Please do not read this article without acknowledging our first amendment right under the U.S. Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
There’s a reason we started today’s article with the first amendment to the constitution. The reason we started today’s article off with the first amendment to the constitution is because it would appear that we must now assert our constitutional rights before we’re entitled to them – according to the California Supreme Court.
In a bizarre and preposterous ruling, the first of its kind that we know of in the nation, you don’t have the right to remain silent before being informed of those rights. If you are silent before being informed of your Miranda rights the state has a right to assume and argue that your silence proves your guilt, so said the California Supreme Court in a controversial 4-3 ruling.
You as a citizen are expected to know all of the 29 codes that consist of California law. Ignorance is no excuse. You are also now required to get intimate with your constitutional protections and in a slippery slope, your constitutional rights appear to have no validity unless you assert them.You as a citizen are only entitled to your right to remain silent when you assert them by informing law enforcement that you have the right to remain silent before they read you your Miranda rights.
So follow the bouncing ball.
Corporations are people.
Money is free speech.
Silence is not a form of free speech nor is it a right against self-incrimination, it just proves your guilt.
The slippery slope as you can imagine is that it is conceivable that much like your right to remain silent, you probably shouldn’t be entitled to protections against unreasonable or warrantless search either unless you assert those rights before the search commences. You probably shouldn’t enjoy freedom of speech protections and the media shouldn’t enjoy freedom of the press either unless they start out every article by citing the first amendment much like we started this article with asserting our rights under the first amendment.
It would appear Justice Liu got it right. “The court today holds, against common sense expectations, that remaining silent after being placed under arrest is not enough to exercise one’s right to remain silent,” Liu wrote.
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/15/6631249/court-silence-may-sometimes-show.html
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/08/15/court-silence-may-sometimes-show-guilt/
Judicial Council Watcher 
carlosmartinezcsr
August 16, 2014
I’m speechless…unless that makes me guilty
wearyant
August 16, 2014
There is also the consideration of a time element involved too … you betta get that declaration to remain silent out *quick* !!
As the insanity of our doofus queen feckless dribbles downward, perhaps more citizens will get wonked and thus become involved rather than remain apathetic? Or will it be ho-hum, yawn, another ruling, another name change, more insane nonsense from *above,* [sigh].
Long live the ACJ.
MaxRebo5
August 16, 2014
Looking forward to those two new appointments by Brown. Maybe they can help reform the Judicial Council too.
NewsViews
August 16, 2014
The U.S. Supreme Court has already reached a similar decision in Salinas V. Texas http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/salinas-v-texas/. it is ironic that the First Amendment is quoted when no court in the State allows the First Amendment right to redress, including the Court of Appeal.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 16, 2014
I don’t think this ruling is the same but it’s perilously close. In Salinas, rights were apparently waived by answering some questions and not others.
NewsViews
August 16, 2014
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf Petitioner, without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda warnings, voluntarily answered some of a police officer’s questions about a murder, but fell silent when asked whether ballistics testing wouldmatch his shotgun to shell casings found at the scene of the crime. At petitioner’s murder trial in Texas state court, and over his objection,the prosecution used his failure to answer the question as evidence of guilt. He was convicted, and both the State Court of Appeals andCourt of Criminal Appeals affirmed, rejecting his claim that the prosecution’s use of his silence in its case in chief violated the Fifth Amendment.
courtflea
August 16, 2014
yeah and OJ is still looking for the real killer right? California justice has been scewed up for a long time. my trust in the system went out with that verdict. So I am not suprised to hear this. just sayin.
Wendy Darling
August 16, 2014
A thinking person might observe that, under this ruling, in order to invoke one’s right to remain silent, a person would have to speak to do so. So the next ruling we’ll get, is that by speaking in order to invoke the right to remain silent, a person waived their right to remain silent by doing so. because they spoke and didn’t remain silent.
I think I’m going to go buy like a couple of dozen t-shirts that state in big letters on the front :”I hereby invoke my right to remain silent” and start wearing one whenever possible.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
August 17, 2014
Most people have welcome mats at their front door.
