It’s pretty easy to draw a straight line between the desired seventeen exemptions to public participation in judicial branch meetings and the desire ensure that there is no public participation. They made them broad exemptions that permit almost any committee chair to opt out of public participation by exempting themselves for nearly any reason their feeble little minds can dream up. But how exactly did the gang of five come up with the seventeen exemptions?
Did they seek public, media, branch or other stakeholder input before drafting the seventeen exemptions?
The five members of the council who developed the preliminary draft include Justice Miller, Justice Harry E. Hull, Jr., chair of the Rules and Projects Committee; Judge Mary Ann O’Malley, chair of the Litigation Management Committee; Judge Ken K. So, chair of the Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee; and Judge James E. Herman, chair of the Technology Committee. – See more at: http://courts.ca.gov/24084.htm#sthash.D2mcDrwv.dpuf
Nope. The gang of five just pulled them out of their ass and thought they would be a swell way to demonstrate judicial branch transparency to the media and the public.
Much like a public record that can serve to hold people accountable, decisions made in public meetings can also serve to hold people accountable. Public meetings of judicial branch committees is a direct threat to the leadership because it would expose the machinations of policy decisions, demonstrating once and for all that your participation in an external subcommittee and your opinion doesn’t matter a rats ass if it isn’t in lock step with the more powerful members of the internal committees and the council itself.
It only makes sense that if you wish to preserve your dictatorial powers that you do all that is necessary to preventing others gaining knowledge about your processes and methodology. The powers that be already appoint all of the chairs and co-chairs of all committees, By granting them extraordinary rights to exempt their work from public scrutiny judicial branch policy will continue to be a back room deal conducted by a few insiders.
Meanwhile they get to profess that over 400 hard-working judges work to shape policy within the branch by sitting on committees, subcommittees, task forces and commissions. Yet the policy is really shaped by the insider appointees and AOC leadership who facilitate, chair and co-chair the committees and work closely with the leadership to ensure that in those back rooms outside the public view they’re all working towards a set of common “one voice” goals.
It’s time for a little democracy and a lot less taxation without representation. We suspect that the release of Georges memoirs was timed to coincide with the promulgation and pubic comment regarding this rule because it was intended to serve as a sleight of hand distraction, Fortunately for the branch, King George doesn’t warrant that much attention.
Related articles
- The issue: No one enforces the rules of court outside the courtroom (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- JC Leadership: Years of incompetence and going strong (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Retreads. Unsafe at any speed (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
November 22, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo
😉
Nathaniel Woodhull
November 23, 2013
“The gang of five just pulled them out of their ass and thought they would be a swell way to demonstrate judicial branch transparency to the media and the public.” LOL!!!
This group collectively doesn’t have the intellectual horsepower to have come up with the 17 exemptions. Whatever was crafted was at the direction and behest of Tani’s handlers. Given the fact that she doesn’t have the intellectual horsepower to have come up with this on her own either.
Word is that thanks to HRH-2, the Judicial Council and the AOC administration the Trial Courts won’t be getting increased money in the next State Budget. At best, they will be handed $100 Million back from the $200 Million plus previously cut. Hmmm, as I recall HRH-1 told all of us that State Trial Court funding was going to create a steady and consistent income stream for local trial courts so that they would no longer have to worry about County funding.
Well at least before Trial Court Funding we had all our branches open and didn’t have to lay-off 50% of our staff. Our Clerk’s Offices used to be open during regular business hours. We used to have night court. We used to have all kinds of programs that helped self-represented litigants. We used to have branch courts in our communities, which are now shuttered and gathering dust. It used to be pleasant going to work, knowing that you were making a positive difference in many peoples lives.
People that I have worked with for well over a quarter of a century are backing up their bags and are starting to leave in droves. It’s not fun coming to work anymore. Everyone feels like their at the bottom of a sand pit, feverishly shoveling, but the sand is falling as fast or faster than they can shovel. Local administrators are asking the poor members of staff to maintain a workload that is just not sustainable. Judges feel like MASH surgeons, moving from one calendar to the next without feeling like your are dispensing proper justice, just sewing cases up enough so that they can move along a path to nowhere. Pleadings aren’t in files, if you even can locate the files.
Don’t forget why this all happened. It was 110% due to the actions of HRH-1 and Bill Vickrey. The current occupants of the Crystal Palace all pledged their blind allegiance to HRH-1 and his mantra. Nothing will change their until HRH-2 is gone and a new Chief Justice is appointed with different marching orders from a strong Governor.
Funding is not going to improve until the civil back-log gets so bad that the trial lawyers are no longer making their high six and seven figure incomes. Then and only then will enough pressure be put upon Sacramento to change things.
Despite the fact that the independent budget analyst says that California will enjoy a $10 Billion surplus by 2017, California’s Trial Courts will continue their decline. Governor Brown has made it clear that he has no intention of giving more money to the Branch. Who can blame him? The occupants of 455 Golden Gage Avenue have zero credibility with those in power in Sacramento.
Buckle up, for those still working within the Branch it’s going to be a bumpy ride…
unionman575
November 23, 2013
“People that I have worked with for well over a quarter of a century are backing up their bags and are starting to leave in droves. It’s not fun coming to work anymore. Everyone feels like their at the bottom of a sand pit, feverishly shoveling, but the sand is falling as fast or faster than they can shovel. Local administrators are asking the poor members of staff to maintain a workload that is just not sustainable.”
Same here.
😉
unionman575
November 23, 2013
And the waste goes on and on …and Gasp! Jahr speaks!
http://www.modbee.com/2013/11/22/3047946/top-court-official-backs-modestos.html
Top court official backs Modesto’s 10th Street courthouse plan
By J.N. Sbranti
jnsbranti@modbee.comNovember 22, 2013 Updated 8 hours ago
Tenth Street – not I Street – is the best place to build Modesto’s new courthouse, California’s top court administrator has decided.
Steven Jahr, the state’s administrative director of the courts, said he visited Modesto, cruised downtown and walked around both proposed sites this month before determining his staff had made the right decision in picking the block at 10th and H Streets.
“I am convinced that this new state facility will serve the residents of Stanislaus County well for many decades to come and that it will represent a fine addition to downtown Modesto,” Jahr wrote this week in a letter sent to a number of public officials.
Jahr said he got involved in the location debate in September after community opposition to the 10th Street site emerged.
“I was contacted by a representative of proponents of the (site at I and 13th streets) and was provided with a synopsis of their views,” said Jahr, whose office is in San Francisco. “I have since received and reviewed communications from proponents of each site.”
A group calling itself Citizens for I Street – led by Marie Gallo, Ray Simon and Frank Damrell – launched a campaign to keep the courthouse on I Street, which they contend is the cultural and civic center of Modesto.
The 10th Street site, however, is favored by Modesto city officials, who intend to sell city-owned property on that block to the state for the courthouse.
If it is built as planned, the $277 million facility will be the most expensive public works project in Stanislaus County history.
