We called it an oligarchy. Ray Pensador said they’re turning our judicial system into something akin to a Banana Republic. Here is proof-positive that we’re both correct.
_______________________________________________
February 11, 2013
Dear Members and Others,
You probably have heard the expression, “The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.” Well, indeed that appears to be true with the creation of yet another Judicial Council task force that will “develop a strategic plan for court technology.”
Some of you may wonder why this is happening when the Chairman of the powerful Judicial Council’s Rules Committee recently announced the reduction of committees and task forces. Although the Alliance is unable to answer that question, we cannot fail to make certain observations which should concern all of us as we attempt to rehabilitate the branch’s reputation and image with the Governor’s Office and the Legislature.
We need not take the time to restate in detail the colossal and embarrassing computer fiasco presided over by the Council and AOC staff known as CCMS. The bottom line is that over a half billion public dollars were wasted on a system that was ill conceived, poorly executed and doomed from the start due to, among other things, competency issues. This is not just our opinion. This was the conclusion made by respected State Auditor Elaine Howle after an exhaustive audit of the program, an audit that our branch leaders attempted to kill as “duplicative.”
We also should remember that, but for legislative intervention and years of vocal opposition from judges of the Alliance and others, public monies would still be flowing into CCMS. In fact, branch leaders continue to claim that CCMS works. They describe CCMS as a “Ferrari” for which we do not have the resources to fill the tank. So, there our valuable investment sits in a garage with no ability to go anywhere fast.
Which brings us to the new task force. The Chief Justice has appointed Judge James Herman to chair the task force. One of CCMS’s most vocal supporters, Judge Herman has sat on virtually every committee and task force connected to CCMS. In addition to this new task force, which will report to the Judicial Council’s Technology Committee, Judge Herman coincidentally also chairs that committee. So, in effect, he will be reporting to himself.
Making matters that much more efficient, the following members of the new task force also serve on Judge Herman’s Technology Committee: the Hon. Terrence Bruniers, Hon. Judith Ashmann-Gerst, Hon. Ira Kaufman and the Hon. Robert Moss. These members will likewise be reporting to themselves.
Staffing the new task force is Jessica Craven, who works in the AOC’s Information Technology Services Office. That is quite convenient as Ms. Craven also serves as the AOC staffer to Judge Herman’s Technology Committee. You should be aware that, prior to Ms. Craven’s new assignment to the IS division, she was assigned as a Senior Business Analyst in the Southern Regional Office which was tasked with developing and implementing CCMS. As of July 8, 2011, Ms. Craven was employed in the “CCMS Division,” which sometime thereafter morphed into the “IS Division.”
Clearly technology issues need to be addressed. Those early adopter courts which relied on CCMS being a game changer are now left with an outdated program which is expensive to maintain and operate, with no ability to purchase a replacement due to budget cuts.
It is shameful that our branch wasted over half a billion dollars on a failed computer system. We must take bold and immediate steps to restore our credibility with the Governor, Legislature, Legislative Analyst’s Office, the State Auditor and the Department of Finance. Creating “new” task forces and committees populated with the same leaders who presided over CCMS is not a winning strategy. Nor will this shell game impress the smart and sophisticated legislators and staff members who witnessed the CCMS disaster up close and personal.
As another example of how little things have changed in the operations of the AOC and Judicial Council, we offer a news report from KCRA in Sacramento about travel expenses for Judicial Council meetings. The story notes that more than $50,000 was spent last year on hotel accommodations for Judicial Council members. If these handpicked court leaders were effective stewards of the courts’ limited resources perhaps some travel expenses for their meetings could be justified, but at a time when the courts continue to be asked to do more with less shouldn’t we see a greater effort on their part to reduce these expenses? A direct link to the news video appears here.
These are just the latest examples of why the Alliance remains determined to bring democratic representation to the Judicial Council. “Speaking with one voice” only perpetuates and ensures that past mistakes will continue to be repeated. The continued unchecked spending of the Judicial Council, and the creation and operation of task forces that fail to provide meaningful oversight of projects like CCMS, further illustrate that these appointed court leaders do not embrace meaningful reform. The Alliance will continue to advocate for real change on behalf of our local courts.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 11, 2013
Remember the movie Bananas? Back when Woody Allen was actually funny?
There were some great lines in that movie, many of which could be attributed to people at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. For example, when the new dictator took over in San Marcos, he made many grand proclamations, such as: “From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish. Silence! In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check. Furthermore, all children under 16 years old are now… 16 years old!”
Is this the type of exchange that we can expect in the near future from our fearless leader, HRH-2?
How can the Trial Courts continue down this path? Most of us have downsized by 35-55% in the past four fiscal years. How can the citizens of California simply stand on the sidelines and accept the dictates from HRH-2 and her band of unelected consorts. What is it going to take before the people of this State wake up and ask why they are being denied access to a full branch of their government?
It is hard to place blame on Governor Brown or the members of the Legislature when the rampant and blatant mismanagement and continued free-spending has gone on within the Third Branch of government for well over a decade.
Citizens of California, wake up and stand up. Say you’re as mad as Hell and you’re not going to take it anymore. Contact your Legislators and demand that the Trial Courts, not the Judicial Council or AOC, be fully-funded. Representing less than 2% of the entire State Budget, this should be a no-brainer. But when you have a “no-brainer” running the opposition, sometimes it is kinda hard to get your point across to the people.