Mine says “Come back with a warrant”
unionman575
August 18, 2014
My welcome mat says “Leave”
unionman575
August 16, 2014
I Hereby Invoke My Right to Remain Silent
NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT(FEDS, POLICE, INSPECTORS, PROSECUTORS, ETC.) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I do not waive, and I hereby invoke my rights, as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. I object to ANY search of ANY kind whatsoever. I do not and will not consent to a search of my person, my things, my car or my home. I choose to REMAIN SILENT. I will not say anything without my lawyer. I will not answer any questions or provide any explanations until I have spoken to my lawyer. Because of the possibility of lying witnesses or jailhouse snitches, I will not talk about my case with anyone other than my lawyer. Make this statement a part of the report concerning this contact.
😉
wearyant
August 17, 2014
um, are we a *little* cynical after working many years in the court system, UMan? 😀
unionman575
August 18, 2014
Very.
Michael Paul
August 17, 2014
Concerned about your rights? Print this off and put it in your wallet, purse, glove compartment and pin it next to the front door, courtesy of the ACLU.
Click to access bustcard_eng_20100630.pdf
Michael Paul
August 17, 2014
Of course there is the NORML version of this card as well….
Click to access freedom_card_4.pdf
Michael Paul
August 17, 2014
I do like unionman’s version best as it covers all of the bases…… Where do I get that card – or should I have one made and posted to this site? 🙂
wearyant
August 18, 2014
MP: Be assured that the fraidy-cat weenies have boo-hooed to those who have to listen, namely, probably the CHP, and all of the posters, bloggers and commenters here at JCW have files worked up. Remember ronO wah-wahing about his backyard being a source of fun via google and the suits showing up? Big babies.
Long live the ACJ
unionman575
August 18, 2014
Here is the link: http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/print-this-notice-to-the-police
unionman575
August 16, 2014
Click to access jctc-20140821-NoticeofMeeting.pdf
unionman575
August 16, 2014
Click to access jctc-20140821-Agenda.pdf
unionman575
August 16, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/14908.htm
Fact Check: Judicial Branch Budget
That dog won’t hunt…
wearyant
August 17, 2014
Aahhhh, UMan, 800+ people worked on them-thar charts! And there’s an *enlarge* button there too. On second thought, it’s an aggrandizement button. I *never* get tired of their pretty charts! I guess, if the formerly-known-as-the-AOC could, they’d hit us all in the face with them-thar-purty charts. Schmack-a-mole.
unionman575
August 16, 2014
Click to access jc-20140822-item4.pdf
Coming to a theater near you CCMS II
unionman575
August 16, 2014
And the winners are:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/distinguishedserviceawards.htm
Judicial Council Watcher
August 17, 2014
So Mr. Soderlund gets to wear the dunce cap this year.
JusticeCalifornia
August 18, 2014
Bernard E. Witkin Amicus Curiae Award: Mr. Ralph J. Shapiro, Attorney at Law, Shapiro Family Trust Foundation Honors individuals other than members of the judiciary for their outstanding contributions to the courts of California.
good old Mr. Shapiro. Just so we all know how to get one of these. . . .
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/geor092811.htm
wearyant
August 18, 2014
Pay to play and get a plaque. Or a dunce cap.
unionman575
August 16, 2014
If anyone wishes to contribute to the Death Star, you can give here:
Click to access ajf.pdf
unionman575
August 16, 2014
Poof! The AOC is now gone in the new PR piece (it’s not selling):
Click to access Calif_Judicial_Branch.pdf
JusticeCalifornia
August 17, 2014
This does not surprise me. It is becoming increasingly clear that the public’s Constitutional rights really mean nothing — and I do mean nothing– at all.
Wendy Darling
August 17, 2014
Welcome to the “Believe it when you see it” club, Justice California.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
August 18, 2014
The Bill V award: goes to any director that has not yet recieved it from the agency formerly known as the AOC. Not one person in the courts is eligible to receive it. What will they do with this award when they run out of employees of the agency that used to bee the AOC?
Shit, Shapiro, please. pay to play.
R. Campomadera
August 18, 2014
Not exactly on point, so far as this thread goes, but nonetheless interesting: http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/08/18/superior-court-wages-added-to-public-pay-site.html
The gist of the article: “The executive officer at Sacramento County Superior Court earned $217,756 in wages last year, according to data posted online by State Controller John Chiang. Total compensation, including retirement and health-care benefits, reached $294,189”.
