.
NIce work JCW!
😉
MaxRebo5
January 2, 2013
Courthouse construction article today in the Sac Bee. Impacts of the LB Courthouse boondoggle for the rest of CA Courts (specificaly Sacramento in this article).
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/02/5086641/state-urged-to-buy-prospective.html
wearyant
January 2, 2013
“Earl said in her letter that the new site is close enough to the current courthouse to allow the older building to continue to be used for some functions, including administrative support services.”
—————————————————————
YES! Move the JC/AOC there!! Yes! Yes!
By the way, MaxRebo5, Thanks for posting the SacBee article.
unionman575
January 2, 2013
I’m thinking put them here:
unionman575
January 3, 2013
California Legislative Analyst “(LAO”) Report January 2013
See Page 56:
“Recent Declines in Judicial Branch General Fund Support”
😉
wearyant
January 3, 2013
Thanks for posting the LAO report, Unionman575. Makes for good nighttime reading before drifting off to dreamland …
unionman575
January 3, 2013
Yep it’s a nice read.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 3, 2013
The 66% cut from the general fund alone is breathtaking. It would be nice and appropriate to replace that cut with additional revenue from DMV registrations, DMV licensing and parking tickets as all of these things don’t represent conflicting interests of court convictions for cash. The other two branches of government need to properly fund the courts – and starve the judicial council
Back on topic – The Shasta Courts continue to hold Jack Halpin out as a judge as of today with the same cases remaining on his schedule that have been there since he was removed.
unionman575
January 3, 2013
The other two branches of government need to properly fund the courts – and starve the judicial council.
Bingo!
😉
sunlight
January 4, 2013
Los Angeles Superior Court lists 20 assigned judges on the court lineup, yet the remaining referees are scheduled for layoff, and rumor that the remaining part-time court reporters and other court employees will be hit hard this year. How are these assigned judges paid? What fund does it comes out of? How many average court salaries could these 20 assigned judge spots save if the program were to be eliminated? It’s insulting to the employees of the court to have someone who has already finished their career, is collecting their retirement, be allowed to continue to work while others are being shown the door.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 4, 2013
According to information provided to us that money equates to 32+ FTE’s. Except it comes from the AOC so if your court doesn’t use it it will probably be swept into AOC’s operations much like most other funds they manage on behalf of the courts. This is why we’re advocating the termination of the program and a redirection of all monies to the trial courts. Systemwide, the Assigned Judges program represents the financial equivalent of about 260 full time court employees.
Jimmy
January 4, 2013
Assigned judges are paid through a direct budget allocation, administered by the Chief Justice (or her designees). This is discussed in the SEC report. Funding for assigned judges does not come out of a local court’s budget, which is why you see subordinate judicial officers being laid off and assigned judges sitting in their place. Makes no sense, but it is the sad reality.
courtflea
January 4, 2013
It used to be that the assigned judges program had its own AOC budget. Its been a while but last I heard assigned judges pulled down something like $800 a day. That is on top of their retirement of course.
sunlight
January 4, 2013
so are we in a position to begin contacting our legislators and educating them on this topic?
Judicial Council Watcher
January 4, 2013
Yes .
Judicial Council Watcher
January 4, 2013
An article in today’s Daily Journal has Curt Soderlund suggesting that the courts could / should get a larger share of the fines and penalties they levy. We disagree as this is a conflict of interest and amounts to convictions for cash.
As suggested earlier, whatever the funding source is should never place the courts in the compromising position of convictions for cash.
As I recall, last year an individual filed a federal lawsuit alleging that this was in fact happening, that courts were convicting people to gain the court construction assessment, ie convictions for cash. It places the courts in a direct conflict of interests with convictions for funding taking precedence over judicial discretion.
That is unfair to the courts, it is unfair to judges to put them under that pressure and it is really unfair to respondents who are factually innocent but might get convicted anyways because of the auditing pressure from the central politburo.
Jimmy
January 4, 2013
I agree that it is a conflict of interest for judicial officers to be put in the position of having to levy increasingly larger fines and fees to keep the judicial branch budget afloat. It is ridiculous to think that courts are “dinged” in AOC audits, as has been mentioned here on this blog, if a judicial officer fails to impose the full Uniform Bail Schedule amount in each case in which a fine is due. What is next, a report to the CJP and an investigation of that individual? So much for judicial discretion!