People are going to wake up in the near future, not later than the outset of the next fiscal year, and find signs on the doors to their courthouses reading, “CLOSED”.
Wendy Darling
February 11, 2013
“In addition to this new task force, which will report to the Judicial Council’s Technology Committee, Judge Herman coincidentally also chairs that committee. So, in effect, he will be reporting to himself.”
Reporting to himself. Yes, indeed, the more things “change” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, the more things really do stay the same. (Hey, Unionman, how about a video for “rubber stamping”?)
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ. Forever.
Michael Paul
February 11, 2013
They can’t trot out anyone credible so they do the incredible and create a “Task Force” comprised of some of the least credible.
Do I hear three-peat?
The definition of a Task Force:
In government or business a task force is temporary organization created to solve a particular problem. It is considered to be a more formal ad-hoc committee. A taskforce, or more-commonly task force, is a special committee, usually of experts formed expressly for the purpose of studying a particular problem. The task force usually performs some sort of an audit to assess the current situation, then draws up a list of all the current problems present and evaluates which ones merit fixing and which ones are actually fixable.
The task force would then formulate a set of solutions to the problems and pick the “best” solution to each problem, as determined by some set of standards. For example, a task force set up to eliminate excessive government spending might consider a “best” solution to be one that saves the most money. Normally, the task force then presents its findings and proposed solutions to the institution that called for its formation; it is then up to the institution itself to actually act upon the task force’s recommendations.
These people need to step aside. They had their chance. They failed spectacularly. Now is the time to put our full faith and credit behind the technology managers in the trial courts that run the trial courts and shut down cold any notion of allowing this ship of fools to develop standards that would permit them to claw back any more control over and money from the trial courts.
Wendy Darling
February 11, 2013
Amen, Michael Paul.
JusticeCalifornia
February 11, 2013
Bravo.
In order to regain credibility, the branch needs respected, effective, qualified, responsible, ethical leadership.
The branch has zero, and I do mean zero, credibility under current leadership.
A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet.. . . .Shakespeare.
By the same token, bull$$$$ by any other name is bull$$$$. And if Sakauye thinks creating ostensibly new “leadership” paradigms and committees with the same old tired, compromised bull$$$$ Team George branch players who got the branch into this mess is going to save her and her tired, compromised Team George stalwarts and supporters, well, as they would say in the south, poor dear, bless her heart.
You know, you watch these re-runs/retreads and you really do have to suspect these players are shucking and jiving and circling the wagons while desperately waiting for the various statutes of limitations to run.
Lando
February 11, 2013
The beauty of our democracy is that the people get to vote out of office those who have failed them. Individual judges are subject to this same standard every six years. How ironic it is that the judicial branch as a whole is however run by a completely anti democratic Judicial Council. This Council and the administrative arm of the Judicial Council the AOC, are run largely by only one person, the Chief Justice as she appoints the vast majority of Judicial Council members. The astounding reality is that the largest judicial system in the world is essentially a dictatorship. History shows that when power is so concentrated it will inevitably fail. What we have here is a total failure. CCMS, the Long Beach courthouse, massive layoffs in the trial courts, courthouse closures, 150,000 spent on posh hotels and airfare for Council insiders, you get the idea. General Woodhull is absolutely correct. Now we must all stand up and respectfully make the case for democracy for our branch. Until and unless we achieve this basic yet important goal, nothing will change, nothing at all. The proof of that is after losing half a billion dollars on CCMS , our Chief Justice went out and appointed a “new ” technology group made up of many of the same insiders that failed us before.That act alone proves that what the insiders at 455 Golden Gate want to do first and above all else is to preserve their power, while suppressing any and all dissent. Isn’t that what dictatorships exist for ?
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2013
Not to mention a failure of ehtics and administrative leadership, Lando. But those things are usually absent in dictatorship that is answerable to no one.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 12, 2013
unionman575
February 12, 2013
http://www.citywatchla.com/8br-hidden/4516-the-pillaging-of-the-california-superior-courts
The Pillaging of the California Superior Courts
Written by James Preston Allen
12Feb2013
JUSTICE – I am afraid that at this point, most people look upon going to court in somewhat the same way they look at going to church.
They only do it when they must, and even then, only under duress.
When you think about it, courts and churches do have some striking similarities. Both have these large symbolic edifices with intimidating rooms of pomp and ritual where attendees sit in rows. One is refrained from approaching the altar, judicial or otherwise, unless invited and the officiators for either God or law all wear ceremonial robes. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Just as we have segregated God from pedestrian access, so too have we separated justice from the common civic experience. It’s about to get worse in our California justice system.
Some of you have heard about the pending threat of San Pedro Courthouse’s closing due to state budget cuts. In a statement issued by Judge David S. Wesley, the presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court on Jan. 11, “[the] annual budget shortfall of $195 million for [the] Los Angeles Superior Court…confirms the need to move forward with the plan…to close 10 courthouses.”
San Pedro is just one. This is just more of the unintended consequences of balancing the state budget while screwing the taxpayers. Let me explain.
Several years ago, we were sold the idea that consolidating the municipal courts into the superior court system would create a more seamless legal system and contain costs. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the unelected Judicial Council who oversee the court’s funding runs this new and better system. Both seem to be perfectly inept at doing the job.
