I wouldn’t exactly call this roaming off the range as what happens in Sacramento tends to affect local courts. There are a few tie-ins that concern us. The main tie-in that concerns us is this paradigm of using nonprofits and law firms to funnel cash to politicians (and their judicial branch operatives) as an end-run around campaign finance laws and conflict of interest statutes.
What mainstream media is beginning to find out and pay attention to is all of the non-profits that exist for allegedly charitable or for advocacy purposes that are run by politicians themselves or are very closely associated with politicians as being run by family members or close associates. Diversity PAC is a PAC that has been in business for six years and has collected more than 1.2 million dollars from some of the biggest names in state lobbying. But because their sizable (usually corporate) donations don’t fall under the umbrella of actual campaign contributions they escape the scrutiny that they deserve. The money itself can be used for just about anything by a pol or their operatives as it is not directly associated with a politician as a straight up campaign donation.
Ten special interest groups effectively circumvented state campaign finance limits by transferring more than three-quarters of a million dollars to Diversity PAC, which, in turn, Calderon used to pay for private jets, five-star hotels, elite golf courses and extravagant meals at the country’s finest restaurants. These same special interest groups that funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to a political action committee under Calderon’s control benefited from bills introduced by the state senator and repeatedly earned his vote on legislative matters, an analysis of campaign finance and legislative records has found. – See more at: http://calwatchdog.com/2013/11/12/special-interest-contributions-dwarf-alleged-fbi-bribes-to-ron-calderon/#sthash.K5XehVMo.dpuf
In most cases, accepting a judicial appointment does not necessarily mean the gravy train has to stop which is why we’re concerned with the lack of form 700’s being filed by judges and being publicly available. Their non-profits continue to accept special interest contributions which you and I know DOES influence legislation and it’s a fair bet that it might influence legal outcomes as well.
So when we see that a politician (or even a judge) or a family member might be a paid member of just one or even a more brazen dozen or more non-profits while representing the people, it’s entirely fair to question whom they really represent. If they’re getting paid for this activity or even having their learjet rental expenses and expensive meals at world class restaurants being reimbursed, they’re being paid in-kind. If someone were paying me for my weekly outings to Morton’s steak house or for my kids college tuition or a spring break vacation, it’s hard to imagine that these acts of laundering money through non-profits or law firms might not have a detrimental effect in both the legislative or the judicial arena.
Sure, a donor may not always see their advocacy issues come to fore much like the FBI did not get their fictional film credits for their 50K donation. Most of us know that the feds would have to have made several such donations for most politicians to take on such advocacy causes because California is a big money politics state and the feds donation did not even fall in the top ten for Diversity PAC. Yet what’s becoming clear is that the top ten benefited from legislative advocacy. This is especially troubling when you realize that in the judicial branch, many of the chiefs top lieutenant appointees, several of whom are former politicians, also play this game as do some AOC directors and senior employees.
This all brings us back to Mr. Steinberg and the “Of Counsel” designation he was given by a law firm that paid him up to 100K per year. This would be the same law firm that represents Michael R. Drobot, a medical executive whose father is named in the FBI affidavit obtained by Al Jazeera America.
Earlier this month Mr. Steinberg resigned his post “Of Counsel” in an attempt to distance himself from the growing scandal and his lack of knowledge of people and events. But Steinberg apparently isn’t going to be able to shake the tiger on his tail of knowing the Drobots because a Michael D Drobot (mentioned in the FBI affidavit) has donated more than 1.3 million dollars in campaign funds to Mr. Steinberg over the course of the last thirteen years.
Does anyone believe for a moment that Mr. Steinberg has no knowledge of a family that religiously donated 1.3 million dollars to his campaigns and causes over the last thirteen years? Apparently, as one of Tani’s closest allies, Mr. Steinberg has suddenly come down with a case of amnesia…..
Personally, I would like to see some serious campaign reform that deals specifically with non-profits and law firms. I know as a voter, I would prefer to double the salaries of legislators than to see them set up or have an arms distance from non-profits and law firms. I’d like them to steer clear of dark money politics, yet our legislators are expected to live on salaries that are smaller than many of their staff. And it isn’t just state legislators that are influenced by dark money politics as the same thing happens on a federal level, though at the federal level, the judiciary is far less involved.