Jahr runs California’s Administrative Office of the Courts, the judicial agency making most of the decisions about where the courthouse will be built. That agency formed a project advisory group that worked behind closed doors to select which downtown block to build on.
After examining how the AOC’s staff and the project advisory group picked the 10th Street location, Jahr determined his agency had properly adhered to its site-selection policies.
Jahr also concluded that the 10th Street site is not controversial, which means purchasing it will not require state Judicial Council approval. He said that while opponents want the I Street site, that’s just their preference and not because 10th Street isn’t an appropriate spot.
To back up his decision, Jahr cited several reasons 10th Street would be the best place to build, including:
• It is closer to Highway 99 so it would be easier to get to by vehicle.
• It is closer to Modesto’s Ninth Street transit center.
• It is closer to Modesto’s police headquarters at 10th and G streets.
• It “would continue the development of civic buildings on 10th Street.”
• It “is consistent with the city’s plan for economic expansion along 10th Street, providing concentrated pedestrian activity that can support local businesses along that street.”
• The environmental review process has been completed for that site.
• High volumes of traffic would be better accommodated there because it already is bounded by four signalized intersections (while only two corners on the I Street block have signals installed).
“I do not take this determination lightly,” Jahr said. “Community leaders have lined up behind each of the two remaining sites.”
Those backing the I Street location said Friday they will continue to fight for it.
“I fully expected him to defend his staff,” said former Stanislaus County Supervisor Ray Simon, who was not impressed with Jahr’s reasoning for why the courthouse would be better on 10th than on I Street. “He simply restated the city of Modesto’s position almost verbatim.”
Simon said Jahr did not address many of the issues he and other I Street advocates raised.
“We had a long list of questions, and none of them were answered,” Simon complained. “This is the most tight-lipped decision-making process I have ever seen. No one gives any answers.”
Citizens for I Street is not giving up, Simon said. He said his group will continue questioning and lobbying Modesto’s City Council, which is key to the land deal.
While few details have been revealed and nothing has been publicly approved, city officials have been privately negotiating with 10th Street landowners to buy all the land on that block.
Their plan reportedly is to acquire every parcel, move all the utility lines off the property, close the public alley there and resell the entire block to the state. How much that’s expected to cost area taxpayers hasn’t been revealed, but city officials have said the best-case scenario is that Modesto breaks even on the deal.
“We’re going to start talking to the three newly elected council members” to try to stop it, Simon said.
Bill Zoslocki, Jenny Kenoyer and Tony Madrigal will join the seven-member council Tuesday. At least four votes will be needed to approve or deny any deal.
The private owners of the rival I Street block, meanwhile, expressed disappointment in Jahr’s decision.
“The I Street site is a superior location,” said Niniv Tamimi, a Modesto developer who owns that block with a group of investors.
That block is where The Modesto Bee leases space. The newspaper sold the property three years ago.
Tamimi said details about what he and his partners are willing to sell the I Street block for have been leaked to those advocating for the 10th Street site.
“My costs and deal points have been made public,” Tamimi said. “But the city’s deal points for the 10th Street site are the ones that need to be made public, and they’re being kept secret.”
City officials have said those details will not be revealed until the City Council has finished negotiating with 10th Street landowners and it is ready to publicly vote on the deal. When that will be has not been announced.
Bee staff writer J.N. Sbranti can be reached at jnsbranti@modbee.com or (
😉
Nathaniel Woodhull
November 23, 2013
Does it really matter where this empty building will be located???
unionman575
November 23, 2013
Nope.
Judicial Council Watcher
November 23, 2013
What really matters is who stands to benefit from the real estate transaction.
MaxRebo5
November 23, 2013
It does show how closed the AOC is in terms of an open selection process. It is a shame the AOC builds courthouses in strange locations that are not part of local communities.
Here in Placer County the old courthouse is right in the city of Auburn and it is a treasure. The new courthouse in Roseville was built on a road called industrial and it literally is out on a road intended for industrial parks and big rigs. Good luck to a pedestrian trying to that “Justice Center”. It could not be much more on the outskirts of the community. Such short sightedness to not build it in Roseville’s historic downtown and the people of Placer are stuck with it for a long long time.
As an institution the CA Courts don’t have online case filings, their buildings are being made into fortresses away from historic city centers, and when the public does get there the hours are reduced and staff are cut. Thanks King George what a lovely vision you have given us.
That was quite an epic quest for Justice you went on from the mean streets of Beverly Hills your condo on Nob Hill.
unionman575
November 23, 2013
And the view from the former “Jahrland”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/11/18/62999.htm
wearyant
November 24, 2013
Thanks for posting this, U-man. Somehow I don’t think “transparent” Jahr would’ve let us know about his lovely stompin’ ground happenings.
Wendy Darling
November 24, 2013
Some things never change. Published today, Sunday, November 24, from the Sacramento Bee, by Jon Ortiz:
California justices get CHP chauffeurs
By Jon Ortiz
During the work week, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Maryanne Gilliard drives from home to the courthouse basement on I Street, parks her SUV and rides up the public elevator sometimes used by accused criminals headed to her courtroom.
Meanwhile, justices who work four blocks away in the ornate chambers of Sacramento’s 3rd District Court of Appeal have another option for getting to work: a free ride from an armed CHP officer.
The service is provided under the broad terms of an agreement between the Administrative Office of the Courts, which acts as the business arm of California’s judicial branch, and the California Highway Patrol.
Superior courts, the part of the judicial branch with the most intimate public contact, don’t provide armed drivers for judges.
The difference is a source of irritation for some Superior Court judges, who have periodically raised the issue for years.
Some complain about appellate judges they know who have used CHP drivers for work commutes, airport pickups or to chauffeur them to social functions. Meanwhile, they say, their lower-court colleagues drive themselves, catch cabs or hop shuttles.
Their argument isn’t that Superior Court justices should have law enforcement drivers. Instead, they say that the appellate courts are wasting public money on a perk not needed to protect judges’ lives.
“I believe that unless there is a credible and immediate security threat, that all justices, be they on the Supreme Court or the courts of appeal, should drive themselves to and from work, and they should drive themselves to and from meetings,” said San Diego Superior Court Judge Runston “Tony” Maino.
Cathal Conneely, spokesman for the Administrative Office of the Courts, dismissed complaints about the CHP travel security as a “bit of a table tennis match” with the Alliance of California Judges, a dissident group of about 500 judges who have long criticized the courts’ administration.
Maino and Gilliard belong to the group, which formed in 2009 to fight county courthouse furloughs and to draw attention to the case management computer project that burned through $500 million before the court administration abandoned it last year.
“About every six months, somebody raises this CHP issue,” Conneely said. “I can’t really comment on accusations or allegations. But my experience is that it’s used for security purposes.”
The CHP won’t say which judges use the service, or how often. The Bee in October asked for any public records, reports or statistics that would shed light on why appellate court justices need armed drivers.
The department said it did not have data compiled for threats or crimes against justices. It declined The Bee’s request for reports or other documents as security information outside the bounds of the state public records law.