OMG. She lasted less than a year before she was invited to pursue her career elsewhere. What did we, the taxpayers, get for our nearly $300,000 expenditure? Anything? Help me out here…what am I missing?
wearyant
August 18, 2014
The greedy-gut is totally ruining it for the peons working for slave wages. Our county workers qualified for food stamps when I was in harness. So all public employees are bashed big time when stories like this make the rounds — and this Sacto CEO is trumping the queen in compensation, it would appear. Even though I’m no fan of the feckless, that’s not right. How many front line workers (the courts *really* need) could be hired in the CEO’s stead? Thank God for the unions.
How’s the audit goin’, Elaine?!
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
August 19, 2014
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if someone came along as a court executive who really cared about and took care of the court’s staff, instead of finding creative ways of padding their own nest?
Wendy Darling
August 19, 2014
There are a few of those, R. Campomadera. Of course, none of them sit on any of the JC committees, or receive “awards” for excellence in judicial branch administration. Too honest and ethical for any of that.
Long live the ACJ.
MaxRebo5
August 18, 2014
You’re right on! As bad as she was she replaced a court exec for Sacramento who got a similar massive salary and a pension from Sacramento County on top of a state pension because the AOC paid his salary to double dip. All Dennis Jones did was fail on CCMS, promote friends and fire enemies (myself included which I am proud of). He tried to promote me the back door route when he thought I was on the team but I wouldn’t play that way so I know for sure they don’t play fair. That’s the “field” of court administration in my experience.
The Sac Court Exec before Dennis was Jody Patel with Curt Soderlund as her right hand man. I bet two execs wasn’t cheap either. Jody’s main action was to close a local community court in Sacramento County and then give herself a raise before becoming Director of the AOC Regional Office. She still runs the Judicial Council’s Staff where they press the other branches for more money for technology but never admit they made any mistakes on CCMS. No shame at all.
Curt Soderlund is gonna get a Vickrey award this week and I think he is a perfect recipient. It’s just a team of insiders/allies taking care of one another financially like the folks who ran the City of Bell getting rich and pretending to “serve” the public. It’s really them serving themselves to crazy paychecks and pensions. Or maybe it really does costs a fortune to hire people willing to be so unethical to ensure CA Courts speak with just one voice for the Chief.
unionman575
August 19, 2014
Or maybe it really does costs a fortune to hire people willing to be so unethical to ensure CA Courts speak with just one voice for the Chief.
Money buys speak with one voice.
JusticeCalifornia
August 19, 2014
I ran across this today and regret I wasn’t aware of this legislation before now. I have SO much faith in document destruction legislation supported by Feckless and Kim Turner.. . .not.
http://patch.com/california/rohnertpark-cotati/two-levine-measures-signed-by-governor_ac974d59#.U_OqHPldUjI
“AB 1352 (Chapter 274, Statutes of 2013) permits state courts to destroy non-controversial records. According to Judicial Council, under Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, California spends more than $21.5 million annually on records retention. “This measure will help the trial courts better carry out their responsibilities as custodians of court records,” said Kim Turner, Executive Officer of Marin County Superior Court.”
A link we should all be watching: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/OGA-Leg-Priorities-2014.pdf
Wendy Darling
August 19, 2014
Speaking of Constitutional rights being meaningless: published today, Tuesday, August 19, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner:
CNS First Amendment Case Against Ventura Bounced From Fed Court
By BILL GIRDNER
A First Amendment action by Courthouse News over press access in Ventura Superior Court was for a second time rejected by U.S. Judge Manuel Real on Monday. Ruling from the bench, the judge said the press has no right to see new cases on the day they are filed, contrary to a decades-old tradition in his own courthouse and many others.
Real cited an 1884 Massachusetts decision by Oliver Wendell Holmes in finding that there is not “a long tradition” of same-day press access. In that decision, Holmes said the press has no right of access to court records until there is a hearing before a judge, law that has long since been displaced.
Lawyers for both the state side in the case agreed that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit is likely.
Real said in his ruling, “This right to same-day access would give the public the right to see unprocessed complaints before they are available to judges and their clerks.”
Two floors below his courtroom in federal court in Los Angeles, the press currently sees unprocessed paper-filed actions on the day they are filed, well before they are delivered to judges and their clerks. The press has had that access for at least three decades, including the many years when Real was chief judge.