As for the federal investigation it appears to be ongoing. We’d hope to see it broadened and we’d hope to see some really high level federal convictions. This would help demonstrate how broken our state systems are when it comes to protecting the taxpayers at the state level and hopefully lead to some badly needed change. As things stand today, the law firm / non-profit gravy train is far too enticing to resist.
Related articles
- Democrat State Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg: As “Honest” as the Calderons and John Perez”? (capoliticalnews.com)
- California state Sen. Ron Calderon accepted $88,000 in bribes, FBI affidavit alleges (fresnobee.com)
- Editorial: Calderon’s effort to play the victim is just pathetic (fresnobee.com)
- Dan Morain: Two cases represent different faces of the dark sides of political money (sacbee.com)
- California lawmaker’s side job raises ethic questions (watchdog.org)
- Capitol Alert: Steinberg had ties to law firm that represented younger Drobot (fresnobee.com)
- Political money needs a tighter rein (latimes.com)
- Special interest contributions dwarf alleged FBI bribes to Ron Calderon (capoliticalnews.com)
- VIDEO: Steinberg denies ties to hospital linked to FBI investigation (blogs.sacbee.com)
- Bruce Maiman: Will allegations of bribery spur campaign finance reform? (sacbee.com)
unionman575
November 29, 2013
“Does anyone believe for a moment that Mr. Steinberg has no knowledge of a family that religiously donated 1.3 million dollars to his campaigns and causes over the last thirteen years? Apparently, as one of Tani’s closest allies, Mr. Steinberg has suddenly come down with a case of amnesia…..”
I can’t remember a thing..ah shucks…time for another Black Friday Vodka Tonic.
😉
Nathaniel Woodhull
November 29, 2013
Tani and Darrell were classmates at UC Davis. Back in the days when she was dealing cards on the side. Come one, no one gets paid $100,000.00 a year without knowing where the money is coming from, especially a savvy politician like Steinberg. His online FPPC forms only show the income from Roxborough, Pomerance in 2011. In 2012, his strange income between $10,000-100,000.00 came from the Birmingham, Alabama based law firm of Whatley, Drake & Kallas. I’m sure he committed there on the weekends. Oh and by the way, check out the firms area of practice, right in the wheelhouse of activities controlled by you know who.
Last word from insiders was Steinberg was going to be “rewarded” by being inserted onto the Third District Court of Appeals when he is termed out next year. He certainly has delivered his protection to Tani & Company. Now its time he gets executive protection from the CHP when he sits at the base of Mount Olympus….er uh well, some mountain of note..
Th OBT
November 29, 2013
Steinberg is quite simply a disgrace. He will make a perfect addition to the insiders at the crystal palace once he assumes his rightful place on the Third District.
Wendy Darling
November 29, 2013
Ah, General and OBT, you underestimate Mr. Steinberg’s ambitions. A seat on the appellate court bench is but the beginning of his personal aim for the judicial branch. From there he expects to go to the state supreme court, and maybe even the top job. Tani should watch out, someone might try to steal her crown. Tarnished as it is.
And you’re right, OBT, he’ll fit right in. For all the wrong reasons.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
November 30, 2013
This opens up a new perspective and a fuller understanding of the tired, ol’ saw, “politics makes for strange bedfellows.”
Daniel cooper
November 30, 2013
Steiberg will never be found guilty in any California court. Steinberg authored Senate bill SBX211 that gave the judges RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR ACCEPTING MONEY NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW. We need a grand jury investigation made up by the people clear and free from any influence by judges or county our state prosecutors.
sharonkramer
December 1, 2013
How long was Steinberg a Ca legislative representative on the Judicial Council?
unionman575
December 1, 2013
And now a word from Senator Steinberg:
“The Senator says he’s eager to renew his friendship with the new chief justice, Tani Cantil- Sakauye. They were classmates in law school.
“And I look forward to working with her as partners to make sure that we continue to triage our way through what will still be some difficult economic times, difficult budget times. But we’ll get through it.”
😉
Here is the rest of his “official” CA “public service” career (serving no one but himself)…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Steinberg
Peppermint Pattie
December 1, 2013
Twelve Days Of An AOC Christmas 2013
On the first day of Christmas the AOC gave to me
A book of fiction masquerading as a legacy.
On the second day of Christmas the AOC gave to me
Two civics classes in judicial branch thievery,
And a book of fiction masquerading as a legacy.
On the third day of Christmas the AOC gave to me
A 3 billion dollar airport concourse courthouse,
Two civics classes in judicial branch thievery,
And a book of fiction masquerading as a legacy.