“Have there been threats? Yes,” CHP spokeswoman Fran Clader said. “Have we investigated threats? Yes. Do we discuss them? We don’t talk about them.”
The differences in the levels of court security reflect variations in the way the three levels of the judicial branch operate.
Each of the state’s 58 counties has a trial court, also known as the Superior Court, with more than 2,000 judges statewide. By law, each trial court negotiates its own security contract with local county sheriffs or marshals.
Trial court decisions that are challenged go to the appellate courts for review. The appellate courts are split into six geographic districts that employ a total 105 justices. The seven-member state Supreme Court, based in San Francisco, is the arbiter of disputed appellate court decisions.
By law, the California Supreme Court and the appellate courts must contract security services with the CHP, which took over the duty in 1995 when it absorbed the old state police department.
As the public touch point with the judicial system, millions of people at all stations of society, from lawyers to the lawless, come through the Superior Courts’ metal detectors each year.
Judges say threats do occur, but they aren’t convinced drivers are necessary.
Security measures are in place within the courthouses. Sacramento Superior Court, for example, will spend up to $26 million on security in fiscal 2013-14.
The money includes salary and benefits for 110 deputies under terms negotiated between the county sheriff and the court’s presiding judge. It does not call for deputies to provide driving services for judges, said Sacramento’s Chief Deputy of the Court Erik Maness.
Appellate courts operate differently. Justices hear and decide cases in panels of three.
They are not in the news as often as their lower-court colleagues. The galleries in appellate court chambers aren’t nearly as full with onlookers as those in trial courts.
All that makes security for appellate courts “a little different” because those accused of crimes are not in the courthouse, said Larry Raaf, the chief marshal in charge of Oregon’s appellate court security.
“In the appellate courts, it’s basically two attorneys arguing a case,” Raaf said.
He said his office provides “a small amount” of armed drivers for Oregon appellate court justices, but declined to elaborate.
According to documents acquired by The Bee through a Public Records Act request, the current 51/2-year agreement for Supreme Court and appellate courts security will cost taxpayers up to $21.7 million by the time it expires in November 2014.
The contract requires CHP officers to provide bailiff services, courthouse and grounds security, “miscellaneous services,” “protective services details” and “court security for unplanned miscellaneous assignments.” The agreement doesn’t define the boundaries of those last three items.
Conneely said the contract includes transportation “to and from business events” by request, although justices also drive themselves or carpool.
In keeping with the contract’s terms, the CHP dedicates 25 sworn officers at an average cost of roughly $288,000 per month to cover their combined salary and benefits. Other officers can be called in for “as needed duty” and earn a minimum four hours of overtime.
When an assignment involves driving, the courts reimburse the CHP at a rate of 84 cents per mile, according to nine months of invoices reviewed by The Bee covering October 2012 through June 2013.
CHP officers during that period drove a total 168,030 miles on court business, for which their department was reimbursed about $140,000.
The invoices don’t detail how many of those miles went to giving rides to appellate court or Supreme Court justices, how far or how often they traveled with an armed escort or the nature of the trips. The figures also include trips officers made between court facilities during their workdays, Clader said.
Vehicle logs would probably reveal that information, but the department deems it too sensitive for public disclosure.
Conneely, the spokesman for the state court’s administrative office, said trial courts could include travel security in their local contracts if they wanted it.
“All of this is open for negotiations,” Conneely said.
While that’s true, Gilliard said, “the fact that local courts aren’t entering into these agreements should give the public some comfort that, at least at the local level, their money isn’t being wasted.”
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/24/5940722/california-justices-get-chp-chauffeurs.html
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 24, 2013
“I believe that unless there is a credible and immediate security threat, that all justices, be they on the Supreme Court or the courts of appeal, should drive themselves to and from work, and they should drive themselves to and from meetings,” said San Diego Superior Court Judge Runston “Tony” Maino.
Right Judge Maino!
😉
R. Campomadera
November 24, 2013
Drivers for appellate court justices? Are you kidding me? Absent a specific security threat, on what planet could this possibly be justified when the trial courts are bleeding staff and reducing service to the public? If the federal circuit judges can go without drivers, why can’t the state appellate justices?
The JC/AOC is completely out of control. Not that that will come as any great revelation to the readers of this site.
Michael Paul
November 24, 2013
It’s either an abuse of discretion to have the CHP officers serve as drivers for justices or justices are far more afraid of lawyers than superior court judges are afraid of criminals.
I doubt it’s the latter…..
wearyant
November 24, 2013
Gag me with a spoon on the armed drivers for justices. The public doesn’t even know who these justices are and we know this by the “elections.” It’s the superior court judges who may need drivers, for gawd sake! They’re the ones who rub elbows with the lowly populace. Gimme a break. Just another huge separation between the favored and the working class. Our superior court judges are now members of — not the middle class, but — the lower class in the citizenry pecking order. If — and a big “if” — a justice was recognized by a ruling on a case by a disgruntled litigant, surely that happenstance could be dealt with by a CHP escort. Not a wholesale fleet of chauffeurs. What a waste of muscle in these grueling times.
You were missed, R. Campomadera.
Michael Paul
November 24, 2013
I wonder if the judicial protection unit still serves as armed chauffeurs for the executive director of the AOC……
Michael Paul
November 24, 2013
The JPU within the AOC, not the CHP.
unionman575
November 25, 2013
Yes.
R. Campomadera
November 24, 2013
Thanks, Wearyant. I appreciate that. I’ve been distracted the last few weeks. Been working with the top echelon of a court system that actually wants to focus on improving its delivery of service, not padding its leadership’s compensation and benefits and the expense of workers.
Oh, and by the way, the CJ drives himself to work without any security whatsoever. Imagine that…no chauffeur!
Wendy Darling
November 24, 2013
Let’s call these “drivers” what they really are: chauffeurs paid for with public money.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
November 24, 2013
hey, I knew a justice from Fresno that hitched rides to the AOC via CHP HELICOPTER!
Been There
November 24, 2013
Sounds like something Justice Marvin Baxter’s brother-in-law might do!
sharonkramer
November 24, 2013
“Jahr also concluded that the 10th Street site is not controversial, which means purchasing it will not require state Judicial Council approval”
Really? Well what about that now defunct Redevelopment Committee who owns 4 parcels where the courthouse is now being planned to be built?
$129.7 million owed as Modesto redevelopment agency dissolves
http://www.modbee.com/2013/10/09/2967112/lots-of-debts-to-pay-as-modesto.html#storylink=cpy
“The city is planning to acquire all the land on that 10th Street block on the state’s behalf as part of a complicated deal to build the courthouse there. Even though the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts is working with the city on that courthouse land deal, the state Department of Finance last month balked at the request to quickly transfer the 10th Street land to the city.”
“Thomas said his taxpayers group always suspected city officials planned to forgive those millions it loaned to the redevelopment agency: “That’s why we were so against this, because it was a gift of public funds.”Thomas also fears the agency’s bank debts were secured using government buildings – such as 1010 Tenth Street Place – as collateral.