For instance, in 2003 the AOC implemented a statewide computer project called the California Court Case Management System for an initial estimate of $250 million. That seemed like a reasonable attempt to update the court system. The AOC’s records now show that the full cost of the project is likely to reach a whopping $1.9 billion and the system has still yet to work. However, after objections from critics, the legislature terminated funding after spending $520 million.
The other drain on the Superior Court budget is the exorbitant cost of constructing new courthouses as reported by Judge David R. Lampe in the California Litigation journal as being between $523 and $747 per square foot.
“The ‘poster child’ example of the AOC construction blundering may well be the…Long Beach courthouse… This crucial project is in jeopardy because the AOC failed to plan…for its cost,” Lampe wrote in 2012.
It has later been explained that the private-public investment of this cathedral to justice in Long Beach will cost the State or the court system some $35 million a year for 35 years and is a large part of the reason maintenance issues at all other courts in the state are being deferred. This is because of the confusion as to how this will be paid.
This monument to AOC incompetence is being heralded as, “The first social infrastructure project in the United States procured under the principles of Performance-Based Infrastructure contracting.
Under the infrastructure agreement, the Judicial Council of California (JCC) will own the building, and the Superior Court of Los Angeles County will occupy approximately 80 percent of the space. The JCC will pay LBJP (Long Beach Judicial Partners) an annual, performance-based service fee for 35 years.”
In addition to this, the independent California Legislative Analyst’s Office found that the public-private partnership now building this $490 million Gov. George Deukmejian Courthouse in Long Beach is going to cost $160 million more than it should because cost estimates were flawed.
So the issue of losing just our local courthouse is now mushrooming into the statewide problem of AOC and JCC mismanagement of funds. This, while every citizen of the state knows that the cost of a single traffic violation gets quadrupled with court fees and administrative costs. Where’s all that money going anyway?
Why is it that our candidates for city attorney have not come out to castigate the AOC for its incompetence and campaigned to save our courthouses?
Why is it that the newly elected Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey hasn’t protested to the presiding judge of Los Angeles?
And why is it that our own Councilman Joe Buscaino and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa haven’t lodged a complaint with the governor about the closure of our local courthouses—an action that will affect every citizen in the city?
And why is it that we have not heard hew nor cry from every officer of the court, bailiff, lawyer and judge in the county calling for an official investigation and audit before the ax falls on our local courts?
Moreover, the fundamental issue beyond the fiscal mismanagement and boondoggle of the Long Beach courthouse is that denying access to justice is the equivalent of denying justice to those without local access. Once again we are seeing fiscal policy trumping our very liberty and civil rights.
Will California’s justice system survive its own reorganization?
(James Preston Allen is the Publisher of Random Lengths News and an occasional contributor to CityWatch. More of Allen and other views and news at randomlengthsnews.com where this column was first posted)
unionman575
February 12, 2013
Welcome to the party dude: “So the issue of losing just our local courthouse is now mushrooming into the statewide problem of AOC and JCC mismanagement of funds. ”
😉
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2013
“And why is it that we have not heard hew nor cry from every officer of the court, bailiff, lawyer and judge in the county calling for an official investigation and audit before the ax falls on our local courts? ”
Someone should let Mr. Preston know about Judicial Council Watcher. A large number of , us here and elsewhere, including court employees, attorneys, and judges, have been hewing and crying for an official investigation and audit for quite some time now We’ve hewed and cried to the Governor’s Office, the State Legislature, the Bureau of State Audits, the Attorney General’s Office, the U.S. Dept. of Justice, and the FBI, among others.
Apparently no one is listening, or, if they are, are choosing to do nothing about it.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 12, 2013
Here you go Wendy…I nominate you to “reach out” to Mr. Allen if you are so inclined…
James Preston Allen is the Publisher of Random Lengths News. More of Allen … and other views and news at: randomlengthsnews.com where this column was first posted
Use the form here to e-mail Jaaes Preston Allen:
http://www.randomlengthsnews.com/component/option,com_contact/task,view/contact_id,4/Itemid,3/
Random Lengths News editorial office is located at 1300 S. Pacific Ave., San Pedro, CA 90731, (310) 519-1016. Address correspondence regarding news items and news tips only to Random Lengths News, P.O. Box 731, San Pedro, CA 90733-0731, or email using the form on this page.
😉
unionman575
February 12, 2013
“‘These members will likewise be reporting to themselves.”
Hmm…sounds kinda like this…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_jerk
😉
Michael Paul
February 12, 2013
A pejorative term for an oligarchy that is self-perpetuated by members granting each other disproportionate rewards for work that is of limited merit outside the group (the negative form of meritocracy).
You always find the good stuff!
unionman575
February 12, 2013
They are gonna need plenty of “special” party towels to wipe themselves off up there at the Death Star.
