You no longer have a right to remain silent without being guilty…..

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.

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.

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.

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.