“We’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop,” said Thomas, who added that he wonders who will end up owning the properties when the agency dissolves.Some of his questions may be answered Thursday when the Modesto Redevelopment Successor Agency Oversight Board meets to discuss its long-range property management plan, which must be approved and submitted this month to the state Department of Finance.
That plan also is supposed to detail all the properties the redevelopment agency owns and what should be done with them after it dissolves.The city said it will not release copies of the plan until next week. Researching property records, The Bee found more than 20 parcels owned by the agency in downtown Modesto, including 1024 N. Ninth St., 1014 Ninth St., 1110 Ninth St., 1136 Ninth St., 777 10th St., 1010 10th St., 1012 10th St., 1101 10th St., 1129 10th St., 1133 10th St., 1035 11th St. and 1125 11th St.The agency also owns numerous parcels without specific addresses on Ninth, 10th, 11th and 17th streets.
Four of those parcels on 10th Street near H Street are part of the block that is the favored site for the proposed $277million courthouse. Rather than the redevelopment agency simply selling that land to the state for the courthouse, the city of Modesto wants the agency to give the property to the city so it can be sold to the state.
Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2013/10/09/2967112/lots-of-debts-to-pay-as-modesto.html#storylink=cpy
Nathaniel Woodhull
November 24, 2013
Don’t forget that one of the few things that HRH-1 and Vickrey had rejected and stuffed down their throats was their attempt at the creation of their own police force. Herr George and Obergruppenführer Vickrey desperately tried to create their own “security force” that was supposed to takeover courtroom security from the Sheriff’s of the 58 counties (and Marshall’s). The ex-Chief’s pitch was that the State could save so much money by allowing him to create a law enforcement branch within the Judiciary. Fortunately the Legislature saw right through that one. Given what CCMS cost, I can only imagine what George’s Goon Squad would have cost. Remember that when AOC Watcher first came on the horizon, it was rumored that someone at the top in the Crystal Palace tried to get the CHP to write search warrants in an effort to identify dissenters posting blasphemy about the lovable Great One. The CHP reportedly declined those requests. I’m sure if they had their own security force in place such a request would have been granted.
Fortunately, the CHP is THE strongest political agency within Sacramento, having forced the State Police essentially out of existence when CHP took-over executive protection and security. It is laughable that without a specific threat justices qualify for “executive protection” by way of drivers. I qualify for protection at the range.
I’m surprised that some defense attorney hasn’t raised the issue as a conflict in cases involving the CHP when they are before the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.
🙂
unionman575
November 25, 2013
” I qualify for protection at the range.”
Me too.
courtflea
November 24, 2013
ya think Been there ? 🙂
Been There
November 25, 2013
Oh Flea, the stories we could tell!
courtflea
November 25, 2013
boy howdy Been There! lol
The OBT
November 24, 2013
It is the day the music died. The day HRH-1 was named Chief Justice and from there he highjacked an entire branch of government. Incredibly his massive ego as exemplified by his book shows what a bully he was. The sad reality is that his vision of complete control of the branch has resulted in a mess at the trial court level. The General’s insights are correct, and I see many of they same problems he insightfully describes, long lines, piles and piles of papers, lost files, huge backed up calendars, closed courthouses, closed clerks offices, delayed justice and Judges who are at times overwhelmed. We need only thank HRH-1’s vision of stable trial court funding for all that lol. In stark contrast, the ” insiders ” at the crystal palace are apparently accorded every amenity including Court of Appeal Justices getting driven around by the CHP. And this is justified by what ? Are you kidding? We have been wasting millions on having taxpayer dollars shuttle Court of Appeal Justices around while our citizens can’t get a court date? How long has this practice been going on? I think the public is owed a complete explanation and accounting of all this. Is anyone in Sacramento listening ?
Wendy Darling
November 24, 2013
“Is anyone in Sacramento listening ?”
Apparently not.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
November 25, 2013
Wendy, they’re listening. Many have got to be concerned that an ultra-violet light scan on the California court politicos will expose the hidden dirt on their hands, too. You think its logical to assume that George only did dishonest favors for cronies who work within the judicial branch? Think again. Once politicians are indebted to the House that George Built bending justice, they can’t touch his heirs without running the risk of being exposed themselves.
What you are witnessing is the growing hazard of veritoxing, which is the collaborative act of poisoning truth in governmental practices for the purpose of fleecing the public. Once enticed in, they can’t stop it without admitting self-interested prior acts in which the House aided them by unethical means.
As a prime example: What if anything dirty occurs in the Modesto courthouse construction? Do you think the Modesto City Council members and city/county employees would want to speak of it after the AOC just baled them out of a $125 million Redevelopment Agency disaster via the purchase that AOC Director Jahr deemed non-controversial and in no need for JC hands on involvement? Do you honestly believe that he made that decision all on his own without Judicial Council member or politician input?
You may think that the JC lobbies legislators. Sometimes its a two way street with favors done in both directions. They’re listening, Wendy. They just don’t want to hear, because they can’t afford to hear.
Lando
November 24, 2013
Oh yes the powers and perks accorded to those that are above it all. I remember J McConnell complaining how she had to walk through a public lobby and ride an elevator with members of the public to get to her overpriced inner sanctum . Can you imagine that ? Walking along side of everyday people and riding an elevator with them ! This is really one of the saddest legacies of King George, the reckless spending of valuable taxpayer dollars for his allies and friends. CHP drivers for the Justices is just one of many things a full audit of the AOC would reveal . I would like someone to audit many other things including how much is wasted on the numerous and overlapping Judicial Council committees and Task Forces, national and international travel, hotel room accommodations for every Judicial Council meeting and the rumored AOC condo. My guess is that a full audit of the insiders at 455 Golden Gate will make CCMS look like a picnic.
Wendy Darling
November 24, 2013
“My guess is that a full audit of the insiders at 455 Golden Gate will make CCMS look like a picnic.”
A full audit of 455 Golden Gate Avenue would make the city of Bell look like a children’s birthday party.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
November 24, 2013
Great comment Wendy. Oh I left one thing off my Audit list. Grey Goose Vodka lol. Have a great Thanksgiving week everyone.
wearyant
November 25, 2013
” … a recapitulation in miniature …” Thank you, Maria Dinzeo, for your latest article! Never, never, ever let them forget, folks! It appears Chiang is much more of a leader than the judicial branch’s Teensy.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/11/25/63190.htm
Wendy Darling
November 25, 2013
” The lawsuit is a recapitulation in miniature of state trial judges and software industry insiders complaints about the California judiciary’s statewide Court Case Management System. Critics claims its developer, Deloitte, used the judicial branch’s planned $1.9 billion computer project as a training ground for inexperienced programmers. The project was killed in 2012 after costing taxpayers at least $500 million.”
Long live the ACJ.