😉
unionman575
February 12, 2013
Supper is about to be served at the Death Star…
😉
The OBT
February 12, 2013
Life is ironic indeed. We are about to celebrate Lincoln’s birthday. As we all know , this great man did an incredible amount , including saving our democracy. In contrast , the California judicial branch leadership is doing all it can to make sure it never becomes a democracy. The few ” insiders” enjoy their perks . Expensive hotels, expensive and well appointed court facilities, seats at the center of power in the William C. Vickrey conference center and worst of all, obtaining more power for themselves at the expense of the trial courts and the citizens we work for. Having attained that power, some of the insiders enjoy whatever it takes to insure any dissenting point of view is ignored, belittled or sanctioned. Fortunately thanks to great leaders like President Lincoln, the first amendment trumps the insiders. It is the vehicle upon which the citizens of California are educated about the excesses of anti-democratic judicial branch rule. So thanks to everyone here who posts the truth, including but not limited to JCW, Wendy Darling, General Woodhull, Courtflea, Wearyant, Unionman, Michael Paul, Justice California, Lando , Jimmy, Ana, R Compandondo ( I hope I got that right } and the many others my aging brain can’t recall just now. Thanks also to the ACJ , the CJA and authors of the SEC report for their efforts to reform the branch and to bring light onto the dark and insular hallways of 455 Golden Gate. Thanks also for the many legislators who had the courage to do what was right and vote to pass AB 1208. In the end democracy is worth fighting for. I will remain steadfast and positive that we will accomplish our goal to democratize the Judicial Council and reduce the size of the AOC so that the trial courts can survive. Have a great holiday everyone.
The OBT
February 12, 2013
Yes I have had my recollection refreshed so many thanks to R. Campomadera, Delliah, Versal, Disgusted , Max Rebo 5 and Been There, along with Chuck Horan and Tony Maino for their great insights as well.
unionman575
February 12, 2013
Richard Feldstein is the court executive officer with Napa Superior Court.
“the court will continue to listen carefully to public feedback, concerns and suggestions about improved public service”
😉
http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/courthouse-corner/courthouse-corner-court-seeks-new-ways-to-adjust-to-budget/article_071c62be-74d1-11e2-ace9-001a4bcf887a.html
Courthouse Corner: Court seeks new ways to adjust to budget cuts
Richard D. Feldstein
Napa Superior Court, like all trial courts throughout California, has been funded by the state since the late 1990s. While state trial court funding provided increased fiscal resources and expanded justice services throughout the 2000s, the state’s trial courts have been hit by consecutive years of significant budget reductions during recent years of fiscal recession.
The resulting unavoidable staff reductions through hiring freezes and layoffs have made it necessary for the court to seek new ways to maintain essential court services from our local community. This has included close collaboration with our community partners to find ways to make operations more efficient and maximize available justice system resources. This article provides some examples of these efforts.
The court recently worked closely with Legal Aid of the Napa Valley to provide expanded small claims guidance to litigants who may not be able to otherwise afford legal assistance in preparing for their day in court. The court and Legal Aid worked together to acquire grant funding for a part-time attorney position in the self-help center in the Historic Courthouse on Brown Street. While small claims court does not allow attorney representation in the courtroom, litigants often need assistance in determining the nature of their claim, completing the necessary paperwork, and gathering and organizing evidence that supports their case. The small claims attorney is now available on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 12:30-4:30 p.m. to assist those who financially qualify as low-income.
In addition to Legal Aid of the Napa Valley, the court has collaborated with the Napa Bar Association to make judicial officer resources more available to the public through a temporary judge program.
Beginning this month, local attorneys who pass a rigorous court/bar association selection process and complete a detailed training program will sit as Judge Pro Tems in small claims court. The donation of their time and efforts will allow our judicial officers to focus on other case types in the areas of civil, family law, juvenile and criminal litigation.
This program will provide valuable judicial resources in the face of compressed operating hours in each of our county courthouses. Now that this new program is operational, the court and County Bar Association will next begin collaborating on a volunteer mediation program, in which qualified volunteer attorneys will work with litigants to settle cases in a less adversarial manner through discussion, mutual understanding and the finding of common interests. The court greatly appreciates the many attorneys who have stepped up to assist in these difficult times.
In the criminal and juvenile law arenas, collaboration among partners is even more important now than ever. The court has already replaced paper case files with a digital docket on the bench for all criminal cases, and the county’s effort to re-engineer its justice management information system provides an important opportunity to integrate and exchange electronic data with what historically were independent and isolated islands of information.
Through these multi-agency efforts, personal computer screens, iPads, and even smartphones will soon replace cumbersome paper files, thereby significantly increasing the efficiency of the criminal and juvenile justice systems.
The court will continue to seek input from the most important users of the court system, the local citizens of Napa County. Budget reductions have required the court to close its courtrooms and clerk’s office each Friday at 2:30 p.m. Although documents can still be deposited with the court until 5 p.m. and are considered to be filed on that day, the court recognizes this measure’s unavoidable imposition on local community members.
To that end, the court will continue to listen carefully to public feedback, concerns and suggestions about improved public service. For example, based on juror feedback, the court recently adjusted its operations and jurors can now call in at 4 p.m. instead of after 5 p.m. each Friday to determine their service for the following week, allowing people more time to make arrangements with their employers before Monday morning.