On the fourth day of Christmas the AOC gave to me
A newly expanded AOC employee telecommuting policy,
A 3 billion dollar airport concourse courthouse,
Two civics classes in judicial branch thievery,
And a book of fiction masquerading as a legacy.
On the fifth day of Christmas the AOC gave to me
A Gang of Five to ensure blind obediency,
A newly expanded AOC employee telecommuting policy,
A 3 billion dollar airport concourse courthouse,
Two civics classes in judicial branch thievery,
And a book of fiction masquerading as a legacy.
On the sixth day of Christmas the AOC gave to me
More closed courthouses in virtually every California county,
A Gang of Five to ensure blind obediency,
A newly expanded AOC employee telecommuting policy,
A 3 billion dollar airport concourse courthouse,
Two civics lessons in judicial branch thievery,
And a book of fiction masquerading as a legacy.
On the seventh day of Christmas the AOC gave to me
Seventeen exemptions to a new “transparency” policy.
More closed courthouses in virtually every California county,
A Gang of Five to ensure blind obediency,
A newly expanded AOC employee telecommuting policy,
A 3 billion dollar airport concourse courthouse,
Two civics lessons in judicial branch thievery,
And a book of fiction masquerading as a legacy.
On the eighth day of Christmas the AOC gave to me
Eight dozen used retread appointments to various judicial council committees,
Seventeen exemptions to a new “transparency” policy,
More closed courthouses in virtually every California county,
A Gang of Five to ensure blind obediency,
A newly expanded AOC employee telecommuting policy,
A 3 billion dollar airport concourse courthouse,
Two civics lessons in judicial branch thievery,
And a book of fiction masquerading as a legacy.
On the ninth day of Christmas the AOC gave to me
Scores of fired court reporters and raises for all AOC employees,
Eight dozen used retread appointments to various judicial council committees,
Seventeen exemptions to a new “transparency” policy,
More closed courthouses in virtually every California county,
A Gang of Five to ensure blind obediency,
A newly expanded AOC employee telecommuting policy,
A 3 billion dollar airport concourse courthouse,
Two civics lessons in judicial branch thievery,
And a book of fiction masquerading as a legacy.
On the tenth day of Christmas the AOC gave to me
A $10 dollar pay for view charge for public documents,
Scores of fired court reporters and raises for all AOC employees,
Eight dozen used retread appointments to various judicial council committees,
Seventeen exemptions to a new “transparency” policy,
More closed courthouses in virtually every California county,
A Gang of Five to ensure blind obediency,
A newly expanded AOC employee telecommuting policy,
A 3 billion dollar airport concourse courthouse,
Two civics lessons in judicial branch thievery,
And a book of fiction masquerading as a legacy.
On the eleventh day of Christmas the AOC gave to me
Eleven new ways to deceive the State Senate and Assembly,
A $10 dollar pay for view charge for public documents,
Scores of fired court reporters and raises for all AOC employees,
Eight dozen used retread appointments to various judicial council committees,
Seventeen exemptions to a new “transparency” policy,
More closed courthouses in virtually every California county,
A Gang of Five to ensure blind obediency,
A newly expanded AOC employee telecommuting policy,
A 3 billion dollar airport concourse courthouse,
Two civics lessons in judicial branch thievery,
And a book of fiction masquerading as a legacy.
On the twelfth day of Christmas the AOC gave to me
A Chief Justice and Judicial Council void of ethics and accountability,
Eleven new ways to deceive the State Senate and Assembly,
A $10 dollar pay for view charge for public documents,
Scores of fired court reporters and raises for all AOC employees,
Eight dozen used retread appointments to various judicial council committees,
Seventeen exemptions to a new “transparency” policy,
More closed courthouses in virtually every California county,
A Gang of Five to ensure blind obediency,
A newly expanded AOC employee telecommuting policy,
A 3 billion dollar airport concourse courthouse,
Two civics lessons in judicial branch thievery,
And a book of fiction masquerading as a legacy.
unionman575
December 2, 2013
Nice work Peppermint!
😉
Lando
December 1, 2013
Great work Peppermint. Thanks for summarizing the continuing crystal palace debacle in such a perfect way. HRH-1 , HRH-2, J Hull, J Miller and the other insiders at 455 Golden Gate are truly the gifts that keep on giving.
wearyant
December 1, 2013
Let’s go caroling! 😀
Great work, PP!