Guest
November 25, 2013
By the way, just what does Steve Jahr do? All I can figure is that he collects big checks from a previous job he no longer works and another set of big checks for a current job that he does nothing. A world class double-dipper where he gets 2 checks to do nothing.
courtflea
November 25, 2013
my guess is that Jahr head is a “token” director who is being paid in the event a scape goat is needed. Jody Patel was too tainted by Vickrey’s reign to be appointed and Jahr being a former judge was supposed to make the judges in the branch happy with the appointment.
Wendy Darling
November 25, 2013
Everybody at 455 Golden Gate Avenue knows that Jody Patel is really the one in charge. Patel makes sure of it. Even Jahr does what she tells him to do.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
November 25, 2013
Oh, Courtflea…you must be mistaken. When Jahr’s appointment was announced, he was described as the best qualified judicial administrator in the entire country and, if memory serves, his appointment was described by one of the august leaders as a “grandslam home run”. And, as if that weren’t enough, just look at his sterling record since his appointment and consider all the things he has accomplished in just two short years.
unionman575
November 25, 2013
AOC contract for security services with the California HIghway Patrol
sharonkramer
November 25, 2013
Who is Malcolm Franklin? What does he do for the AOC/JC? I sent Nancy Spero a polite but direct response email stating that I was greatly disappointed that Justice Miller had denied my request to speak before the JC on Oct 25th. I asked if there was there a possibility they would address it behind closed doors for a possible agenda item at the next meeting, She forwarded my email to Mr. Franklin. He responded to both of us with
“Thanks”.
Malcolm Franklin
Senior Manager
Office of Security
Judicial and Court Operations Services Division
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
All I did was ask for clarification of how they intend to address a really serious matter when document falsifications occur by court employees and a Superior Court CEO/Judicial Council members actively conceal it and the continued public fleecing because of it.
unionman575
November 26, 2013
Click to access SP12-05_RomeroSolesL.pdf
unionman575
November 26, 2013
Click to access jc-20120622-itemD.pdf
Lando
November 26, 2013
Thanks Unionman for that great information. 21 million to secure the insiders ? I’m sorry but that is huge waste of valuable taxpayer dollars especially in light of the trial courts struggle to keep open. The public is entitled to a full accounting of these expenditures. As a trial Judge I expect no one to drive me to work or anywhere else in the guise of security. I find it particularly troubling the CJP is part of this huge budget. Does anyone really think a Judge subjected to their discipline constitutes a security problem? This budget represents all that is wrong about HRH-1 and HRH-2 : to the insiders go the spoils. Everyone else can eat cake.
Th OBT
November 26, 2013
21
Th OBT
November 26, 2013
sorry but with 21 million we should have built the Hon McConnell a new lobby and private elevator and used the CJP chopper for more than just one 455 Golden Gate insider. After all that drive to San Francisco is no fun even in a CHP cruiser. As our good friend Wendy says , You Can’t make this stuff up . Really.
unionman575
November 26, 2013
Monday, November 25, 2013Last Update: 6:26 PM PT
Judges, Open Gov Groups Blast Exemptions to Judicial Council Draft on Open Meetings
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Comments last week from judges, labor representatives and open government advocates poured criticism on the “vagueness and breadth” of exemptions to a draft rule that would open up meetings of Judicial Council advisory bodies.
But, when asked if the draft rule applies to the Judicial Council’s powerful internal committees, Justice Douglas Miller who heads the Executive and Planning Committee answered directly and clearly, “Yes it does.”
“We used the legislative language to guide our definition of an advisory body to the Judicial Council,” he added. That legislative language defines advisory body as “any multimember body created by formal Judicial Council action to review issues that will be reported to the council.”
But criticism rained down on the draft rule’s many exemptions that would allow advisory bodies to continue operating in the dark.
“The draft rule’s 17 exemptions threaten to swallow the rule,” said the Alliance of
California Judges in its comments.
“The draft allows closed sessions when committees discuss ‘legislative strategy or negotiations.’ The desire to formulate legislative strategy in secret is alarming,” the Alliance commented. “In the past, branch leaders have taken positions on legislation that were diametrically opposed to the interests and the wishes of many of the judges.”
Some of the subjects that would allow the committee chairs to close their doors are: security plans, personnel matters, raw data and statistics, buying property, legislative strategy, agenda setting and anything falling under attorney-client privilege.
In unveiling the rule earlier this month, the heads of the internal committees described it as a rough draft that still needs a lot of work and is likely to wind up with narrower exemptions.
In a press briefing, Miller repeatedly said the open committee rule “is something we want to get right.” He also argued that the many judiciary committees merely advise the Judicial Council and “do not set policy.”
That view was flatly contradicted by the reformist Alliance of judges.
“The Judicial Council’s five internal committees and associated advisory committees wield much of the real decision-making power within the Branch,” said the Alliance judges. “The Judicial Council itself has devolved into a largely ceremonial institution. Over one ten-year stretch, its members failed to vote unanimously only six times. All too often, the Judicial Council merely rubber-stamps decisions made behind the scenes by the five powerful internal committees.”
Reporting regularly on Judicial Council meetings reveals a pattern where proposals coming out of the committees are generally ratified with perfunctory debate and without substantial opposition. Monthly reports from the internal committees to the council are generally vague, particularly so with reports from the Technology Committee.
The leaders of the Technology Committee and its underlying task force, both of which meet outside the public eye, defended and promoted a software project that costs California more than a half-billion dollars before it was torpedoed last year, under pressure from the Legislature.
Earlier this year, the Legislature included a requirement in the 2013-14 budget passed in June, saying the Judicial Council must open up its advisory committees. But Governor Jerry Brown followed with a veto, after Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye advocated against the provision.
Then in August, the Legislative Analyst’s Office issued a report on statements of legislative intent tied to the budget appropriations. The report’s very first statement of intent required that the Judicial Council submit to the Joint Budget Committee by January 1st a report on implementation of an open meeting rule.
Earlier this month, the Judicial Council proposed a draft rule with 17 exemptions.
In comments on that draft, Terry Francke with the open government group CalAware said it should follow the more precise language of California’s sunshine laws, the Brown and Bagley-Keene acts, that guarantee the public’s right to attend meetings of local legislative bodies and state agencies in California.
Michelle Castro with the Service Employees International Union, which represents many court workers, made the same point.
“For example, on the exemption on draft reports and agenda setting,” Castro said, “we neither see such broad exemptions in Bagley-Keene nor believe there is anything unique about the judiciary that would justify these broad exemptions.”
In particular, Castro attacked language limiting the open meeting rule to discussions on matters ultimately sent to the council.
“If these are truly advisory bodies to the Council, what sort of issues would not be reported to it?” she asked. “Is nonpublic discussion or decision by a majority of an advisory body of an issue within its jurisdiction permitted so long as the issue is not ‘on the agenda’ for an upcoming meeting?”
“There is nothing similar in Bagley-Keene, and the exemption undermines the entire purpose of open meetings by permitting secrecy on any matter where there will not be a report,” Castro added. “There is no basis for such an exemption.”
But the most scathing comment came from the judges’ Alliance which recited the history of bad ideas that has tarnished the council’s reputation, from the Court Case Management System software project to a gambit to strip the trial judges of their power to choose their presiding judge and head clerk.