The court recognizes the need to work collaboratively with its justice partners and citizens to improve its services to the public. Such outreach is more important than ever during these difficult economic times, and the court will continually seek new opportunities to improve its services through such efforts.
unionman575
February 12, 2013
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/the-state-of-the-law-2013-edition/273051/
The State of the Law, 2013 Edition
By Andrew Cohen
Feb 12 2013, 10:33 AM ET
Today in America, on the most basic levels, government also has failed to deliver to hundreds of millions of its constituents the timely administration of law. One of the basic foundations of any capitalist society is a functioning and fair judicial system — one that resolves disputes and creates the legal certainties that markets demand. But today too many Americans cannot get their day in court because their courts are closed by budget cuts, because their trial judges labor under staggering case loads, or because lawmakers here in Washington have failed to timely confirm even those judicial nominees with broad bipartisan support.
This is unacceptable. No country that considers itself first-rate should have a third-rate judicial system. No country that professes to adhere to a rule of law should tolerate empty benches and dark courthouses. No country that respects its judiciary should permit its judges to be hassled and harried by unworkable dockets. I now ask the Senate to speed up the pace of federal judicial confirmation votes. And I call on lawmakers everywhere to restore state judiciaries to their rightful status as a co-equal branches of government.
———————————————————————————————————————
Andrew Cohen is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and legal analyst for 60 Minutes. He is also chief analyst and legal editor for CBS Radio News and has won a Murrow Award as one of the nation’s leading legal analysts and commentators. More
Andrew Cohen is a Murrow Award-winning legal analyst and commentator. He covers legal events and issues for CBS News’ 60 Minutes and CBS Radio News and its hundreds of affiliates around the country. He is also a contributing editor at The Atlantic, where he focuses his writing upon the intersection of law and politics.He is the winner of the American Bar Association’s 2012 Silver Gavel Award for his Atlantic commentary about the death penalty in America and the winner of the Humane Society’s 2012 Genesis Award for his coverage of the plight of America’s wild horses. A racehorse owner and breeder, Cohen also is a two-time winner of both the John Hervey and O’Brien Awards for distinguished commentary about horse racing. Follow Andrew on Twitter at @CBSAndrew.
😉
unionman575
February 12, 2013
2-12-13
The Assembly Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on how Californians have been affected by a steady diet of cuts to the court system’s budget. Starting at at 1:30 p.m. in Room 447 of the Capitol.
Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/02/12/2390664/capitol-alert-am-alert-environment.html#storylink=cpy
unionman575
February 12, 2013
http://www.modbee.com/2013/02/11/2574170/new-stanislaus-county-courthouse.html
Monday, Feb. 11, 2013
New Stanislaus County courthouse has cleared another budget hurdle
By J.N. Sbranti
Stuart MIchael
February 12, 2013
Justice California – as usual you are right on point
It’s all about the Statutes (State & Fed) running out for current/former baddies and continuing to commit more bad deeds
And of course – its also about following the $$
Too bad prosecutors don’t have the spine to take on the same judiciaries they have to live with
Too bad the gov can’t do much more than choke off the money supply
Too bad the CA Constitution limits what the Legislature can do about the powers of the CJ
Too bad the trial courts have become tethered goats waiting for more hunks of flesh to be ripped off by the circling coyotes
Who’s this all too bad for?
Of course – its the millions of Californians who need and want a fair and efficient judicial system that delivers real justice who are getting the short end of this sordid stick.
court flea
February 12, 2013
did you know that there even is a special dining room for the folks that use the Vickrey conference room, just down the hall from the Jahr heads? 😉
MaxRebo5
February 12, 2013
I agree with Lando that the Judicial Council is a dictatorship controlled by the Chief Justice. The current Chief Justice inherited that format from her predecessor. My two comments for this thread are based on a show I saw the other day on the Allied fire-bombing of Germany in WWII (dictatorship turned violent) and the current event of the Pope resigning.
I was watching this show of the Allies trying to bomb military targets in WW II and they were taking huge losses. Like 50% of planes and their crews being lost on their bombing runs going for key military targets deep within Germany. Then allied command started to bomb whole German cities. They changed tactics to bomb civilians in part to try and get the people of Germany to rise up against their dictator oppressor. Such an uprising never happened. Even with massive destruction of their cities the German people were so afraid of their leaders and so sure on the Nazi regimes grip on power they would not dare rise up against them.
I think fear is also why the majority of CA Court employees and judges are silent. They know something is wrong at the AOC but don’t want to risk what they have (their jobs/professional reputations). They are gamblers and know the Chief is safe and not likely to change. The best they can hope for is a change from outside (Governor/Legislature/Feds) but in the meantime they just carry on and keep their heads down like many of the German people did. I am not saying the Chief is Hitler (neither she nor Ron George have not done anything violent to anyone) but they do rule the JC with a dictatorial grip of power and that is a problem. I am primarily commenting on the psyche of groups under a dictator or bully (like Lance Armstrong) and why those groups do not act.
At this point with all of the scandals on CA courts I would expect every CA trial court judge to have joined the Alliance and spoken out. Those who have I consider to be similar to the brave voices who spoke out about Lance Armstrong as a doper at great risk to themselves even though it was the truth.
I think the division of the 58 trial courts is working against a consolidated voice back to the Chief. Also the protection the public gives to the Chief Justice from political pressure in Supreme Court decisions and as a justice is appropriate but it works most unfortunately when that deference applied to the Chief as chair of the Judicial Council in making policy decisions for the branch. The Chief Justice is the branch’s policy leader but she has no formal education in judicial administration. The Chief’s expertise supposed to be in the law and it is somewhat questionable why she was selected to be Chief given her limited work as an Appellate Court Justice (but that’s more of my second point).
