This article has been corrected to reflect new information : We’re obliged to correct this article after obtaining an email inquiry forwarded to us from the court. It appears that “Assigned Judge Ha” does not represent Jack Halpin but instead, represents “Juvenile Hall” according to Melissa Fowler-Bradley
Accordingly, we’ve struck much of this article as erroneous. Our apologies about the confusion.
At the start of the week we observed that Shasta Courts had reduced Jack Halpin’s schedule from 11 3 to 8 0 cases. and that most of those 8 cases were actually scheduled so that another judge would be sitting in department 12 to hear them. Well, that number bounced from 8 cases to 23 cases overnight. It is amazing the audacity that this court and this chief justice has to perpetually re-appointing Halpin back to hear these cases. They’re not even waiting to find out how the AG will handle this. It is as if they are accepting the Halpin’s position that he recused himself from Mr. Wagner’s case and therefore the point is moot and that he will (or already has) been reassigned back to the Shasta bench to hear the matters below.
| 01/15/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | CITY OF REDDING VS. FRAZIER | SCRDCVPT12-0176088-000 | HEARING | DUVERNAY RICHARD | |
| 01/15/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF VS. JORDAN | SCRDCVPT12-0175878-000 | FURTHER PROCEEDINGS | COUNTY COUNSEL | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | BASLEE, JONNIE | MCRDCRI 12-0008549-002 | ARRAIGNMENT | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | BELL, BARBARA LYNN | MCRDCRI 12-0008554-000 | ARRAIGNMENT | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | DECKER, CRISTAL JOY | MCRDCRI 12-0008551-000 | ARRAIGNMENT | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | DILLMAN, KEITH ALLEN | MCRDCRI 12-0008549-003 | ARRAIGNMENT | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | DUSIO, KATHLEEN LOUISE | MCRDCRI 12-0008550-002 | ARRAIGNMENT | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | HARRINGTON, CRYSTAL MARIE | MCRDCRI 12-0002900-002 | OSC | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | HUBBARD, GINA ELIZABETH | MCRDCRI 12-0008440-000 | ARRAIGNMENT | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | HUTT, KRISHNA | MCRDCRI 12-0000464-000 | OSC | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | MANKIN, TIMOTHY LEIGHTON | MCRDCRI 12-0008550-003 | ARRAIGNMENT | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | PERRY, PATRICK ALBIN | MCRDCRI 12-0002900-003 | OSC | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | POWELL, KRISTY LYNN | MCRDCRI 12-0008552-000 | ARRAIGNMENT | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | SHELINE, ROBIN M. | MCRDCRI 12-0008555-002 | ARRAIGNMENT | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | SYTHAVONG, PANY | MCRDCRI 12-0008553-000 | ARRAIGNMENT | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/18/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | WILKINSON, CASEY LEE SR | MCRDCRI 12-0008555-003 | ARRAIGNMENT | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 01/29/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | PEOPLE VS. SPATH | SCRDCVPT13-0176348-000 | HEARING | PRO PER | DISTRICT ATTORNEY |
| 01/30/13 | 1100 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | HILL, TYRONE JOE | MCRDCRF 12-0003422-000 | TRAILING CASE | PUBLIC DEFENDER | DISTRICT ATTORNEY |
| 02/07/13 | 1000 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | HILL, TYRONE JOE | MCRDCRF 12-0003422-000 | TRAILING CASE | PUBLIC DEFENDER | DISTRICT ATTORNEY |
| 02/19/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | PEOPLE VS. KARNS | SCRDCVPT12-0175879-000 | FURTHER PROCEEDINGS | PRO PER | DISTRICT ATTORNEY |
| 02/21/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | HODGE, LONNIE DALE | MCRDCRI 12-0002832-003 | TRUANCY REVIEW HRG | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 02/21/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | ROOT, AMANDA | MCRDCRI 12-0002832-002 | TRUANCY REVIEW HRG | DISTRICT ATTORNEY | |
| 03/05/13 | 1330 | HALL | ASSIGNED JUDGE (HA | CITY OF REDDING VS. WOODWARD | SCRDCVPT12-0174792-000 | FURTHER PROCEEDINGS | DUVERNAY RICHA |
Message from the court of Shasta county and the chief justice of the supreme court to the citizens of Shasta county: Fuck off. We don’t need to obey no stinking laws.
unionman575
January 10, 2013
Nice work JCW!