“The identities of the people responsible for the branch’s greatest missteps — missteps which have cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and which have sapped our credibility with the Legislature and the public — remain shrouded in mystery,” said the Alliance judges. “We do not know who came up with the idea for CCMS, and no recorded vote to begin the project exists in the historical minutes of the Judicial Council.”
“It took three years to discover the identity of the Administrative Office of the Courts staffer who drafted legislation that would have stripped local bench officers of the right to pick their own presiding judges — and we still don’t know whose brainchild it was,” said the Alliance judges. “Without transparency, there is no accountability, and without accountability, there is no reform.”
Home Back to Top
sharonkramer
November 26, 2013
Thanks, Unionman. That really makes me mad that this guy who is a big shot for JC/AOC security was blind copied on emails like I am some security threat simply for asking to speak at a public JC meeting. I’m as politely as possible repeatedly reporting extrinsic fraud in the courts involving JC members and asking the JC to address it, to stop a massive U.S. public fleecing. Instead of allowing me to speak of it and question how they intend to address it; JC/AOC Senior Attorney Nancy Spero forwarded my email to Mr. Franklin. She blind copied him on her reply to me. I never would have even known she did it had Mr. Franklin not hit “Reply All” and responded to both of us with “Thanks”.
JCW, as always, you are welcome to remove my post. You all know of the damage to the courts itself from the incestuous lack of transparency and constant obfuscations from address their ethics problems. I want to show you all the damage to the United States public from those deceptive Open Meeting rules and how they abet concealment of massive “Speak With One Voice” ethics problems coming from the top down, beginning with George.
On behalf of the public, I am trying to get them to address material court document falsifications while they are stealthily deeming me a security risk and refusing to allow that I be able to publicly ask questions of them, so they are forced to answer questions in an open and transparent manner. I don’t think it gets much dirtier than this. (I’ve redacted their email addresses)
In a message dated 10/23/2013 2:36:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, Nancy Spero writes:
Ms. Kramer,
Justice Douglas P. Miller, chair of the Judicial Council’s Executive and Planning Committee (E&P), has asked me to inform you that you have not made a case under Rule of Court 10.6(d) for speaking at the council meeting later this week and that E&P has exercised its discretion under that rule to deny your request to speak. E&P has, however, exercised its discretion to accept your second letter and have it distributed to members of the Judicial Council as written materials for this meeting. This means that your letter will become part of the public record of this council meeting, will be posted on the public website with the other materials for this meeting, and will also be made an attachment to this meeting agenda as “written comments received”.
Thank you for your interest in the Judicial Council and its mission to advance the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice.
Nancy E. Spero
Senior Attorney, Judicial Council Support Services
Judicial Council and Court Leadership Services Division
Judicial Council of California—Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians”
(They cut my letter in half of what went to the JC members and on the website, so it made no sense. I had to make them correct the website.)
On Oct 23, 2013, at 8:49 PM, I sent in reply to Ms. Spero:
Ms. Spero,
Thank you for your reply. I am greatly disappointed that I will not be able to speak before the Judicial Council this Friday. I communicate much better in person than in writing.
The prompt addressing of AOC employee document falsifications in SLAPP, with court officers and plaintiffs continuing to use the void legal documents to literally terrorize me for exposing a massive fraud in public health policy and US courts, needs to be directly addressed by the JC/AOC to stop the fraud, particularly by Judge Jahr – Director of the AOC.
Everyday that this continues is one more day that someone, somewhere, is being told by their misinformed physicians that poor indoor air quality could not be causing their severe and debilitating symptoms – while aiding the exposure to continue and the illnesses to worsen. Many of these people are children and infants who are living in substandard housing.
By not addressing the AOC employee document falsifications, its another day that the expense for these illnesses are being shifted off of workers comp and property/casualty insurers, onto SSDI, via the use of Veritox’s scientific fraud in policy, medical schools, claims handling practices and courts.
The key to stopping it, is the acknowledgment of the extrinsic fraud (and there is a bunch of it), in SLAPP over my 2005 writing of how the scientific fraud came to be policy by shear political will – not science.
This is how bad the extrinsic fraud is in the SLAPP: I currently have a permanent injunction not to republish a sentence I never published, let alone was sued for – to conceal how the Fourth/First justices framed me for libel for an entirely different sentence, while they concealed US DOJ contractors/plaintiff perjury to manufacture a reason for malice.
Unfortunately, there are some BIG bad apples in the CA judicial branch, which Chief Justice Cantil-Sayauke inherited. Because they continued on, long after they knew it was fraud upon the court, they are going to need a Come to Jesus experience to stop the public fleecing – and it can’t be done behind closed doors to stop the fraud.
I have liens on my property for costs incurred by parties I prevailed over in trial – with interest accruing from three weeks before their commingled costs were even submitted by the plaintiff counsel; and one concealed party (via AOC employee falsified remittiturs) who I prevailed over in trial but have a lien for his costs, just happens to be a retired U.S. Asst Surgeon General. The liens are contractory to the face of the 2008 Void Judgment – sole foundational document to the second harassing case, coram non judice. And all the while, the mass marketing of scientific fraud that I exposed in 2005, plays on to harm many.
The last thing I would want to have to do is sue the leaders of the California courts. But if that’s what it takes to save thousands of lives and stop the cost shifting onto the taxpayers for expense of environmental disability, then that’s what I’ll do. In reality, I only have to prove the Void Judgment of 2008, Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer Case No. GIN044539 – which is easy. All else is a result of judiciaries pretending they don’t know its void – while trying to shut me up without subject matter jurisdiction.
If I can’t speak on Friday, what can I do to assure that Chief Justice Cantil-Sayauke, Justice Miller and AOC Director Jahr, et al, take this matter seriously to stop the scientific fraud by addressing the concealed AOC employee falsified documents? Is there a possibility that Justice Miller, Chief Justice Cantil-Sayauke and Judge Jahr, et.al. will address this in closed session and come up with a plan to stop this train of mass destruction?
The evidence is here in links of my “Ode”, of what a massive public fleecing this is, continuing by criminal acts in the CA courts….AND unfortunately by Senator Kennedy becoming ill and dying, before he could stop the fraud in his own way. See “US Senate HELPed to conceal it” link for the GAO audit he ordered at my urging; and what was done to try to address the problem without confrontation of involved lobbyists/gov’t agencies/politicians/gov’t contractors.
ODE TO TOXIC MOLD SUFFERERS by Sharon Noonan Kramer
To those harmed by the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform’s (ILR) & the Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy’s (CLP) “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold”; and by California Judicial Council (JC) members’ concealment of administrative court employee (AOC) falsified documents in Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) to retaliate for exposing how and why it became a false concept in U.S. public health policy that mold toxins are proven not to harm; And harmed by the Silence of All Those Who Know!
If you’re poisoned by microbe toxins and no one will listen, think of the largest lobbyist and coins which glisten. Know why elected officials will not give them a di$$in’, as the fleeced public continues to feel it.