Returning to my dictator point, I think many CA Court employees/judges (like the Germans in WW II) are hoping someone on the outside will come to their rescue because they can’t do it themselves. A few are true believer in their leaders “vision” (folks Justice Huffman in his San Diego palace) who want a centralized CA Courts. In the case of Germany and also Japan in WWII reforms from within never came. Their nation had to get wiped out, occupied, and rebuilt for reform to come. In wartime Japan it took two nuclear bombs and Russia declaring war on them to give in.
In the case of CA Courts we are seeing branch offices of trial courts closing all around the state effectively wiping out access to justice for the CA public and jobs for CA court employees are also being wiped out. I believe the CA Courts need to be occupied and go into receivership (like Corrections had to) under Federal Court control because CA politicians cannot muster the will to do the job. In the case of corrections CA politicians could not reduce the prison population though it was needed. In this case administrative reforms are not being made given the dictatorial structure of the CA Judicial Council and the prior Chief who handpicked his successor viewing talk of such change as acts of war.
This leads me to my second comment which is tied to the current event of the Pope resigning for the first time in over 600 years. I heard in the press that some are saying he is doing so in part to help select his successor. I find that action similar to Ron George resigning as Chief Justice of CA Courts and then playing an active part in selecting his successor. It is most disturbing action to not trust the remaining members of the institution to do what they see fit in selecting a leader. The Pope does not want his cardinals to be able to select their new leader on their own without his influence. Such distrust is not admirable. The same thing took place with Ron George and the Chief position. He handpicked his successor and that is a very troubling action because it did not serve the branch well in making needed reforms (such as democratizing the Judicial Council, changing the culture at the AOC, and making cuts at the AOC). What chance for real reform can occur with such succession planning? It’s closer to the selection process for leaders in a dictatorship like North Korea not for a public office in the United States.
Fortunately we have elections at the Federal Level for Presidents so the Vice President has to be approved as the successor (think of Truman after FDR having to win his own election). That’s an important check on the Executive branch going back to the people to avoid dictatorships. It should also be applied to the CA Judicial Branch for the selection of Chief Justices or to Popes at the Vatican as well. Is it not ironic that the Catholic Church is another institution in trouble from multiple sex abuse scandals by priests on boys and the cover ups from within (I say this as a baptized Catholic)?
People for years whispered of those sex scandals by priests in the Catholic Church. People for years whispered of Lance Armstrong doping and the denials and attacks back on those critics were brutal. In both cases the abuses, cover ups, and lies were true. The same sort of resistance to the truth is going on in CA Courts at the top levels. They claim to want access to justice for CA’s public but it is really just about protecting their high paying jobs at the AOC.
The most important thing to preserve for the courts is integrity of the process and a willingness to find the truth. Seeking the truth is what USADA did when they investigated Lance’s doping allegations. Lance was then stripped of all of his tour victories in disgrace. To Lamce’s credit he has now admitted what he did (in part) and I love that he has come clean. The USADA investigation of Lance is similar to the SEC Report. The problem is the Chief is not stripping the culprits of their positions or reputations. The JC conference center is still named after Bill Vickrey, his number 3 lieutenant is still an assistant state court administrator under Jahr. The truth is the SEC Report called for major reforms at the JC and AOC. The deception is the Chief pretends those reforms have been and are being made. They have not. Cuts need to be made at the AOC, Team George needs to be removed, and the JC needs to be democratized. That’s a painful process but that’s what the branch has to go through to honor the truth and restore its reputation. As the Bible says, love rejoices in the truth and I believe that is what folks on this page are really fighting for.
unionman575
February 12, 2013
“Cuts need to be made at the AOC,”.
I do you one better…get rid of the AOC.
The AOC is a tolla waste of money.
ALL AOC moneyshould go to trial court operations throughout CA now.
It is time.
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
February 12, 2013
While lengthy, this is one of the most accurate, thorough, thoughtful analysis I’ve seen in quite awhile and well worth the read MaxRebo.
MaxRebo5
February 12, 2013
Leaves us with 58 case management systems, 58 administrations, 58 HR units, and on it goes. I think CA would be better served with new leadership over a much smaller AOC.
The AOC should support the JC in a much smaller role
Get out of courthouse construction (leave that to DGS)
Get out of SF and have smaller and cheaper digs in Sacramento
Have a few staff to help make policy (like the Legislative Analyst)
Lobby for the Branch – OGA is needed but should be very small
Keep the payroll and benefits software used by many courts
Keep the CA Courts web page
Attorneys for the JC
That’s about it
100 staff could do this. Not 800
court flea
February 12, 2013
Not only are folks afraid MaxRebo5 but naive……some actually believe that change has occured via the “reorganization” of the Aoc and that the new Chief is great and nothing like HRH1 Yep heard that with my own ear sensors. bout fell off my chair.
R. Campomadera
February 12, 2013
It is my opinion that the Alliance of California Judges is the best hope for the California courts. It is the only organization within the judiciary which is independent, democratic, and not a part of the historical and established judiciary power structure. Which, of course, is why the current regime wants to ignore it and keep its leaders out of the inner circle of power and decision making. Why else would the CJ refuse to allow a representative of the Alliance on the Judicial Council?