Wendy Darling
January 4, 2013
Speaking of Curt Soderlund and the diminishing of judicial discretion in favor of AOC centralized control, it was none other than Soderlund who said: “The judges will be allowed to control their courtrooms, and we (the AOC) will control everything else.”
And Soderlund did mean “everything” else.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
January 4, 2013
Published today, Friday, January 4, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Michael T. Yuen, Chief Executive Officer of the San Francisco Superior Court:
Viewpoint: Court’s Labor Deal Is Good for Taxpayers and Sacramento
By T. Michael Yuen
It is in this vein that I seek to enlighten and inform the critics of San Francisco Superior Court who — without the facts — have taken issue with recently approved labor contracts for our employees. Here are some “simple truths” of our labor agreements:
• Pension reform in these labor agreements saves $4.1 million in reduced retirement costs over the life of the three-year contracts. Employees will pick up these costs, not the taxpayers.
• Under the terms of the court’s previous contract with SEIU, Local 1021, the employees’ portion of pension contributions was capped at 7.5 percent. Under the terms of the new contract, the court successfully negotiated to remove that 7.5 percent cap, which eliminates future costs for the court.
• The cost of a one-time $3,500 payment and a 3 percent wage increase on July 1, 2013, are completely offset by reductions in the court’s contributions toward pension and employee health care cost increases.
• Most San Francisco Superior Court employees have not received a wage increase since July 2008. Even then, this increase was just 2 percent — the lowest among the 10 largest courts in California.
At this juncture in the agonizingly persistent economic downturn in California, the court has been assailed at different times for both spending its savings and banking its savings. Just as our court heads down one path to manage the fiscal crisis, news from Sacramento abruptly changes our course.
After the executive and legislative branches of government in California slashed $1.1 billion from the judicial branch, the operations of San Francisco Superior Court are vastly different today than in 2008. Five years ago, the court’s budget was $98 million; today it is $74 million. In 2008, the court had 591 employees; today we have just over 400 — a 31 percent decrease.
By 2010, court leadership recognized that one-time bailouts from the Judicial Council and reliance on Sacramento’s pipe dreams of economic recovery were no way to run a court. The court had a structural deficit, which left two choices: increase revenue or cut costs. The court had already spent its $10 million in savings to keep the courthouse doors open. The court had permanently lost $10.5 million in state funding, which led court leaders to cut spending.
As a result of this fiscal prudence, the court is ahead of the curve compared with other courts just now operationalizing their cuts. Simply put, our sister courts are on a different timeline — yet they all are taking similar measures we initiated earlier in the crisis, from pulling official court reporters out of civil proceedings, to laying off court staff, to closing courtrooms and courthouses.
In June 2011, mid-year cuts to the judicial branch plunged the court into immediate planning to lay off 200 employees and close 25 courtrooms. Critics called on the court to spend its $4.6 million in savings to avoid layoffs and closure of civil departments. To avoid a near-collapse of the civil justice system in San Francisco, Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein sought a $2.5 million loan from the Judicial Council. The loan was necessary to pay for expenses, such as payroll and already-received services, including security. These expenses exceeded the amount of cash savings the court had on hand. At the time the court sought the loan, Feinstein presciently predicted that while we were the first court to seek an emergency loan, we certainly would not be the last.
Despite the loan, the court had to reduce expenses to match our reduced level of funding. In October 2011, the court laid off 67 staff and commissioners and closed 11 courtrooms, which led to a courtwide reorganization.
Just nine months later, the governor’s May revision to the FY 2012-13 state budget mandated a radical shift in trial court funding, i.e., restricted the authority of trial courts to bank savings after June 30, 2014. By then, the court had accumulated about $12 million in savings, but the new Sacramento-mandated restrictions now prevent the court from banking those funds to offset future budget cuts.
Court leadership immediately made the decision to repay the Judicial Council and then focused on prioritizing the expenditure of our remaining savings on a long list of court needs, from capital purchases to restoring employees’ 5 percent pay cut. It remains a goal of the court to reopen closed courtrooms contingent on resources in staffing and judicial appointments.
Just last week, as we announced the long-term pension savings generated by new language in the labor agreements, the court learned of another potential Sacramento policy shift that could rob the trial courts of a promised two-year window to use our reserve. This potential change, while troublesome for all trial courts, does not impact the court’s recently approved labor contracts. In fact, the agreements contain a safety valve that subjects the 3 percent wage increase to further discussions between the court and SEIU should Sacramento not fully fund the court yet again.