A retired Assistant Surgeon General took a think-tank’s bribe. His written words and true science do not jibe. They’re spewed in U.S. courts as false denial diatribe, and U.S. Senate HELPed to conceal it.
A Citizen exposed how policy fraud came to be. She named those involved as she blogged of the fee. Cal courts framed her for libel so no one would see, and repeatedly refused to repeal it.
They jailed her and hurt her and falsified docs. She was terrorized for example so no one else balks. Excuses abound of why no one talks, CAUSING environmental injuries til a Loud Voice squeals it.
JC/AOC Heads seem political to the core. They shield court employee crimes hiding frauds of more. They may need to be shown the jailhouse door! and the Citizen knows how to reveal it:
USDOJ’s witness Veritox took Manhattan Institute’s bribe. They forged UCLA doctor authorship as the US Chamber lied. Feds, Politicians, Regents, Cal Court leaders came along for the ride, and mass silence as defense can’t conceal it.
Veritox’s extrapolations alone are not scientific proof. Expert witnessing that they are, causes cost-shifting by spoof. Falsifying court docs in Cal SLAPP puts culpability through the roof!! The admission of AOC’s frauds will seal it.
Uncontradicted evidence are considered as truths. Feigning they’re not are lies, court fraud and abuse. JC/AOC Heads’ refuting evidence would prove its not ruse. Since there is none, Mea Culpa to the defrauded public must heal it!!!
The Judicial Council’s and Judge Jahr’s help to put an end to this debacle would be greatly appreciated. At the end of the day when all is said and done, this is where the responsibility and means to do so, lays.
Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help the Judicial Council members, including Judge Jahr, with the completion of this direly needed task.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer
At 10:29 on October 24, Ms. Spero blind copied Mr. Franklin of Securty, on her reply email to me.
From: Spero, Nancy
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:29 AM
To: SNK1955@aol.com
Subject: Re: Response to your second letter
Thank you, Ms Kramer. I have conveyed this message from you to the chair.
Nancy E Spero
At 9:41:28 Mr. Franklin accidentally hit “Reply All” which shows Ms. Spero blind copied Security on her reply to me.
In a message dated 10/24/2013 9:41:28 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, Malcolm.Franklin wrote:
Thanks
Malcolm Franklin
Senior Manager
Office of Security
Judicial and Court Operations Services Division
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
“Serving the Courts for the Benefit of all Californians”
At 9:58;19 I politely let her know that I knew she did it.
In a message dated 10/24/2013 9:58:19 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, SNK1955@aol.com writes:
To: Malcolm.Franklin, Nancy.Spero
Ms. Spero,
Thank you so much for relaying the information. It has been a living nightmare for me to watch people’s lives be devastated for eight years, while knowing I hold the key to stop it — IF — I can simply get Cal Court leaders to acknowledge the undeniable evidence of extrinsic fraud in SLAPP over my 2005 writing which exposed how scientific fraud got into public health policies for the purpose of misleading U.S. courts to deny liability for causation of environmental disabilities and deaths. Its nothing but a dirty trick right out of the Big Tobacco playbook.
Thank you!!
Sharon Kramer
Wendy Darling
November 26, 2013
Published late today, Tuesday, November 26, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner:
Open Committees
By BILL GIRDNER
I wanted to be careful in the take we took on a proposed rule that would open up Judicial Council committees and allow the public to see how the sausage of court policy is made.
I welcomed the rule as the editor of a news service that has unsuccessfully asked to attend a number of closed committee hearing. But I also wanted to know how the proposed exemptions would pan out, having seen state court bureaucrats fight transparency while giving it lip service.
Some really bad decisions have been made by the Judicial Council committees, the most fundamental of which was to go along with the former chief justice’s campaign to shift power from the local courts to a central bureaucracy. A knock-on campaign to centralize court records set in motion and failed to financially control a contractor that would charge the state an enormous amount of money and leave it with nothing more than a cumbersome and already outdated software system.
Another effect was the extraordinary bloating, like an enormous balloon inflating, of the Administrative Office of the Courts which loved its perks and its money. When the financial crisis that would blast a huge hole in trial court budgets was already well underway, the Judicial Council’s inaptly named Financial Accountability and Efficiency Committee met and recommended a big, retroactive pay raise for the already well paid AOC bureaucrats.
That meeting was the first chaired by the newly appointed chief justice. Through the chief’s media person, we asked the chair to allow us to attend, a request that, again through the media liaison, was refused.
Since then, we have regularly reported on Judicial Council meetings which are open to press and public. But spirited debate is not the normal fare of those sessions.
The reporter who covers them estimates that 90% of the public discussion involves ratifying decisions made behind closed doors. “It’s because things have been settled,” said Maria Dinzeo.
The most recent Judicial Council session is a good example. On the agenda that day were 33 consent items based on decisions by closed committees plus two “information only” items consisting of reports on administrative structuring and public notice of clerk office closures. No debate, no vote.
There were three matters on the “discussion agenda,” but one was a “no-action” item having to do with languages. The remaining two, involving facilities budgets and a laundry list of the administrative director duties, were unanimously approved based on recommendations by two committees, both of which were closed.
Of the many substantive issues facing the courts, none were discussed. There was no story, nothing to report.
In the past, council members have defended their consent items and unanimous votes by pointing to a vigorous thrashing out of the issues in committee. They sweep over the obvious irony that the committees, where all that vigorous debate took place, met in secret session.
So I welcome the proposal to open committee meetings and take with good faith the statements of the committee chairs in favor of the proposed rule.
At the same time, the rule is only being proposed under pressure from the Legislature. And the list of exemptions is long and wide, leaving an awful lot of room for interpretation by a committee chair who wants to close a meeting.
In the past, the clearly expressed intent of the Legislature — to shut down the half-billion-dollar software project, for example, and eliminate the top-loaded, no-match, taxpayer-paid, 22% pension payments for the top 30 administrative office honchos — was followed with apparent reluctance and only when the Legislature pressed the matter. In both instances, the software wreck and the pension perk kept a half-life.
Add to that the historical character of the administrative machinery at the top of the courts, which is to put on a show of transparency while undermining its substance. The recent gambit by bureaucrats and judges writing the e-filing rules is a fine example of that tactic.
The same group that brought us the technology boondoggle sought to muddle the definition of when a case is e-filed, an obfuscation that appears in every way to be a little trick, a definitional sleight of hand, that would give administrators an excuse to delay press access to the public record.
The concerted objections of a cross section of the media, including the California Newspaper Publishers Association, did nothing to affect those rules and was met with a defense that did not state facts accurately.
But then, those that put the e-filing rules in place were not dealing with a paymaster. The Legislature’s views are not so easy to dismiss.
So the test of the open committee rule, and of those now leading the courts in California, will be in the exemptions, first to see how they are cut down and then to see how they are interpreted when we again ask to attend a committee meeting.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/11/26/63263.htm
Long live the ACJ.