Long live the ACJ!
sharonkramer
December 2, 2013
If only that was all there is to it, to the “non-profit” scams. Leading members of the California Judicial Council have aided “non-profit” medical associations to promote garbage science in CA and US legislative directed policies and US courts on behalf of commerce and industry; and adverse to the public’s best interest.
Its billions in fraud continuing via falsified court documents by Huffman, McConnell et al, being covered up by the JC, AOC, CJP and State Bar, including by Tani herself.
Its just a matter of time until it all comes out in the wash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFldj7otGsk
Wendy Darling
December 2, 2013
Published today, Monday, December 2, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
State Judges Will See Pay Increase
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — California’s judges and justices will soon receive their first pay raise in more than six years, a 1.4 percent bump that’s retroactive to July 1.
A second wave of pay increases, tied to contracts that have been negotiated with state employee bargaining groups, should add an additional 4.5 percent to jurists’ salaries by July 2015, according to judiciary leaders. Base pay for trial court judges would rise from $178,789 today to just under $190,000 in 18 months.
Administrative Director of the Courts Steven Jahr and California Judges Association President Robert Glusman announced the planned raises in a letter sent to state judges last week.
“We are grateful to you as bench officers and CJA members, active and retired, for the sacrifices you have quietly made in these last years,” they wrote.
State law, Government Code Section 68203, mandates salary increases for judges when pay for other state workers rises. Judges have argued for years that they are due more pay because of small salary increases awarded to some employee groups dating back to 2008.
But the AOC and CJA, citing the recession, never pushed the issue, perhaps fearing that the governor or Legislature might try to rescind the law.
Now, they say, Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration has agreed to a 1.4 percent pay increase that will take effect in a matter of weeks. Although some judges insist the raise should be retroactive to several years ago, the July 2013 start date “is the best possible outcome under current circumstances,” Jahr and Glusman wrote.
The second round of pay increases would mirror terms in contracts the state has cut with all but three of its employee bargaining units. Under terms explained by judiciary leaders, judges would receive an additional 2 percent raise in July 2014 if the Department of Finance confirms the state has enough money to pay for it. If the state does grant that increase, judges would get a second pay boost of 2.5 percent in 2015. If not, judges would see the entire 4.5 percent increase in 2015.
Government Code Section “68203 has been a good policy decision by the Legislature to make judges pay determined in a non-political way,” CJA lobbyist Mike Belote said.
Future pay raises would still have to be affirmed by the Legislature through the annual budget process, Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said Monday. Brown is expected to release his 2014-15 budget plans next month.
California’s trial court judges were the fourth highest paid general jurisdiction judges in the nation in 2012, the most recent year figures were available from the National Center for State Courts.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202630300440&State_Judges_Will_See_Pay_Increase&slreturn=20131102212458
Long live the ACJ.
MaxRebo5
December 2, 2013
Pay raises for judges and new hires at the AOC continue daily while trial courts are still short of funds. Not a thought for the 2,500 court employees laid off due to the budget in the recession through no fault of their own. How about the branch creating rehire list for laid off staff? Also, how about judges and executives only taking raises only after they have restored the staff they lost and claim to value? I know that’s crazy talk but those employees lost their entire incomes while the judges only had to hold off on raises to their already high salaries ($179,000 -4th highest in the nation). Who’s service and sacrifice is greater? This is the “leadership” from the top I find so lacking of real honor or justice. Jahr fights for the judges ahead of pushing to get back the staff lost through no fault of their own! Class politics but it sure lacks class to me.
Lando
December 3, 2013
Your missing one thing here MaxRebo. Many of us have been fighting the good fight ever since HRH-1 came into power.We have stood by our loyal employees and done all we could to save their jobs and support them as best we can. We have also at great sacrifice to our own careers fought HRH-1 HRH-2 and the other ” insiders ” at 455 Golden Gate to restore balance and adequate funding so the trial courts could serve the public we represent. As a Judge who believes in responsibility, accountability and service to the public I have never been motivated by my salary. I am motivated to serve the citizens of my county and I can’t disclose that location for fear of retribution from the 455 Golden Gate overlords. You though know where I am talking about. The fact that I may now make an additional 180.00 this year alone is totally irrelevant. The CJA and Jahr can claim this is some great victory for Judges. It isn’t. Talk of a big raise in 2015 is equally bogus. It will never happen. When and if I get this ” huge ” 180.00 raise I plan to give it to help buy Christmas gifts to our troops marooned in the Middle East. So Max Rebo don’t turn this on the trial courts especially those you once worked for. Your fight and ours should be with the continued waste, arrogance and lack of any accountability that exists at the crystal palace and those that populate it, HRH-2, J Hull, J Miller, and the out of touch and out of time staff of the AOC.
