Today is the big day where we hope to see hundreds, if not thousands turn out to protest our broken judicial branch that tends to not hold anyone accountable for anything, unless of course they happen to be regular court staff the ranks of which have been decimated in droves.
We’re not positive how many will ultimately turn out but we would like to see big numbers today. Everyone has a stake in reforming “Dysfunction Junction” from the newest judicial branch hires to attorneys who have watched justice become less accessible year after year after year, to judges that watch their budgets go up in smoke over judicial council projects projected to cost billions, to litigants who have to navigate systems where there is neither justice nor accountability.
As Californians, we have had to sit back and watch things disintegrate while unelected appointees of the Chief Justice promulgate a host of new, more complicated forms that even attorneys and judges can’t figure out. We’ve had to sit back and watch fellow Americans be stripped of their constitutional rights to speak out via new ‘opinions’ that cite certain subject matters to be ethical violations subject to CJP action. We’ve had to sit back and watch our legal system disintegrate because our legislators prefer funding boondogglers over boots at the front counter or an open courthouse within reasonable distances to where we live or work because the boondogglers who don’t represent the courts insist this is the way it should be.
We’ve had to sit back and watch as some courts modify or destroy the court record to protect themselves from the “law firm full employment act” because some people have stakes in those very same law firms and know they can get away with just about anything because there is no one to hold them accountable.
We’ve observed years of whistleblowers being fired over revealing avoidable off the chart costs….for case management systems…..for courthouses that were delivered at a cost of over a billion dollars while others with a similar amount of courtrooms were delivered for a few hundred million (Long Beach vs. Stockton would be a fine example here…)…for divulging embezzlements where no one is held accountable.
We’ve seen new courthouses built at the cost of millions only to watch them shut down four years later. We’ve observed that more than twice as many courthouses have been shut down due to a lack of operating funds than have been built to replace them. We watch as even the new courthouses contemplate shutting down because they can’t afford to staff them.
As citizens, consumers of court services and employees of the courts, we can clearly define what we as a society need. Yet there are unelected appointees who wish to ignore our wishes and go off in a boondoggling direction that costs billions and robs us of our ability to find the justice that we seek.
Todays rally will start at 11AM on the steps of 350 McAllister in San Francisco and end somewhere around 3PMish. If you have a voice….. please let it be heard loud and clear.
We’re fed up with rigged systems that cast aside the needs of the common man so that they can build a new mausoleum to justice built like a palace, yet can’t seem to scratch up enough funding to operate them.
The appointed enablers that lead us are doing an incredibly swell job at making things just a little more dysfunctional every day they sit in those star chamber seats. Their priorities are entirely messed up and they want to blame sacramento and say that if Sacramento just gave them more money, they wouldn’t be so dysfunctional. Yet the proof is already there. Every dollar that goes to the judicial council costs the courts four when others observe how money is wasted.
Today, you have the opportunity to make a big stink, to get peoples attention and turn things around.
So if you can, make it a point to show up en masse and voice your concerns. It is up to you to turn things around. The boondogglers, the fraudsters and their enablers believe they can get away with anything.
It’s time to tell them and show them that they are wrong.
unionman575
September 19, 2014
Nice work once again JCW.
😉
unionman575
September 20, 2014
unionman575
September 20, 2014
Judicial Branch
AB 1473 Five-Year
Infrastructure Plan
Fiscal Year 2015–2016
unionman575
September 20, 2014
http://www.courts.ca.gov/2546.htm
Doing Business With Us
The Judicial Council and its staff are committed to maintaining a transparent, consistent, and accountable procurement system that provides Californians the best value initially and over the long-term operational life of court facilities. We follow competitive practices when contracting with qualified firms and individuals for products and services used in the planning, acquisition, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of trial and appellate court facilities
😉
unionman575
September 20, 2014
unionman575
September 20, 2014
unionman575
September 20, 2014
The Superior Court Judges in Kings County have concluded that this temporary closure of outlying divisions and/or limitation in staffing levels and hours of the Hanford Courthouse is necessary in order to address the continued fiscal crisis that the Court faces. The limitation of hours and services set forth above is just one of many cost-saving steps taken by the Court to address California’s fiscal crisis.