MaxRebo5
November 26, 2013
That was a great comment by Courthouse News. Thanks for posting it Wendy.
It is obvious there is still major resistance to change and reform by the Chief. Though today I was pleased to see the leader of another scandal plagued institution wrote about the need for reform, openness, new rules, and change needed primarily at the top of the organization. I’m talking about the Pope and what a pleasure he is. I mean no offense to Catholics (that is my own faith) but it is so refreshing to see a leader not try to downplay the mistakes of the past for the church, to see that real reforms are needed, and to embrace that instead of resist it. He gives me hope for our Chief to see the light too and get on the right side of this. Open up the Judicial Council and all of it’s committee to the light of day as the press, legislature, critics, and public want.
This Chief has to make a 180 from her predecessor on centralization, expansion of the AOC, top down only leadership, and the pure arrogance of not being willing to recognize the legitimacy of other viewpoints on policy issues. It is so out of place to behave that way yet to say you stand for Justice for all. She has to change and start cleaning house at the AOC for the CA courts to get going in the right direction. Just as a new Pope was needed for the Catholic Church to finally move toward changes there in the wake of over decade of sex abuse scandals. If that ancient institution can come clean and change so can CA Courts. This Chief is under the spotlight with this new rule and so far it looks like she’s gonna blow it with a rule that favors her team and her insiders as usual. The December JC meeting should be interesting. Too bad it is just on audio, the ACJ’s has no representation, and all other speakers will get just a few minutes to comment but it will be another chance for Tani to change or follow the ruinous path of her predecessor/appointer.
unionman575
November 26, 2013
Recall Tani.
Wendy Darling
November 26, 2013
Quote of the day: “Some really bad decisions have been made by the Judicial Council committees.”
Really?
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
November 26, 2013
It doth appear that the powers-that-be require divine help/persuasion to change. (God bless Pope Francis. What a wonderful saint he is named after.)
Recall Tani.
Long live the ACJ.
Long live Bill Girdner and Maria Dinzeo.
unionman575
November 27, 2013
Click to access oc13-Nov_25.pdf
wearyant
November 27, 2013
Well put, U-man.
Get ’em young, Teensy!
Judicial Council Watcher
November 27, 2013
Funny thing-
In other states it is being alleged that truancy courts are being established solely for the purpose of extracting hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and fines from truants and their parents and has blossomed into a cottage industry including things such as private juvenile detention (ala Pennsylvania’s kids for cash scandal as an example) and institutionalized non-profit group homes where their executive directors make mid six figure babysitting salaries for warehousing children that already have parents. Because they are largely juvenile courts their actions are shrouded in secrecy. In some cases, those that fail to pay can then be charged with a subsequent crime that can strip them of their voting rights.
Worse, the judicial branch will entertain no suit against it for courts that purport to provide a pipeline of social services for wayward teens to help them succeed when in reality what they’re really doing behind closed doors is punitive in nature and consists of stripping parents and their children of virtually all of their constitutional rights, then charging them up the ass with the assignment of attorneys and professional therapists, as if that is going to prevent kids from skipping a class every once in awhile. As little as two missed days of school or three tardies or skipped classes can get parents and children an invitation from the courts that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. These are battles already being fought in other states. We need no such distraction in California.
Given the behavior of this judicial administration, one has to wonder if CJ Mini-me is deceptively looking at dollar signs and expanding her empire instead of real solutions.
wearyant
November 27, 2013
And our old buddy Huffman is heavily involved …
sharonkramer
November 27, 2013
California Court Rule 10.75 is nothing but a moat around the castle. “Moats were excavated around castles and fortifications as part of the defensive system as an obstacle immediately outside the walls.”
sharonkramer
November 27, 2013
Wearyant. Huffman is a criminal who is involved in a multi-billion dollar fraud with expert witnesses for the US DOJ. He has no judicial immunity. Those Open Meeting Rules are shielding Tani and the Judicial Council from having to publicly address it.
Th OBT
November 28, 2013
Happy Thanksgiving everyone !
Nathaniel Woodhull
November 28, 2013
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Despite the fact that things are bad, we should all be thankful that we can at the very least comment about it on this forum.
unionman575
November 28, 2013
Click to access News%20Release-San%20Bernardino%20Superior%20Court%20-%20New%20Court%20Executive%20Officer.pdf
Musical chairs or retread tires depending how you want to look at this…
CEO Stephen H. Nash – from San Bernardino to Contra Costs
CEO Christina M. Volkers – from Sacramento back to San Bernardino
unionman575
November 28, 2013
http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/2012/12/Chris-Volkers-Court-Executive-Officer-Sacramento-Superior-Court-Christina-Volkers-Sacramento-County-Family-Court-County-of-Sacramento-divorce-child-custody-visitation-attorneys-lawyers-judges-administrators-family-law.html
Volkers did not last a year in SAC as CEO.
Keep on truckin’ Chris and Steve…
😉
R. Campomadera
November 28, 2013
She left Sacramento after less than a year? Hmmm….more to that story than we know.
unionman575
November 28, 2013
Nice to know Chris is a “courthouse construction expert”
Feast your eyes on her work here:
http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/facilities/id/27/rec/1
unionman575
November 28, 2013
Keep this little chart handy as various CEO’s get shuffled around the state:
Click to access cacourtleaders-letter.pdf
unionman575
November 28, 2013
Now Chris can return to her large home in an undisclosed location in San Bernardino County.
😉
unionman575
November 28, 2013
I could be more specific, but I won’t.
😉
Been There
November 28, 2013
What about the landscaping? 🙂
Michael Paul
November 28, 2013
It’s a McMansion on a steep hill in an expensive enclave that covers most of the lot. What front yard landscaping there is appears to be mostly dead. Volkers has nothing on Tonto as far as the back yard goes. 🙂
sharonkramer
November 29, 2013
Questions:
1. How is it decided what CEO gets shuffled where?
2. Is that the function of the AOC Director or of the Judicial Council?
3. Who decides who is the Superior Court Presiding Judge?
4. Are there term limits on being a Presiding Judge?
5. To whom do clerks of Appellate Courts report?
6. Who is the supervisor of Superior Court CEOs and Appellate Clerks, and ultimately responsible for their work?
unionman575
November 29, 2013
Here is another new CEO (this time in Riverside)….
Click to access 13newceo.pdf
sharonkramer
November 29, 2013
Unionman,
“The judges of the Riverside County Superior Court have announced the appointment of W. Samuel (Sam) Hamrick, Jr. as Court Executive Officer and Clerk of the Court.”
Who decides the appointment of Superior Court CEOs?
The announcement makes it sound like the judges in Riverside had final say in this decision.
Shouldn’t there be a clear Rule of the Court on who hires CEOs and how that decision is made?
unionman575
November 29, 2013
The Judges in every court have the final say. They choose their lackey.
R. Campomadera
November 29, 2013
Sam Hamrick is actually a pretty good guy and has a good reputation in the federal court system. California Southern is regarded as a well run clerk’s office. I predict he’ll do a good job.