San Francisco Superior Court is a well-run, fiscally responsible court whose dedicated employees have done their part to assure access to justice and services to San Franciscans.
That is the simple truth.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202583009930&Viewpoint_Courts_Labor_Deal_Is_Good_for_Taxpayers_and_Sacramento&slreturn=20130004174620
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 4, 2013
Mr. Yuen, for the record, we’re not one of the critics of this deal. We were critics of SofaMan’s bullshit non-starter proposal.
Wendy Darling
January 4, 2013
Speaking of SofaMan, and FYI to Mr. Yuen, SofaMan is one of the biggest critics of Yuen and the San Francisco Superior Court, and not just of the court’s new labor agreement.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 4, 2013
Ahh Sofa Man a blast from the past…I miss you “Ernie”…..
Wendy Darling
January 4, 2013
As long as SofaMan remains at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Fuentes will never have really left the building. Which is exactly why SofaMan is still there.
Long live the ACJ.
Guest
January 4, 2013
Seriously? Mr Yuen is living proof why the Governor keeps hammering the branch. The cj kills us in Sacramento but Yuen is only making it worse. So his “leadership” decided to lay off staff, reducing the public’s access to justice so he could give raises to the remaining staff. Wow! He should work for the union with that logic. Reduced revenues? No problem. Give staff raises! Yuen is an embarrassment.
courtflea
January 4, 2013
Please Mr. Yuen, you are not the only court that exercises fiscal prudence. Get your facts straight.
Guest
January 4, 2013
No kidding. Others courts cut staffing because they has to balance their budgets. Not to free up money to give raises because they were afraid to make the unions mad. Way to kill public trust and confidence in our government Yuen.
unionman575
January 4, 2013
I need a couch to rest my head on…
sunlight
January 4, 2013
Hey, let’s remove court reporters from civil proceedings, pass the bill on to the lawfirms and their clients, layoff more employees, bring in electronic recordiing then give the remaining employees a raise. Complete and utter BS and sounds like a backdoor deal was made somewhere. this isn’t *&^%ing rocket science.
courtflea
January 4, 2013
Exactly. Being ahead of the curve indeed.
Stuart MIchael
January 5, 2013
In the real world, not in the fairyland one occupied by court “leadership”, imposing the full bail amount on motorists who can’t afford these huge totals doesn’t represent actual money – since much of it will never be collected. When FTA fines and FTP civil assessments are added to the already high bail schedule amount, the totals are sky high. If the person has multiple cases it can add up to thousands of dollars. The total amount of unpaid traffic fines in California runs to many billions, even with the occasional amnesty programs that are half-heartedly trotted out every few years.
As one who spent many hours as a traffic court pro tem judge living in the real world of indigent alleged traffic offenders, I know that imposing big fines is not the same as actually collecting them. It used to be possible for a judicial officer to suspend a portion of the fine and set a more realistic total, which might actually be paid, because a $200-300 fine is more likely to be paid than a $1000-2000 one. This is no longer the case, since the constant quest for more revenue is what drives the system now. Any judicial officer – regular or pro tem – who does this too much soon hears from the PJ or court administrator that this can’t be done because the court needs the money, as do the many agencies that get a cut of the fine or designated revenue from the PA’s and other assessments. Law enforcement officers who issue warnings instead of citations face similar pressure.
The entire traffic court system is the modern day equivalent to the old justice of the peace days when the fines and fees paid the judge’s and constable’s salaries.
There’s no “justice california”, but JCW’s “Justice California” still stands as a beacon of truth and light, as do all of the other contributors to this site.
Fight on in 2013.
Wendy Darling
January 5, 2013
Stop by here more often, Stuart Michael. Yours is a voice of reason and experience that needs to heard here on JCW. So glad to hear from you, and your observations about the current state of the traffic court system in California is exactly right.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 7, 2013
It appears that the Shasta court is beginning to come to grips with its PR disaster and has removed Jack Halpin from 3 out of 11 cases, has reassigned some cases to other judges but is still holding him out as a judge of their court.
You’re getting warm Shasta. Just about the time all of the media stories are about to break….
litigants4justice
January 7, 2013
http://www.blindbulldog.com/
I am sharing a link which was posted on my FB wall today in regards to Judge Halpin. It is nice to know that social media is also up on this story. Awesome blog JCW!