unionman575
September 20, 2014
http://www.law360.com/articles/573235/budget-reserve-ban-puts-calif-trial-courts-to-the-test
Budget Reserve Ban Puts Calif. Trial Courts To The Test
By Erin Coe
Law360, San Diego (September 03, 2014, 3:47 PM ET) — A recent law severely restricting the rainy day funds that California’s 58 trial courts can sock away will seriously test Golden State courts over the next couple of years, as courthouses with shuttered benches and failing computer systems struggle to provide adequate services, a state Judicial Council member told Law360 last week.
Legislation aimed at creating a statewide reserve by barring the trial courts from reserving more than 1 percent of their operating budgets took effect at the end of June and could create challenges for courts that face unexpected costs, according to Associate Justice Douglas Miller of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, who chairs the executive and planning committee for the Judicial Council, the state courts’ policymaking body.
“In the past, courts had rainy day funds to deal with downturns in the budget funds they received and to address new expenses, such as a high-profile case, damage to a building or a failing computer system,” he said. “But now they don’t have the same reserves to get them through difficult times, and over the next two years, we are going to see how that impacts the courts.”
In light of the law, courts that have been traditionally underfunded, such as those in Riverside and San Bernardino, will be severely challenged and hindered in their ability to provide adequate service to court users, he said.
Although the governor’s 2014-2015 state budget approved in June increased funding for the courts by $160 million, the courts have been hobbled by more than $1 billion in budget cuts since 2010, resulting in the closures of 51 courthouses and 205 courtrooms, according to the California judicial branch. In response to the latest budget, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has said it falls short of the judiciary’s needs and would mean “more disappointment, service reductions and delay for those who need our courts.”
In preparation for next year’s budget negotiations, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye is expected to revise her three-year blueprint proposal unveiled in January that sought a $1.2 billion cash infusion for the state’s judicial system, according to Associate Justice Miller.
“I think the blueprint was very effective in garnering a lot of support from attorneys, local bar associations, the state bar and the Legislature,” he said. “What will happen is the blueprint will be updated for the next budgetary round to explain in a succinct and easily understandable form and a monetary form what the courts need to operate.”
😉
Hearing repeatedly from the governor and the state Department of Finance that the courts need to find ways to do more with less, the chief justice in July formed the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System to study how to improve state court operations and accessibility.
The commission, which will be chaired by California Supreme Court Associate Justice Carol Corrigan and is expected to hold its first meeting sometime this year, will focus on looking at big-ticket proposals to streamline procedures across the judicial branch, according to Associate Justice Miller.
“There probably isn’t going to be a return to where the courts were five or six years ago, and everyone in state government and public service has to figure out ways to become more efficient in order to take advantage of the smaller amount of funds available,” he said. “The commission is going to try to come up with efficiencies in the budgeting process and efficiencies in the trial courts and then develop a budgeting process that provides fiscal stability.”
Associate Justice Miller said one issue the commission may review is how to get funding for 50 new judgeships that were approved by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007, noting that Riverside, San Bernardino and Fresno counties in particular are in desperate need of judges. S.B. 1190, which sought to appropriate funds for the judges, stalled in the state Senate this year.
The Judicial Council is also moving forward with a new governance and strategic plan for court technology to improve the public’s electronic access to the courts, the latest attempt since its project to create a central software system for the 58 trial courts was abandoned in 2012 amid criticism from judges and state officials.
The council in March 2012 voted to pull the plug due to a lack of funding for the so-called California Court Case Management System, a 10-year-old project aimed at linking trial courts electronically as part of a statewide integrated system that would enable e-filing capabilities, make it easier to share information between courts and increase venue transparency. The project had already cost taxpayers more than $500 million, and a state auditor and a group of Superior Court judges claimed that the original cost estimate of the project had swelled from $260 million in 2004 to $1.9 billion.