😉
Wendy Darling
January 10, 2013
“Judge Halpin goes back on schedule with 23 cases.” Back down the rabbit hole . . .
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 10, 2013
http://www.dof.ca.gov/documents/FullBudgetSummary_web2013.pdf
‘
COURTS: Pages 103-104
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
January 10, 2013
Interesting – it’s not entirely clear what the judicial branch budget is. It appears to read like a 200K/ 2 mil cut but on page 104 it discusses a 200 mil sweep of construction funds. Corrected: It does appear on page 103 as redirection.**** What IS clear is that the Long Beach boondoggle is being paid for by 1407 funds. Way to go AOC. Help us anymore and justice at the trial court level will be a distant memory.
**** corrected
unionman575
January 10, 2013
http://www.insidebayarea.com/california-budget/ci_22347882/california-courts-take-another-hit-gov-jerry-browns
California courts take another hit in Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget plan
By Howard Mintz hmintz@mercurynews.com
Posted: 01/10/2013 11:03:46 AM PST
California’s already budget-battered court system appears to be taking another hit in Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget plan, which proposes draining another $200 million from the judiciary’s coffers by delaying courthouse construction projects.
The state’s court system, from its 58 trial courts to the California Supreme Court, would secure about $3.1 billion in the 2013-14 budget, dampening the hopes of judicial leaders who were hoping to restore some of the roughly $1.2 billion in funding slashed from the judicial branch over the past few years. The good news for the judicial branch appears to be that the net result of moving money around is that the trial courts will have a bit more money to work with in 2013-14.
But Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, while relieved the court branch isn’t being cut further, said she will now press her case with the governor and Legislature to restore some of the hundreds of millions of dollars lost in recent years, citing court closures, cuts in services and other strains on the California justice system.
“This is January, not June,” she said Thursday. “We’d like to keep the dialogue open. This budget doesn’t answer our problems and our challenges.”
Under the governor’s budget plan, the $200 million transfer of money out of trial court reserves would go toward court operations and delay unspecified courthouse construction projects for up to a year. The court system already has put numerous courthouse projects on hold during the past year to divert money to court operations, even though bond money had been raised to fund the projects.
Stephen Jahr, a retired judge now heading the California court bureaucracy, said the court construction fund is “already ravaged,” expressing concern that the additional $200 million cut now will further strain replacing dilapidated courthouses.
Thus far, Santa Clara County’s new family courthouse has been spared from construction delays and cuts, and local judges have indicated they hope the project is far enough along to avoid getting snagged in the state’s budget woes.
Trial courts throughout the state already have experienced layoffs and reduced hours in clerk’s offices.
Last year, the governor forced the judiciary to divert $400 million from trial court reserves to help cover a $544 million budget cut. In his budget outline, the Brown warned that by 2014-15, there will be no more reserves to tap and trial courts must make “permanent changes” to stay within projected budget levels.
The governor’s budget plan includes one feature that may draw criticism from parts of the judiciary that contend the statewide court bureaucracy already gets too much money. The governor would slightly increase the budget for the Judicial Council, which includes the much-maligned Administrative Office of the Courts.
State Bar President Patrick Kelly expressed concern about the court budget, saying legal leaders will work “with the governor and the Legislature to mitigate the harm caused by these serious cuts to our state court system.”
Meanwhile, the governor’s budget for the most part preserves the status quo for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which has slated to receive about $9 billion in the 2013-14 budget year. The budget summary indicates the state will continue to help counties with the cost of the governor’s “realignment” plan, which has shifted many low-level state inmates to county jails to relieve prison overcrowding under a federal court order.
The governor earlier this week urged the federal court to remove California’s prisons from the ongoing requirements of that court order, which forces the state to continue to shed thousands of inmates and improve the prisons’ medical and mental health care.
The budget plan also highlighted how much California’s youth prison system continues to shrink, with a population at a record low of fewer than 1,000 juvenile offenders being housed in state facilities. The budget does not identify the cost savings, but suggests the shifting of juvenile parolees to the oversight of county probation departments is part of the reduction in overall juvenile justice expenses for the state.
unionman575
January 10, 2013
Jerry Brown remember this: Trial courts throughout the state already have experienced layoffs and reduced hours in clerk’s offices.
unionman575
January 10, 2013
Folks say goodbye to dozens of additional Courthouses throughout the state and hundereds of additional Trial Court Employees : “Brown warned that by 2014-15, there will be no more reserves to tap and trial courts must make “permanent changes” to stay within projected budget levels.