The same is true with the court’s electronically filed cases which are posted publicly the moment they are filed, before they are assigned to a judge. It is also true in a great number of California courts, including the nation’s biggest court, Los Angeles Superior, where journalists see new cases before they are processed, on the day they are filed.
Almost three years ago in the same case, Real also agreed with Robert Naeve with Jones Day, who represents the state courts and who argued that federal courts should defer to state courts in such matters.
The argument led the judge into error and he was reversed by the Ninth Circuit in April of this year, in an opinion by Judge Kim Wardlaw joined by Judge Mary Murguia and Judge John Noonan
On Monday, in the brief comments customary in Real’s motion hearings, Rachel Matteo-Boehm with Bryan Cave, on behalf of Courthouse News, noted the shifting nature of her opponent’s arguments.
“The argument has shifted in the reply papers to say there is no right of access until the document is processed, even if it takes days or weeks,” said Matteo-Boehm. Referring to current press access in Ventura Superior Court, she added, “CNS says that 80% of the new complaints are being seen on a same-day basis which goes to show that same-day access is doable when a court puts its mind to it.”
Naeve answered, “We were careful to refer to the ‘receipt’ of a complaint and not its ‘filing.’ That’s the point of this argument.”
That distinction between received and filed is central to a circuitous interpretation of state law advanced by the San Francisco-based bureaucracy of the California courts.
The “received” stamp has been used almost exclusively in California courts that adopted the now-defunct Court Case Management System. That software was pushed by the state courts’ Technology Committee and the attending bureaucracy, fomerly called the Administrative Office of the Courts and now called “the staff” of the California Judicial Council.
The few courts that adopted CCMS software, including Ventura Superior Court, consistently pushed press access back to the point where the news contained in the new filings was no longer news.
Their practice of delay was intellectually backed up by the Technlogy Committee and its chairman Santa Barbara Judge James Herman who advanced a two-filing-date theory, with one date for lawyers and a later one for journalists.
According to the theory, the “filed” date for lawyers corresponds to the day a document crosses the counter into court. But for journalists, another “officially filed” date corresponds to the day when processing is completed, days or weeks later.
In terms of courthouse practice, the distinction is handled by having clerks stamp new filings as “received” when they cross the counter and, after processing, backdating those documents with a “filed” stamp which corresponds to the earlier date when the document crossed the counter.
That routine puts lawyers on the front side of the limbo period when a case is being processed and puts journalists on its back side. Lawyers, a powerful constituency within the court bureaucracy, receive a file date corresponding to the day they pushed the document across the counter. While journalists, a largely voiceless group within that bureaucracy, must wait until court officials are done with their various administrative tasks and the document is backdated.
The highly unusual two-filing-date theory — no other state court has followed it, nor has any federal court — made its first appearance in a set of efiling rules proposed last year by the Technology Committee.
At the time, organizations representing nearly every newspaper in California objected to rules the appeared to enshrine a limitless delay for press access to newly filed matters.
The Judicial Council then overrode the press objections in June of last year.
Subsequently Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye promoted the status of the Technology Committee by elevating its rank within the myriad of state court committees to the top-five rank of “internal” committee.
That elevation came despite the fact that the committee and its leaders were responsible for the promotion and dogged defense of the CCMS software project that was junked two years ago after wasting a half-billion dollars in public funds.
Now the two-filing-date theory has re-emerged in the papers filed by the Jones Day firm in urging Judge Real to dismiss the CNS case against Ventura’s head court clerk.
Because the Ventura clerk is now providing same-day access to the great majority of new actions on the day they cross the counter and before they are processed — the original objective of the CNS action — the clerk would have little interest in continuing the litigation which is generating a public expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the continuing defense of the action.
On the other hand, based on their past battles against transparency, the Technology Committee and the staff of the Judicial Council, would be willing to spend public funds in defense of the two-file-date theory and in opposition to press access.
The ruling by Real sets the stage for resolution by the Ninth Circuit in considering the two-filing-date theory and how it squares with the First Amendment.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/08/19/70565.htm
Welcome to 1884. Where “transparency” in the California Judicial Branch is as “transparent” as a black hole.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
August 20, 2014
“Welcome to 1884. Where “transparency” in the California Judicial Branch is as “transparent” as a black hole.”