“One of the problems was we didn’t have a funding structure,” Associate Justice Miller said. “We created a great product that worked, but when we got ready to roll it out to individual courts, we didn’t have the funding structure to accomplish that.”
Associate Justice Miller said the Judicial Council has learned from that experience and has taken steps to avoid past mistakes. Unlike the old project, the new technology proposal comes with a funding plan and is overseen by a committee that includes judges, technology specialists and administrative employees from the trial courts — those who will be directly affected by the computer reforms. The plan involves 19 trial courts and three appellate courts.
“A lot of state court computer systems are failing or will fail,” he said. “Our ultimate goal is to make sure that all the courts have an effective computer system because that is absolutely necessary in this day and age. … What I like about this plan is it’s done from a local basis. It’s all about what’s best for the individual courts.”
–Editing by Katherine Rautenberg and Richard McVay.
sharonkramer
September 21, 2014
Sure glad I read this before eating breakfast. Pitching one’s cookies is a horrible way to start the day. What should really have been said:
“In the past, courts had rainy day funds to deal with Judicial Council theivery in the budget funds they received and to address new expenses such as: AOC authorization of two thousand dollar light bulb changes, damage to a building fund in the form of a missing $500M, or a failing computer system boondoggle that was forced upon them,” he said. “But now they don’t have the same reserves for the compromised among us to get our grubby little hands on, and over the next two years, everyone is going to see how that impacts justice in the courts as we start selling even more litigation wins to the highest bidder.”
Quick question: How many times has the BSA audited the JC/AOC in the past five years? Is it three times?
anonymous
September 20, 2014
Too bad dishonesty can’t get you booted off the appellate court. CCMS V4 had an obsolete framework that, if deployed would have cost a complete re-write of the code based on more modern framework. They tinkered with getting it to work for so long that it was obsolete before it was ever deployed, so said the state auditor. By virtue of redefining deliverables that would be required to make it work, they were able to declare the product complete.
Sort of like buying an F-35 with vertical takeoff capabilities that just so happens to be missing a lift fan.
The new proposal comes with a funding plan and is overseen by many of the exact same people that brought us CCMS, plus quite a few “feigned stakeholders” to provide cover for the hundreds of millions of dollars they’re planning to lay waste to, if only the legislature gives them another chance and more judicial branch funding. The system remains their focus and holds a higher priority than staffing local courthouses.
The dumbest thing the branch could possibly do is to go back to the drawing board and develop another system themselves. They didn’t own the code to CCMS even though they swore the whole time that they did. They’re not savvy enough to not run into copyright issues where they ultimately end up paying someone (or in the case of ccms, a while bunch of someones) for product licensing.
The smartest thing they could do is buy a judicial branch enterprise license of an already existing, well supported system tailored to functional and performance specifications.
But it it hard to bury the employment of friends and family and kickbacks in such an endeavor because the figures aren’t mind-boggling where a few hundred grand can disappear here and there like they easily can with a custom developed system written from scratch.
wearyant
September 20, 2014
Thanks, Anonymous, for pointing out the true historical facts! I guess some believe that if erroneous statements are repeated often enough, they will be accepted. Absolutely outrageous comment made by Justice Miller. Such a shame. Dishonesty should mean more in an appellate position. And if he actually believes what he says, now, that is scary.
wearyant
September 20, 2014
Oh, and thanks to our wonderful UMan for tirelessly working to educate us all and remind the rest of us of what’s happening! He’s always got his finger on the pulses and a sense of humor to boot!
Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
September 20, 2014
Ant, my IQ = my shoe size 10 1/2
😉
Delilah
September 20, 2014
Courthouse News Service
Thursday, September 18, 2014
No Alternative for California Judicial Council’s Shortfall
By JULIE BAKER-DENNIS
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – With California’s Judicial Council facing a $22.7 million revenue shortfall that will likely be backfilled or funded, a committee declined Wednesday to offer an alternative recommendation on allocation.
At its meeting Wednesday led by Court Executive Officer Jake Chatters, the second this year to be open to the press and public, the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee (TCBAC) deftly bypassed the option to revisit the original four allocation options.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/09/18/71540.htm
Lando
September 21, 2014
Insider J Walsh was quoted as saying ” we can’t efficiency our way out of a deep budget reduction “. This is what all the insiders at 455 Golden Gate want you to believe. The best and most effective way to reduce judicial branch waste is to scale back all that goes on in the Crystal Palace including moving their operations to Sacramento. In addition the branch would get a lot more support if the current leadership like J Miller wouldn’t make some of the claims that they do. Saying that CCMS was ready and would have operated effectively is beyond belief. Statements like that just lose all credibility for the entire branch. J Miller, please do us all a huge favor and just get out and resign .
The OBT
September 21, 2014
After I read Justice Miller’s comments about CCMS I had to rejoin this great site. What in the world is this Judicial Council “insider” thinking? Everybody knows CCMS wasn’t going to work so saying it failed due to lack of further funding ( a half billion wasn’t enough) is an incredible misrepresentation of the truth. What I find very disturbing is how and why are people like Miller even commenting at all and representing the Judicial branch? How did he become my representative to anything ? Lando is right. Justice Miller needs to be thanked and excused and given a one way ticket back to Indio or better yet Blythe.
Wendy Darling
September 22, 2014
btw, OBT, it’s good to have you back. You’ve been missed. 🙂
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
September 21, 2014
http://www.dailybreeze.com/media/20140920/californias-need-for-court-reporters-on-the-rise
JusticeCalifornia
September 21, 2014
JCW, thank you for this post.
Hello everyone. The dust has settled after Friday’s rally/protest which was very productive.
Security was careful to tell us what we could and could not do, and what would get us arrested. We went from the outside speaking event to the cafeteria, where some of us convened with the intention of taking the elevators to the Judicial Council. (Some rally participants remained outside, fearful of retaliation. Indeed, several of the lawyers who spoke described the personal retaliation they had suffered for speaking out, and various other protest participants also described retaliation they had suffered. Geez, what country do we live in?) Anyway, Security told us if all of us in the cafeteria went up to the Judicial Council, people would be arrested, so they took 8 or 10 of us up to Floor 3 (where they hold the JC meetings), telling us that the Judicial Council had someone waiting to speak with us. The person they had waiting to speak with us was the Director of Reception. LOL. We said we wanted a meeting with the Chair of the Judicial Council and he said we had to request that in writing. We told him a June 9, 2014 letter had been written to the Chair of the Judicial Council along with various others governmental officials, and that we had been directed by the Governor and Attorney General to take our concerns to the Judicial Council, but three months later the only person/entity we had not heard back from was the Judicial Council. We told them that the Judicial Council had received the letter on June 12th, and the chief’s personal secretary had reported it was sent to the Office of General Counsel, and that she would call and tell them we were waiting for a response. We told them follow up calls had been made to OGC, but we got no response at all, so here we all were, in person, people from 16 California counties, taking our issues to the Judicial Council as directed by the Governor and Attorney General, and we wanted to set a meeting with the Chair of the Judicial Council to discuss our concerns. We asked the Director of Reception to get someone from OGC. After a time Robert Buckley, managing attorney of the OGC arrived, and told us we could not set a meeting with the Chair (Tani) but we were at the right place (the Judicial Council) and that we should go to the October Judicial Council meeting and she would be there.
Yes indeed.