The OBT
December 3, 2013
I totally agree Lando. I am giving my incredible “raise” to help the fight against lung cancer. I usually agree with Max Rebo but find his “class” analysis off the mark. All of us are in this together. We stand for restoring the constitutional power to the trial courts that Ronald George highjacked for his own personal ego and arrogance.
unionman575
December 3, 2013
“We stand for restoring the constitutional power to the trial courts that Ronald George highjacked for his own personal ego and arrogance.”
Yes we all do.
😉
sharonkramer
December 3, 2013
Hmmmmmm? I happen to know that loss of constitutional rights in the trial courts takes a village to carry out. That’s why it is so important to push for transparency in those JC meetings. There are people making those rules to stop the transparency, who really should be behind bars. Not kidding one iota.
MaxRebo5
December 3, 2013
I stand by my comment. Raises for existing staff (judges, clerks, court reporters) before rehiring the court staff cut due to the budget cuts is wrong. My point applies to all court staff as it is not so much of a class issue but a simple morality and ethics issue.
You make reference to the military so I will use your analogy. We have two holidays for those who serve in the military. One is Memorial Day and other is Veteran’s Day. Citizens who serve in the military and live deserve our respect and receive that on Veteran’s Day. But those who die while serving even Veteran’s pay respects too on Memorial Day. A debt we as citizens can never repay (same goes for peace officers and firemen) They fell serving so all of us could have better lives.
I see the 2,500 employees who we’re let go as citizens who served the branch to the best of their ability and were let down through no fault of their own. They did not risk their lives so they deserve no honors. However they lost their careers with the court while those who remain gave up just 5% at that time through furloughs. In the case of the judges some lost nothing because the constitution protects your salaries.
I am no fan of Ron George but he was right to say judges should take a 5% cut if staff have to. That act was trying to say “leaders” at the top should share the pain not just the rewards. The constitution protected your incomes legally but morally a gesture of shared sacrifice was the stronger position on that issue.
As I recall, that 5% cut to judges pay was the genesis of the ACJ being formed so while I support the ACJ on many things I think it is arrogant of trial court judges who make nearly as much as US Supreme Court Justices to want raises before rehiring court employees they claim to value. It exposes a hypocrisy I find most unbecoming. Tell me Lando or any other judges on here, do you know if your court even have a rehire list so employees let go in the recession get priority in hiring when openings in the court occur? I bet the answer is a resounding no you don’t know and also no they don’t have them. Check with your HR directors and find out. The executive branch does rehire lists for their staff when budget layoffs occur (SROA’s) and it is the right thing to do. Pretty sad your courts don’t do the same. I don’t know what more to say other than I wish you judges walked the walk a bit more for the staff people who serve around you and help make your careers possible. Their professional skills and incomes may be less than yours but their service to the branch is no less.
Nathaniel Woodhull
December 3, 2013
Max,
I understand and share your pain, anger and concerns. Many of us locally declined to give 5% to the AOC as they requested, rather we gave it directly to our staff members affected by the cuts. Some local courts had good relationships with their old County counterparts and worked to ensure that workers laid-off because of the fiscal malfeasance of those in the Crystal Palace found another job with the local county. I realize that didn’t happen everywhere, although I wish it had.
Having been there for the discussions that led to the formation of the ACJ, I can assure you that the judges “pay-cut” was not the genesis of that organization. Many of us were disenchanted with the “change in management” that took place in 1996 and the move to consolidate power in San Francisco. The mandate of one-size fits all programming, the claim that we need to speak “with one voice”. That anyone questioning the status-quo would be viewed as having made a declaration of war. Our early concerns over CCMS, its apparent unquenchable appetite for funds, those completely unqualified who were managing it; all said concerns were dismissed. The CJA proved to be completely unresponsive. For years many of us tried to work within the CJA to deal with these issues. Starting with Jim Mize and Terry Friedman, the CJA moved to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the AOC. Vickrey and Overholt sat in on all CJA Board meetings, including strategic planning sessions. It got to the point where Vickrey was actually making up agenda items for the CJA Board. The chilling effect of their presence at Board Meetings caused most CJA representatives to hold their tongues for fear of retribution to themselves personally and/or their courts.