”
We can start by closing down the fucking Death Star.
courtflea
January 10, 2013
Spot on unionman. say goodbye as well to family law facilitators, 1058 commisssioners, self help programs for pro pers cause courts with no reserves cannot float the cost of their actual expenditures for these programs while waiting to be reimbursed by the AOC. In addition to helping the public, these programs employ a lot of courts staff so they will be gone as well. Cut out any inovative programs that assist the public and create access to justice.
If the gov wants “permanent changes” in the branch, close down the fucking death star, or at least disembowel it.
unionman575
January 10, 2013
I love ya Flea!
Wendy Darling
January 10, 2013
“If the gov wants “permanent changes” in the branch, close down the fucking death star, or at least disembowel it.”
Uh-huh. Instead, the Governor’s proposed budget increases the amount of money given to the Judicial Council and the AOC. You know, because they are such outstanding examples of fiscal management and the prudent use of public funds.
Once again, that saying from the late Will Rodgers comes to mind: Have you ever noticed that the only thing common about common sense is just how uncommon it is?
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
January 10, 2013
Back at ya unionman!
Interesting in the LA times the gov is predicting budget surplus. Well shit. Politics gotta love it. Not
Judicial Council Watcher
January 10, 2013
It does seem beyond strange that the AOC (represented by the Judicial Council line item) would be getting more money while the courts get less. Talk about perversion of justice.
unionman575
January 10, 2013
Death Star HQ “needs” the money.
Fuck the little guys that work at court serving our citiizens.
unionman575
January 10, 2013
This is what you are going Jerry:
http://www.pe.com/local-news/san-bernardino-county/san-bernardino-county-headlines-index/20130104-inland-courts-cuts-closures-mean-inconveniences-for-residents.ece
INLAND COURTS: Cuts, closures mean inconveniences
The courthouse in San Bernardino is one of five in San Bernardino County that will remain open after May 2013. Three are closing that month, and three already have closed amid budget cuts.
BY RICHARD K. De ATLEY
STAFF WRITER
Published: January 04, 2013; 07:55 PM
Reeling from state budget cuts and drainage of rainy-day funds, Inland county courts have been closed, staff and services have been trimmed, and the number of retired judges used to ease caseloads has been reduced.
Some of the completed or planned courtroom closures have taken place in remote areas of the 20,000-square-mile San Bernardino County, meaning residents will have to travel long distances if they want to dispute their traffic ticket or small-claims case.
The courts that stay open — San Bernardino, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Victorville and Joshua Tree — will end up more crowded. Residents who use those facilities already face reduced court clerk hours and other services. Additionally, the convenient night courts for traffic ticket hearings are scheduled to cease in March.
The court in Needles is one of three ordered to close May 6. Population about 4,800, the town is on the Colorado River border with Arizona.
“We have no transportation, no buses, a lot of senior citizens without cars,” said Susan Alexis, co-owner of The Wagon Wheel Restaurant.
The nearest open, full-time courthouse by then will be in Victorville, 175 road miles or about 21/2 hours of driving — each way — from Needles.
“What are people going to do who don’t have transportation? That is the No. 1 question. … We don’t even have a taxicab that is based in Needles,” Alexis said in a phone interview Friday, Jan. 4.
It would be slightly less trouble if Needles residents could go to the Barstow court, a drive of 145 miles each way. But that also is scheduled to close in May. The Joshua Tree court is 147 miles away, but services there will be curtailed Feb. 4.
The other planned May closure is the court in Big Bear. Already closed are courts in Redlands, Twin Peaks and Chino.
“There will probably be fewer courthouses open than since the inception of the county,” Presiding Judge Marsha G. Slough said in a phone interview.
‘DISHEARTENING’
The judge said she had recently sworn in two newly appointed judges who were replacing retired jurists.
“Part of the oath is asking them to uphold the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of California, and part of what that means is you have a courtroom to go and argue disputes,” Slough said. “It was disheartening,” she said, to administer the oaths when in previous days she had issued orders closing courts.