We asked Mr. Buckley to go downstairs to speak with the people waiting in the cafeteria who had traveled from 16 counties, which he did. In response to a direct question about who had oversight authority of the judicial branch, if not the Governor or the Attorney General, he said the Chief Justice. He reiterated, over and over, that we were in the right place and that we needed to go to the October Judicial Council meeting. We asked if the concerns set forth in the June 9, 2014 letter were only going to be addressed at the meeting, and not in writing earlier, and he said he had not even seen that letter (notwithstanding Tani’s secretary stating it had been sent to OGC, and that she would make a call to let them know we were awaiting a response). He was provided a copy of that letter, and a Center for Judicial Excellence letter stating its very broad concerns about the branch, and asking for a meeting with the Chair of the JC and a public hearing open to the press, at which people from around the state could come and testify to the JC about their issues with the branch. He kept saying we had to go to the October JC meeting.
We will be there. And that, my friends, is when everyone should show up en masse. We got the invitation to the party, and we should all show up.
JC
JusticeCalifornia
September 21, 2014
Text of the letter provided to the JC on Friday:
September 19, 2014
The Honorable Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council, and
Judicial Council Members
455 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Request for Meeting with the Chair of the Judicial Council
Request for Public Hearing Re Public Concerns About the Judicial Branch
Dear Judicial Council Chair and Members:
For decades the California Judicial Council has been the recipient of ongoing reports of misconduct and waste within the Judicial Branch. Yet, misconduct and waste continue unabated. Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris have denied they have the authority to act on complaints of misconduct within the branch, and have referred complainants to the Judicial Council. Complaints have been made to the Judicial Council, but have gone unanswered. This happened most recently in connection with a June 9, 2014 letter complaint about the involvement of former Judicial Councilmember Kim Turner and Marin Judge Beverly Wood in the backdating of a register of actions and minute order. The Governor, Attorney General, and Marin County Counsel have all referred the complainant to the Judicial Council. Yet, although Judicial Council Chair Tani Cantil Sakauye has been in receipt of that complaint since June 12, 2014, and follow- up calls have been made seeking a response, as of last week, the Judicial Council still had not responded.
Accordingly, today we are requesting that an appointment be scheduled for an audience with the Chair of the Judicial Council, to discuss the situation and to set a date for a public hearing before the Judicial Council similar to that held by the Judicial Council’s Elkins Task Force in April of 2009. We are requesting that the hearing be open to everyone in the State of California who wishes to voice concerns and opinions about the California judicial branch, and that the press be allowed to attend and record the hearing. Our own concerns include but are not limited to judges, court administrators, and court experts who refuse to follow the law, with impunity and immunity; abuse of the CCP section 170 et seq. disqualification
The Honorable Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Judicial Council Members
September 19, 2014
Page Two
statutes; the elimination of court reporters who provide an official record of substantive court proceedings, notwithstanding Commission on Judicial Performance concerns and recommendations about the need for an official record; ongoing branch waste while court fees and penalties are operating to deny the public access to the courts; rampant document destruction by branch members with Judicial Council approval; improper record-keeping within the branch; the withholding of court records by court personnel; the thwarting of legislative investigative and oversight efforts; record tampering and backdating by members of the Judicial Branch; abuse of the assigned judges program; the lack of adequate data collection and management by the Judicial branch, notwithstanding the expenditure of millions on court computer systems; the abuse of ex parte procedures such that judges are having secret non-emergency hearings with one side of the case, and issuing secret non-emergency orders withheld from the other side of the case, thereby repeatedly denying basic due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard by an impartial decision maker, and equal protection of the laws; the denial of affordable legal resources and adequate fee orders for financially disadvantaged litigants; cronyism within the branch; the lack of diversity of viewpoints and public representation on the Judicial Council; the practice of judges picking judges, via the assigned judges program, and the selection of Court Commissioners who exercise full judicial powers and are then often converted to judges; the improper delegation of judicial power; and the lack of adequate oversight of the Judicial Branch as a whole.
Members of the judicial branch are supposed to be guardians of the law, but who is guarding the guards? It is time for the public’s concerns about this to be heard and addressed by the Judicial Council, via a public hearing.