No, Wendy, it appears the Ministry of Truth (Team George) has us firmly entrenched in 1984, where secret hearings, secret meetings, record destruction, altered official records and rewritten history are all in a day’s work, for years on end. Heck, Sakauye’s Ministry of Truth just made the AOC disappear, on a whim.
Limiting press access is a no brainer for Team George. Law, what law?
unionman575
August 20, 2014
Judicial branch technology proposals
😉
Click to access eandp-20140819-mm.pdf
unionman575
August 20, 2014
http://feeds.feedburner.com/JudicialCouncilAndAdvisoryBodiesMeetings
unionman575
August 20, 2014
http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/layoffs-piling-up-for-shasta-county-courts/27515234
Layoffs piling up for Shasta County Courts
REDDING, Calif. –
The Superior Court of Shasta County announced Friday it has handed out more than a dozen layoff notices, and officials said it’s a result of state budget cuts combined with a recently enacted law eliminating rainy day funds for trial courts.
14 court employees learned Friday their last day of work will be September 25.
Combined with the layoff of 12 temporary employees before the 2014-15 fiscal year began and the freezing of 18 vacant full-time positions, the total number of positions recently impacted is now 44.
The financial squeeze felt in Shasta County is one seen up and down California.
Since 2008, state budget cuts to trial courts have totaled some $1.1 billion, according to Shasta County Court Executive Officer Melissa Fowler-Bradley.
On top of the cuts, a state law recently went into effect which said trial courts can no longer keep a rainy day fund, as they had done to offset deficits since the economy took a dip in 2008.
“In the past two fiscal years, where we tried to set aside money to get through the recession, the ability to do that was eliminated as of June 30, 2014,” Fowler-Bradley said.
Fowler-Bradley also said the layoffs are coming at a time of a rise in criminal cases, which is stretching the court thin and preventing them from effectively handling non-mandatory work.
“We have fewer staff to deal with other case types like small claims matters or family law matters or probate matters or adoptions or all of the other case types we process,” Fowler-Bradley said, “I have fewer people in order to serve the public on everything other than criminal.”
What’s more, Fowler-Bradley can’t guarantee that the recent round of layoffs will prevent them from further cuts when the next budget cycle comes around.
“If there are further reductions or some of this money isn’t restored by the governor or the legislature then I guess I’ll have to face that next year, but it’s a pretty scary thought because I think our services to the public this year are going to be drastically reduced.”
Wendy Darling
August 20, 2014
Apparently, Bill Girdner didn’t get the memo that the First Amendment and freedom of the press are of no concern to 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Published today, Wednesday, August 20, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner:
Press Room
By BILL GIRDNER
In Federal Court in Los Angeles, one of the lawyers for Courthouse News compared the courtroom, with high ceilings, dark wood panels, heavy traditional furniture, to a museum.
I answered that I always thought of the courtroom as a theatre, where the actors in formal dress went to their marks and delivered their lines while a stern figure in robes looked on, a chorus decided and the quiet jokers of the press took notes.
Having spent years in the press room in that courthouse, it was bracing to be out of the editor’s office and back in a courtroom taking notes at a live hearing earlier this week, even more so where Courthouse News was a party.
We had filed a complaint three years ago against the court clerk in Ventura over delays in access to the new actions that ran from a few days to weeks and on some big cases months. The complaint said that there was a longstanding tradition of press access to new filings at the end of the day.
That tradition was inculcated into me in the very courthouse where we filed our complaint.
Winding back in time to when I started out as a freelance journalist for the Herald Examiner in Los Angeles, I cast my eye around the old press room on the third floor – across from one of the jury rooms — with the L.A. Times in the back, the Daily Journal, United Press International (long since deceased), Copley News, City News Service by the door, the Orange County Register, my desk where I wrote the Central District Almanac and behind me the Daily News.
The press room was a bustling place at the time and the Central District for some reason hosted a lot more national cases that it does now. I wound up writing regularly for the Boston Globe and the New York Times, mixing regional stories with breaking news coverage from the courthouse.
One of the daily routines in the press room, besides a bunch of us going across the street to the decaying federal mall for lunch, was the late afternoon ritual of trooping two floors down to the clerk’s office, via the fire stairs, to look over the stack of new civil complaints filed that day. The complaints were set on a long table, and journalists stood around it, looking through the new actions.