I understand exactly how hard our staff works to provide services to our community. Since I’ve been here I’ve walked the floors of the courthouses, talking to clerks, picking up my own mail and files; making myself available for training to staff, even on weekends. I’m not the only one who had done that.
Everyone should receive a fair compensation for the work that they do. Many judges are in fact concerned that their salaries are equivalent to a 2nd or 3rd year associate. Public lawyers appearing before judges are making substantially more than judges in many counties, not including their benefit packages which outshine those for the judicial branch. Anyone who wants to become a judge or stays as a judge is not doing it for the money. It is out of a spirit of community service.
I hope that things improve Max. My concern is that the analysts have told those in the Crystal Palace that the spigot will stay closed next fiscal year. Can’t say as I blame them, given the way the operation is being run from the top. I miss the days of pre-consolidation. I’ll take negotiating with our County Manager any day…
Wendy Darling
December 3, 2013
Lando, OBT, Max Rebo, and General Woodhull all make valid points. But the most important point may be this: 455 Golden Gate Avenue loves nothing more than getting judges to fight among themselves.
And FYI, General Woodhull, Darth Vickrey used to brag that he was the one who was really running the CJA. “Pulling them around by their noses” was the preferred expression.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
December 3, 2013
“The spigot will stay closed next fiscal year.”
Yes, in all probability it will. While Senator Steinberg may try to protect his “friend” Tani, many others in Sacramento have woken up to the abhorrent behavior emanating from judicial branch administration and that the current occupant of the Office of the Chief Justice not only doesn’t intend to do anything to clean it up, but is doing everything in her power to permit it to continue and perpetuate. Many in Sacramento have come to the conclusion that if they can’t do anything else, what they can to is stop funding it and paying for it with public money.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
December 3, 2013
General Judge Woodhaul,
I respect the many words you have written on JCW. I understand your point of the judges functioning under tierrany.
With that said, I’m just a plain ole citizen. I rely upon those whose jobs it is to protect the Constitution, standing up to tierrany.
I know that there is much politics to consider; but its very hard for me to see people like Michael Paul, Paula Negley, Phillip Kay, Emad Tadros and others being shot down for speaking directly of all out fraud while knowing if the judges stopped playing in the JC/AOC’s ballpark and spoke in unison of what they REALLY know — to the point of them all risking being fired — it would stop.
I appreciate some of the strides ACJ have made. But I’m sorry. I think the judges could be doing more. In my book, you don’t negotiate with criminals; and it hurts my soul to know that California judges feel that they must.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 3, 2013
The challenge is that the criminals are in charge and recognized as leadership. The leadership can be creatively siphoning off millions to their own swiss or vatican bank accounts and because ethical considerations prevent judges from calling them criminals, their hands are tied insofar as what they can say, less they be removed from the bench.
This is what makes crime in the judicial branch so perfect. Nobody credible can utter a word about it, it is self-investigated and no outside party can intervene.
Peppermint Pattie
December 3, 2013
I have to agree with Sharon Kramer about one thing. It is the practice and policy of the powers-that-be in branch administration to punish those who tell the truth about what has, and is, going on in the judicial branch. Take Sofa Man for example. Sofa Man has made sure that everyone knows that he is protected by the AOC Executive Office and the Chief Justice. He is worse than Bluto Fuentes in every way, yet no one will speak up and tell the truth because they know what will happen to them. And what will happen to Sofa Man? He will likely be rewarded with a promotion and a raise.
Many of those that post here are also right about something else. Nothing has really changed at the AOC. Like embezzling public money. But no one will speak up about that either.
Nathaniel Woodhull
December 3, 2013
JCW hit the nail on the head! It has often been said that judicial officers essentially surrender their First Amendment rights while in office.
Wendy Darling
December 3, 2013
“You who hesitate, cast aside all illusions.” Abba Kovner, January 1, 1942, “A First Attempt To Tell” in The Holocaust as Historical Experience.
“Above all else, thou shall never, but never, be a bystander.” Yehuda Bauer, 1998.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
katy
December 4, 2013
General Woodall,
I would argue that if one surrenders their Constitutional rights, then no one else can be held accountable for that surrender but the one who willingly gave up that right. For generations, there have been men and women who have given their lives to defend that right not just for themselves, but for all others for generations to come.