Very Truly Yours,
Kathleen Russell, Executive Director
Connie Valentine, California Protective Parents Assn.
Barbara Kauffman, Family Law Attorney
Plus dozens of manual signatures from Californians who live in 16 different counties
JusticeCalifornia
September 21, 2014
“It’s Official! We’ve been personally invited to the next Judicial Council meeting by Bob! We tried to arrange a time to talk quietly with the Chair of the JC yesterday (see video), but heck, if they want us to air all of this filthy laundry in public, with the media in the room, then by God, we can certainly do that. The gloves are off, folks. It’s our Year to Demand Justice for all Californians. Won’t you please join us in SF again on Oct. 27 and 28? Get your red t-shirt to show our strength in numbers at the CJE website today. We CAN DO THIS!” Kathleen Russell, on Center for Judicial Excellence Facebook page.
sharonkramer
September 21, 2014
Excellent work, Justice California!
OBT, you asked, “How did he [Justice Miller] become my representative to anything?”
Answer: As recently stated by the Cal Chief Justice, who has obviously twisted the meaning and usage of a word to justify the unjustifiable, “countermajoritarian”.
Wendy Darling
September 21, 2014
This happens regularly at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Quote of the day: “”The attorney general takes allegations of improper behavior by public officials very seriously.”
Yeah, right.
PG&E’s Judge Shopping Outrages State PUC Employees
After scandal, staffers call for president’s resignation
Jaxon Van Derbeken
Updated 8:18 am, Saturday, September 20, 2014
California Public Utilities Commission employees expressed outrage at a staff meeting over a judge-shopping scandal involving top agency officials and Pacific Gas and Electric Co., with some demanding the resignation of the commission’s president.
At an extraordinary gathering that filled the commission’s auditorium in San Francisco to overflowing, attorneys, administrative law judges and other staffers voiced their frustration with officials who promised to help PG&E get the administrative law judge it wanted to hear a rate case that could cost customers more than $1 billion.
Many of the employees directed their anger at commission President Michael Peevey, who headed the agency when the PG&E pipeline explosion in San Bruno killed eight people and leveled 38 homes in 2010. To the applause of other employees, one staffer called Peevey “something like an untouchable mob boss” able to “float above any scandal.”
Peevey did not attend the staff meeting Thursday. Officials at the agency’s San Francisco headquarters called the session after Peevey’s chief of staff resigned and three PG&E executives were fired over what the commission called “inappropriate” back-channel communications to pick an administrative law judge for the rate case.
‘Screwed royally’
In e-mails that PG&E released Monday, one of the fired utility executives told Peevey’s aide that the judge initially assigned would pose a “major problem,” and that the utility had been “screwed royally” by a prospective replacement judge.
Peevey aide Carol Brown, who responded that she was “working on” changing the judge, resigned as the president’s chief of staff this week but remains with the agency as an administrative law judge. Peevey said he would recuse himself from hearing a proposed $1.4 billion penalty against PG&E for the San Bruno explosion.
Another commission member, Mike Florio, who e-mailed PG&E that he would “do what I can on this end,” has apologized but has not recused himself from any cases. He says he took no action to help PG&E in the rate case.
That case will decide how the cost of post-San Bruno pipeline improvements will be divided between customers and shareholders. PG&E is seeking to have its customers pick up nearly $1.3 billion in costs.
The company’s choice, administrative law Judge John Wong, was named to the case in January. He has not issued a ruling.
Peevey criticized
Thursday’s staff meeting was restricted to agency employees, but The Chronicle obtained a tape of the hour-long session. Much of the criticism was aimed at Peevey, whose nearly 12-year tenure atop the agency was marred by the National Transportation Safety Board’s finding that the utilities commission had been overly lax in its regulation of PG&E before the San Bruno disaster.
“He never seems to be affected by it,” one commission staffer said. “He can just walk through.”