That ritual wound up as part of the Central District Almanac where every two weeks I reported on district court trials and rulings, and, in the back, reported on the new actions.
That back part was the result of a conversation with a former chief assistant in the U.S. attorney’s office who, after going into private practice at Skadden, told me the L.A. Times had stopped reporting the new civil actions on its business page.
A light bulb went off and soon enough, in addition to reporting the new cases every two weeks, I had a bought a fax machine that could send out the information every afternoon. Its 19-number memory was very quickly filled by major firms in Los Angeles, interested in that news.
As our news service expanded to include courts in San Francisco then New York and then throughout the country, I found that in one court after another, the new civil filings were made available to the press at the end of the day. In federal courts in the Midwest, for example, a wooden box was set on the counter often with a label saying it was for the press, where new filings were put as the day went along.
In the years since then, the tradition has come under attack by local bureaucrats, particularly in state courts. I have puzzled with our lawyers over what drives an administrator to cut off press access to the pleas of litigants in a great institution of open American democracy.
The only theory that seems to match the animus behind a litany of justifications — security, short staff, the press should not be special — is that administrators feel like the documents are theirs to control, in a sense belong to them. Occasionally, you hear a clerk note that the clerk is a public servant, the courts are public institutions of American government, and their record is the public record.
But not that often. And so we appeal to judges.
In the matter of our action against Ventura, we were knocked out of court on a motion dismiss. But that happened once already and Ninth Circuit judges reinstated the action, and it seems likely that three years on they will be looking at it again.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/08/20/70607.htm
Long live Bill Girdner and Courthouse News Service. And long live the ACJ.
wearyant
August 21, 2014
Thanks, Wendy D, for posting. Yes, long live Bill Girdner and CNS! More old institutions dying via the hand of the empty-headed CEOs and JC bureaucrats, in turn killing off true excellence in the judicial branch. But no worries. The pin heads will continue to receive their elitist pensions and comfy bennies. So sad the state we’re in, pun intended. We should not have to visit nostalgia constantly to remember the greatness the trial courts and news service once were. Will people wake up from their apathy already??!!
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 21, 2014
Click to access NoticeOfFY2014-15BudgetAllocation.pdf
wearyant
August 21, 2014
“The council allocated $41 million in new funding for benefit cost changes for non-interpreter staff in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, which reflected a reduction of $22 million” …
Does the above mean that the JC staff, formerly known as the AOC, are still messing around with the interpreter funding provided by the legislature? Sorry if I’m so far off the mark, but thanks for posting the above.
Long live the unions and the ACJ.
unionman575
August 21, 2014
They are skimming away at the JC…
Dante
August 23, 2014
No, that means that the benefit costs for trial court staff (not including interpreters, who are in a separate category) increased by $63 million. The budget funded only $41 million of that increase. The $22 million has to come from trial court operations.
wearyant
August 23, 2014
Why are the interpreters in a separate category from other court staff? And who all is included in the court staff?
Dante
August 25, 2014
Interpreters are in a different category because they are funded from a different budget item and their negotiations are handled on a regional basis, rather than by individual trial courts. It’s just an accounting issue, nothing more.
MaxRebo5
August 21, 2014
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/21/6645703/kamala-harris-will-appeal-death.html
unionman575
August 24, 2014
I hereby invoke and refuse to waive all of the following rights and privileges afforded to me by the U.S. Constitution:
• I invoke and refuse to waive my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Do not ask me any questions.
• I invoke and refuse to waive my Sixth Amendment right to an attorney of my choice. Do not ask me any questions without my attorney present.
• I invoke and refuse to waive all privileges and rights pursuant to the case Miranda v. Arizona. Do not ask me any questions or make any comment to me about this decision.
• I invoke and refuse to waive my Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. I do not consent to any search or seizure of myself, my home, or of any property in my possession. Do not ask me about my ownership interest in any property. I do not consent to this contact with you. If I am not presently under arrest or under investigatory detention, please allow me to leave.
• Any statement I make, or alleged consent I give, in response to your questions is hereby made under protest and under duress and in submission to your claim of lawful authority to force me to provide you with information.
People v. Tom
S202107
Supreme Court of California
Published 08/14/2014
😉