In my book, if one surrenders that right to keep a job or because of fear of retaliation; while knowing their surrender is also causing the forced denial of Constitutional rights of others;, then the surrenderer desecrates the graves of those who have given their lives to protect it for all U.S. citizens.
Let’s call a spade a spade. The California judicial branch is being run by criminals. They need to be outted and removed to protect the Constitutional rights of not just judges and branch employees, but of all U.S. citizens. No politician is going to make this happen without a massive outcry. Negotiating with criminals to stop being criminals is an exercise in futility.
Its not just esoteric retoric about freedom of speech. Its not just about beaten down judges or wronged court employees. Lives are dependent on honorable judges gaining the courage to remove the riff raft from the helm of the California judicial branch and from within their midst.
ACJ is a good start. But its going to take direct and public telling what is REALLY known to be occurring, I believe. The time for soft selling, decorum in communication is long past.
If judges in courts of law do not speak out directly to protect the Constitution from corruption in the courts, then there is no one to protect it on behalf of the people. http://wp.me/lYPz
courtflea
December 4, 2013
I think the timing for a salary increase for anyone right now is very crappy. A big middle finger to employees who are being asked to contribute more to the cost of their benefits and pensions and not receiving pay raises or taking furlough days.
Katy you are spot on. But “the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge”. It won’t be easy killing the king.
sharonkramer
December 4, 2013
I make no judgment of if the judges should or should not accept a pay raise at this point in time.
However, given the dishonorable reasons behind the financial state of the branch that the ACJ has helped to expose, it could be perceived as manipulative. Throwing a bone to the big dogs so they don’t attack when Royalty walks through the castle’s courtyard; while letting the less threatening little dogs starve.
courtflea
December 4, 2013
I believe the judges are very deserving of any pay raises, it is just bad timing. Just gives the apperance at least to this flea, of a “let them eat cake” moment.
sharonkramer
December 9, 2013
K. I’ve been thinking about this. If criminal activity which is fleecing the US public is known to the JC, to be occurring and involving JC members; and the new meeting rules stop the public’s ability to publicly ask what the JC intends to do about it via establishing policy of who is responsible to stop the fleecing; then would the new rules be considered as aiding and abetting criminal activity by JC members? Would that make the new rules unlawful?
unionman575
December 9, 2013
Another Taj Majal…
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2013/12/08/3382518/los-banos-courthouse-project-moves.html
Los Banos courthouse project moves forward
By Corey Pride
cpride@losbanosenterpriseDecember 8, 2013 Updated 7 hours ago
LOS BANOS — Preliminary drawings for Los Banos’ new courthouse are scheduled to be voted on this week, putting the project on track for completion in 2016.
Teresa Ruano, spokeswoman for the California Administrative Office of the Courts, said the architectural design of the Los Banos courthouse has been placed on the state Public Works Board’s agenda for Friday.
“It’s on the consent agenda, so we expect it to be approved,” she said.
Ruano said that after the court’s architectural designs are given the go-ahead, the working drawing, which provide specifications from which the structure will be built, will start the approval process, slated to last through 2014. Barring setbacks, construction is scheduled to begin May 2015.
The Los Banos courthouse is one of few such projects around the state given approval to move forward.
“There were a whole bunch of decisions made on courthouses, many of them are finishing a phase and then being put on hold. Los Banos is one of the few allowed to continue,” Ruano said.
In 2012, many courthouse projects were cut by state lawmakers, shifting about $600 million in Long Beach court expenses to the state’s courthouse construction budget. The projects that remained included new courthouses in Los Banos, Sonora and Modesto.
In Los Banos, the Robert M. Falasco Justice Center occupies about 5,370 square feet of its 15,000-square-foot building. The one-courtroom structure is owned by Merced County and is shared by the Sheriff’s Department, probation department, the county clerk and the public defender. The district attorney’s office is in a portable building at the rear of the permanent structure. A feasibility report identified numerous deficiencies at the building, which was built in 1980.
In 2009, the state authorized $32.6 million (then reduced to $32.2 million) to be spent on construction of a new court building with two courtrooms and room to expand to four.
Ruano said a bond sale is scheduled to take place in the spring of 2015 to finance construction.
The new courthouse will be built near the intersection of G Street and Mercey Springs Road.
😉