Perhaps the Legislature and the Governor should “suggest” to Her Highness that budget negotiations will go better for the judiciary if the President of the Alliance is automatically a voting member of the Judicial Council. Then there would be at least one member of the Council who isn’t beholden to the established power structure for his/her continuing membership.
It would be a small step towards the oft-stated goal of “democratizing” the Judicial Council.
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2013
“It is my opinion that the Alliance of California Judges is the best hope for the California courts. It is the only organization within the judiciary which is independent, democratic, and not a part of the historical and established judiciary power structure.”
You are not alone in that opinion, R Campomadera. Many here, and elsewhere, share that opinion. The ACJ is also the only organization within the California judiciary whose members are ethical, who have not forgotten their public duty and oath, and are not motivated or guided by self promotion or self preservation of power. The ACJ is a reminder of what the California Judicial Branch once was, a branch of State government hallmarked by adherence to the law, ethics, and integrity, and what it might be yet again.
As always, long live the ACJ.
courtflea
February 12, 2013
Yup, the ACJ and Superman are our hope for truth justice and the saving of the American way
unionman575
February 12, 2013
and of course…JCW
😉
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2013
I’m going with the ACJ. Kryptonite doesn’t even phase them.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2013
Same thing for JCW. Kryptonite doesn’t phase JCW either.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2013
Speaking of all things Kryptonite . . . with thanks to a fan that has subscription access to The Daily Journal. Published today, Tuesday, February 12, from The Daily Journal by Paul Jones. Note to Kamala Harris: with the AOC to tell all us what the law is, what the heck do we need the California Attorney General’s Office for? Especially given the AOC’s stellar reputation for telling the truth?
Honor your oath to uphold the State Constitution. Issue the Quo Warranto already.
Temporary judge’s 18-year tenure draws fire
By Paul Jones
Shasta County Judge Jack Halpin, who initially retired in 1964, started hearing cases through the state’s temporary Assigned Judges Program in 1994 and continued until he stopped last year. He’s mainly worked at Shasta County Superior Court and has been reappointed hundreds of times to handle cases, at times working several days a week.The state’s chief justice temporarily appoints assigned judges to the bench for courts that need help handling caseloads for periods of usually 60 days at a time, and about 350 retired judges currently participate in the program.
But the length of Halpin’s successive reassignments to Shasta – roughly 18 years – is unusual in the state and is now drawing criticism, including a rare legal challenge alleging his regular appointment as a temporary jurist made him a de facto nonelected judge.
Attorney Barbara A. Kaufman is representing Charles Wagner, a litigant in a Shasta County Superior Court suit. She argues Halpin doesn’t have the authority to preside over Wagner’s lawsuit and that his regular reappointment made him an nonelected judge, violating Wagner’s constitutional rights.
Kaufman filed the complaint on Dec. 6 as a quo warranto, a legal challenge to the right of an official to exercise authority. The claim alleges that as of last year, Halpin was improperly scheduled to hear cases he’d been assigned to during earlier temporary appointments, well after the appointment period ended. The claim also alleges that the length of his service as an assigned judge over repeated reassignments made him an nonelected jurist.
The state attorney general’s office is currently evaluating the merits of the complaint to determine if it will pursue the matter.
“We’re hoping the attorney general will take this, because my client doesn’t have the resources” to pursue the case himself, Kaufman said.
At present, Halpin is no longer serving as an assigned judge in Shasta County, although he is still part of the statewide Assigned Judges Program. According to a local newspaper, Halpin announced his retirement on April 30, 2012, but he also received an assignment to hear civil cases between July and August. Kaufman’s complaint says he had scheduled a hearing regarding Wagner’s suit in September, after his assigned period expired in August.
On Dec. 18, less than two weeks after Kaufman filed the quo warranto, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye authored an order to Shasta County Superior Court ordering that Halpin had no authority to hear matters at the court and a few days later sent a letter to the attorney general’s office stating that the office “should be aware that the issue is moot.” The letter cited the order instructing the Shasta court that Halpin no longer has authority to hear cases in that court in order to argue to the attorney general’s office that a quo warranto case would be pointless, since the purpose of such a claim is to stop an official from exercising improper authority.
Halpin, 86, filed a response to the quo warranto with the attorney general’s office, disputing its allegations and voicing disagreement with Sakauye’s order to the Shasta court.
He said Kaufman’s complaint contains “a lot of defamatory material.” He said he couldn’t discuss legal issues regarding his service as an assigned judge in Shasta County because the matter is under review. Deputy Attorney General Diane Eisenberg, who is handling the review of the quo warranto, also declined to comment.
Regardless of whether the case moves forward, the incident has already prompted changes. Chad Finke, who oversees the assigned judges program for the branch, said he understands Halpin shouldn’t have heard cases after his August assignment ended.
“In my experience, I had never before encountered a situation where a judge interpreted that language [in an assigned judges’ program order] as conferring open-ended authority over an entire case,” Finke said.
If the attorney general’s office pursues the quo warranto, Finke said, that could open at least some of Halpin’s rulings to legal challenges.
Shasta County Superior Court Executive Officer Melissa Fowler-Bradley said the court interpreted wording in the branch’s assignment orders for Halpin to mean he had authority to continue working on cases the court assigned him to, even after the assignment period ended. She said one such order in July included language saying Halpin had authority over cases “until completion and disposition of all causes and matters heard pursuant to this assignment.”
