The issue: No one enforces the rules of court outside the courtroom

Posted on November 21, 2013


It’s one of those unspoken issues that no one ever mentions. Those that make the rules in the AOC and Judicial Council want a rule of court rather than a state law because they know there exists no one outside of a courtroom to investigate or prosecute a violation of a rule of court outside of a courtroom. Even in those rare instances where someone should take a better look, we let our chief justice appoint many of her closest allies that subsequently whitewash anything they find and declare all is well in a well rehearsed tried and true elaborate hoax.

As we’ve borne witness to outside investigators or auditors are never brought in to resolve questions of accountability. When they pry their way in due to conflicts in the law being reported to them, the judicial branch closes ranks and goes silent because no one can ethically comment on even possible pending or impending litigation which is why we try to cover these issues.

On issues where there is clear conflict with state law, we’ve also witnessed that the Attorney General’s job is not to prosecute anyone in the judicial branch for crimes against the people of the state of California but rather assume their constitutional obligation to defend the state…. and its employees. Even against well founded, well documented embezzlement, the use of unlicensed contractors, the destruction of court records and the issuance of an opinion rather than taking up the issue of a judge that was perpetually appointed to the bench for over nineteen consecutive years. We cannot trust that the attorney general will prosecute any crimes against the state conducted in the judicial branch. We can however trust that they would not take up the issue of prosecuting violations of the rules of court outside of the courtroom.

This leaves the rules of court that are supposed to carry the force of law unenforceable outside of a courtroom. There exists no credible form of redress when the maker of those rules also happens to be the violator of those rules. It’s like a personal exemption from the law for a few hundred people. There exists no forum that one can take their case against the leadership for violating those rules of court outside of a courtroom. There exists no one to investigate or prosecute violations of rules of court outside the courtroom. There exists no penalties for violating the rules of court outside of a courtroom.

Where I come from, these things do not describe elements that carry the force of law. They resemble guidelines that you are free to ignore. Common sense tells me by their title that they are rules when in court and that they are merely guidelines outside of a courtroom setting. Otherwise, it would be called judicial branch code, it would have someone investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating it and these systems would be well established. Without these systems in place they are, in fact guidelines that they can choose to enforce upon you, yet continue to exempt themselves from enforcement.

So think about this long and hard when you hear that the chief justice would prefer a rule of court over a state law. She knows by her own actions that there exists no one to enforce rules of court and has violated those rules herself, yet there exists no one to tell the empress that she has no clothes and to hold her or any one of her trusted lieutenants accountable.