One employee who addressed the commission’s executive director, Paul Clanon, threatened “a mass staff rebellion” should Peevey be reappointed by Gov. Jerry Brown to another six-year term in December.
Clanon acknowledged at one point that “judge shopping” had occurred and said he was “shocked” when he read the e-mails. He promised a “root and branch” review of how well the commission is following rules barring informal communications with the utilities it regulates.
But many in the audience were not convinced.
“Are we just going to throw a couple of people under the bus, or are we going to look at the real causes in our culture that create this kind of corruptness and basically sleazy environment?” one staff member asked.
Call for resignations
“I want to be proud to work for the state of California, and I want to be proud to work for this place,” the staffer added. “Who is giving us our marching orders to behave this way?”
She added, “I also believe that Commissioner Peevey should step down. I believe Commissioner Florio should step down.”
Florio, a former longtime attorney for the consumer watchdog group The Utility Reform Network, has said he was unaware of the rules against informal communications with utilities. The staffer said she didn’t believe him.
“He is an attorney and he worked for a group that was allegedly protecting consumers, and if he doesn’t know judge shopping is wrong, then he’s got a problem.”
A staffer who works for the safety division of the agency said that if he had “engaged in similarly wrong conduct, my termination would be immediate.”
Another noted that PG&E itself, not the commission, had made the e-mail exchanges public. “If PG&E hadn’t conducted this audit, would this type of behavior have continued?”
Clanon told the employees that he would seek outside help in making changes. “We need a look from somebody who is not part of our culture,” he said.
Karen Clopton, the agency’s acting general counsel, was the chief administrative law judge when Wong was assigned to the PG&E rate case. She spoke at the meeting and sought to “disabuse anyone of the notion that anyone within in the administrative law judge division did anything inappropriate.”
She stressed that its officials were “equally upset and offended” by the e-mails as other staffers. “In fact, more so.”
She also pleaded with staffers to keep their complaints in-house, calling it “inappropriate to be communicating with the newspapers.”
Call for criminal probe
On Friday, two state legislators and the mayor of San Bruno demanded that state Attorney General Kamala Harris open a criminal investigation into whether commission officials broke the law in the judge-shopping case.
“I’m not an attorney, but if this isn’t collusion, I don’t know what is,” said Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, a San Mateo Democrat who joined state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, and San Bruno Mayor Jim Ruane in delivering a letter to Harris’ office in San Francisco calling for a criminal probe.
Nick Pacilio, a spokesman for Harris, said, “The attorney general takes allegations of improper behavior by public officials very seriously. We have received the letter and will review it.”
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Officials-demand-criminal-probe-of-PG-amp-E-s-5767564.php?cmpid=hp-hc-bayarea#page-2
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
September 21, 2014
A woman who introduced herself as the Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Public Utilities Commission was at the “Informed Voters – Fair Judges Project” meeting here in SD on the 11th. I think her name was Karen Something-or other and she seemed to be traveling with a small entourage. It was a relatively small group of maybe 80 to 100 people at the meeting. Tani was the keynote (only) speaker.
So glad that Justice California and her associates were able to get an Oct public meeting scheduled with the Judicial Council regarding rampant Cal court corruption. Its becoming more apparent by the day that the double-speak and cronyism has literally reached a crisis level of criminality in our courts.
*edited by JCW
The OBT
September 22, 2014
Does anyone screen these posts on JCW? I’m no fan of McConnell’s but the above is really unfair. It would be nice if we could stay on message which is reform of the Judicial Council not one blogger’s personal deal.
Wendy Darling
September 22, 2014
I guess I’m missing something here . . . what posting about McConnell???
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 22, 2014
Two paragraphs of Sharon Kramers post were moderated.
unionman575
September 24, 2014
Moderation is sometimes a necessary evil.
😉
Wendy Darling
September 22, 2014
I’m sorry I asked the question.
Long live the ACJ.