Finke said that since learning Halpin was scheduled to continue work on cases after the end of his assignment in the summer, the branch has begun a process to change the wording of orders assigning temporary judges “to clarify the extent of an assigned judge’s authority.” Finke said the new language hasn’t been finalized.
Courts have used some assigned judges for long periods because of a lack of new judgeships that they and branch leaders say courts need to handle caseloads, although some courts have cut their use of assigned judges because they can’t afford the cost. Some retired judges serve many assignments through the program – Marita Ford, senior management analyst with Riverside County Superior Court, said Riverside has temporary judges who for four or five years have repeatedly been reassigned to work for the court.
The complaint involving Halpin’s service highlights the branch’s concern that the state allegedly has created and funded too few judgeships.
Fowler-Bradley said Shasta’s court has more work than it can handle and regularly requires Halpin’s services. Relying on Halpin, who’s familiar with the court, was a practical solution to the problem, she said, adding that the court has requested new judgeships but that the state hasn’t funded or authorized any.
Finke of the assigned judges program said Shasta requested Halpin’s regular reappointment through the program and that the appointment of assigned judges is permitted by the state’s constitution. He said the length of time Halpin served as a retired judge through temporary assignments was “longer than most” but that such regular reassignments of temporary judges to courts in need isn’t unique.
Halpin said that early on in his work through the program, he worked in various counties but that the injury of a relative resulted in him needing to do work closer to home, in Redding. As a result, he became a regular appointee in Shasta County.
The issue is also relevant in light of recent events in the capital. Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed 2013-14 budget would maintain current court funding. The proposal led the state Judicial Council at its January meeting to suspend plans to push for new judgeships this year and to instead try to get more money for courts’ operations.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
February 12, 2013
“Fowler-Bradley said Shasta’s court has more work than it can handle and regularly requires Halpin’s services. ”
Really? The Shasta court “requires”. . . . .ummmmmm. . . . “Halpin’s services”?
Really? No other judges — either sitting judges, or those 350 judges on the assigned judges list– wanted or were available for temporary assignment to Shasta County– an area that is well-known in this state for it’s amazing fishing, golfing, houseboating, skiing/snowboarding, and mountaineering resources ? LOL. I don’t think so.
Wendy Darling
February 12, 2013
Or any of those judges whose courtrooms have been closed, and have nothing to do but shuffle papers all day? None of those judges were/are available for “temporary” assignment to Shasta County? None?
And by what definition is 18+ years “temporary”?
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
February 13, 2013
Very interesting article about Halpin. The AOC is admitting they interpret their form of assignment orders differently than the Shasta Court and Halpin do. They admit Halpin should not have been sitting as a judge based upon expired orders. They admit the long-term assignment of retired judges is not uncommon or unique to Shasta County, but do NOT admit these long-term assignments violate the suffrage rights of the public or are otherwise legally problematic. It is crystal clear the quo warranto proceeding was appropriate under the circumstances. The obvious question is why it was necessary for an elderly private citizen to commence a rare legal proceeding against Halpin in order to get relief, when the cj/jc/aoc have been well aware of the suffrage issues for years, and the specific Shasta County interpretation of assignment orders since last summer.
The other obvious question becomes–
If the AG does not step in now– under these circumstances– to stop abuse of the Assigned Judges program and protect the public’s fundamental suffrage rights, who will? It is obvious the Shasta Court likes using Halpin (he was the family law presiding judge for over four years before his April 30, 2012 “retirement” from his 18-plus year “temporary” Shasta County assignment), and the AOC clearly does not believe it is inappropriate to re-assign retired judges for years or even decades, even over the loud and ongoing objections of the public. At present nothing is stopping a) the re-assignment of Halpin to the Shasta bench if this quo warranto “blows over”, or b) the ongoing “temporary” re-assignment of other retired judges who have sat for years or decades in other counties.
unionman575
February 13, 2013
http://www.shastacourts.com/PDF/judicialassignments.pdf
Judicial Assignments and Times and Places Assigned for Hearings
Effective January 2, 2012
For General Distribution
[California Rules of Court §10.603(c)(1)(C)]
DEPARTMENT 12: Hon. Jack Halpin, Retired Superior Court Judge
Monday:
8:30 a.m. Family Law OSC’s & Motions (attorneys)
10:00 a.m. Trials – Short Cause Civil & Family Law
1:15 p.m. Ex Parte notice hearing
1:30 p.m. Trials – Short Cause Civil & Family Law
Tuesday:
8:45 a.m. Trials – Short Cause Civil & Family Law
1:15 p.m. Ex Parte notice hearing (Comm. Gibson sitting in Dept. 12)
Wednesday:
8:45 a.m. Trials – Short Cause Civil & Family Law
1:15 p.m. Ex Parte notice hearing (Comm. Gibson sitting in Dept. 12)
Thursday:
8:45 a.m. Trials – Short Cause Civil & Family Law
1:15 p.m. Ex Parte notice hearing
1:30 p.m. Settlement Conferences
Friday:
9:00 a.m. Trials – Short Cause Civil & Family Law
11:00 a.m. Trial Readiness
1:15 p.m. Ex Parte notice hearing
1:30 p.m. Trials- Short Cause Civil & Family Law
😉