The most recent court closures and accompanying reduction of 44 staffers are expected to save $5.3 million a year. Even so, San Bernardino County Court Executive Officer Stephen H. Nash said he was forecasting a $7 million shortfall for the system during the next fiscal year. That may cause additional cuts, he said.
In Riverside County, officials last summer closed courtrooms in Corona and Palm Springs. Sherri Carter, the court executive officer in Riverside County, said she did not anticipate any additional closures for the rest of this fiscal year, which runs through June.
The court also has severely cut its use of retired judges to handle its caseload. Five years ago it used 21 to 22 assigned judges daily; now the number is six.
While all the state’s court systems have been hit by budget cuts in recent years, Inland courts were in trouble before the recession took hold.
San Bernardino and Riverside counties are first and second, respectively, for deficits of judgeships in the state. No new judgeships were added as the counties’ populations grew during the past decade. Dozens more would be needed to effectively handle the current volume of cases, an October study found.
RESERVES DRAINED
Riverside and San Bernardino County courts each built up reserves in anticipation of hard times during the recession.
But the budget plan for the current fiscal year called on the courts that had reserves to put a share of that money into a general fund for courts statewide. There were objections — not every system had reserves, but all 58 counties were going to benefit from the ones that did.
Nash, the court executive officer for San Bernardino County, said his system had reserves of $37 million last fiscal year; it was down to $32 million by July 1. He anticipates it will be at $9 million by June 30, and that may quickly be depleted after contributions to the statewide fund for next year’s budget and the court’s own use of the reserves.
“We are speeding downhill,” Nash said. “We will not have an effective reserve.”
Riverside County started the current fiscal year with a reserve of $17 million. Then it got hit three times, Carter said: $7.6 million that the Legislature mandated to be put into the statewide court general fund; a general fund reduction of $6.2 million, and another $1.1 million into a statewide reserve administered by the California Judicial Council.
“It’s gone,” Carter said. “We had planned for this to get us through these tough years.”
There is anticipation that when Gov. Jerry Brown announces his budget outline Thursday, Jan. 10, he will call for up to $200 million more to be contributed from the courts’ reserve systems, Nash and Carter said. That would wipe out reserves and cut into the base contributions each court gets from the state to make it up.
FUNDING WOES
The state’s contribution to both counties’ court systems already dropped considerably for this year’s budgets.
Riverside County received $59.3 million, which was $12.5 million less than the previous year’s allotment. That could still be reduced by another $2.4 million for this fiscal year, Carter said. The court’s total budget from all sources is $82.3 million, with about 1,100 staffers, around 150 fewer than three years ago.
San Bernardino County received $73.5 million from the state in the current budget, which was $35.3 million less than the previous year. The court has a current year budget of $103.5 million, with about 950 employees after the most recent layoffs. A couple of years ago the court had about 1,100 workers, Nash said
Nash said there was one bright spot: A Trial Court Funding Work Group, with members appointed by both Gov. Brown and Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, is reviewing how courts are funded annually. Nash said the methodology has not changed since the state Legislature began funding in courts in fiscal year 1997-98. That was based on what counties had funded their court systems previously.
“They have been using the same percentages, year after year, even though the workload and the populations have shifted,” said Nash, pointing out the huge population and caseload increases in the Inland area. “Each year the disparate funding was getting worse.
“We just think it’s a very positive development,” he said of the work group.
Mirko Vojnovic
January 10, 2013
Regarding Judge Halpin: Report him to FBI; him and Tani Cantil, et al, that will put some additional pressure on them. What they are doing is unconstitutional and falls under “color of law” federal crime.
To give you an example:
I reported judge Neal Cabrinha from Santa Clara Family Court (and his buddy, justice Ming Chin, as probable accomplice) to central FBI office in San Francisco in November of 2011. By February of 2012, Cabrinha retired.
Even though FBI never prosecuted, swift retirement was a sign that it did hurt him, and that some kind of the deal was achieved. Cabrinha claimed he retired because of his failing eyesight, but now, a year later, he is back as an assigned judge. This obviously tells you that AOC is susceptible to external pressure, but they also know how to deflect it. Therefore, pressure must be constant, until they cave in.
elenabg27
January 11, 2013
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.