This story is late in publishing because the AOC (ahem, the judicial council) spent months drawing out our requests for information on a simple inquiry they should have been able to deliver on the same day it was received because what scant information they did provide was readily available to them. But they dragged out their response hoping this article would never see the light of day.
Sorry to disappoint AOC.
You might vaguely remember a contractor named ABM who was working from the bay area to all points south. They were the other part of the team in the team jacobs fictional entity that went unmentioned by the AOC and their contractors licensing suit and the reason that the AOC intentionally lost their case.
Way back in 2009 it was reported by licensed contractors working on the projects to numerous AOC employees, as the law requires, that both Jacobs, who was awarded the AOC contract, and ABM who was the subcontractor managing 100% of all work done were both unlicensed and both were issuing contracts to licensed entities for the work to be done on courthouses – in addition to doing their own work.
While these reports were submitted to AOC management for over a year and a half, no action was ever taken. In fact, management agreed that it appeared that three entities were unlicensed when you factor in the northern California contractor serving from the bay area north – a company named AGS or Aleut Global Solutions, llc.
From 2006-2010 every courthouse from the Oregon border to the Mexican border was being maintained by unlicensed contractors.
After an AOC employee threatened to file (and eventually did file) a taxpayer suit against all unlicensed entities and the AOC for wasting public funds, the AOC filed suit against 2 of the 3 unlicensed entities and did not file a suit against ABM because they did not have a contractual relationship with them.
In the AOC’s lawsuit against Jacobs, the AOC never pressed the issue or even brought up that ABM, the unlicensed contractor leading the charge for Jacobs, had been issuing contracts to licensed contractors who were legally obligated to report to the government that they were working with an unlicensed entity – and those licensed contractors reported to the government (in this case, the AOC) as required which is the why and how the AOC intentionally lost their case against Jacobs. Jacobs was able to prove, (with the AOC’s assistance), that they had indeed notified the AOC of a change in Jacobs contractors license working on the project. Yet this notification would only appear years later after the suit was filed.
This article is one of the other proverbial shoe dropping.
ABM was awarded the contract to replace Jacobs after they obtained the proper contractors’ license. Almost immediately thereafter, their license expired. In a license check earlier this year, it was discovered that ABM’s license had expired years ago and that the AOC apparently issued a quiet stop work order to ABM while they sorted it out. Affected courthouses were not notified of this quiet order because the AOC wanted to avoid yet another PR disaster related to unlicensed contractors working on their courthouses. So a few months ago, the AOC entered into a novation agreement with ABM to change the unlicensed entity to a licensed entity – another division of ABM.
We have asked the AOC if they have proof that ABM notified them that their unlicensed entity was being replaced by a licensed entity in a public information request. The AOC had no document that they could provide that indicated that ABM had notified the AOC which puts tens of millions of dollars back on the table and that the AOC has apparently swept away. What they did provide was the license expiration timeline and the novation agreement signed this year.
So it appears that the AOC has been working with an unlicensed contractor again for a period of several years. But since the situation parallels the Jacobs case which we strongly believe the AOC intentionally lost, the AOC has apparently chosen to take no action whatsoever against the unlicensed entity, apparently fearing the documents we asked for, which they are unable to produce, will magically turn up and they would lose another lawsuit. So they have chosen to take no action against the contractor.
We continue to urge the state legislature to audit the construction and facilities maintenance programs, along with a slew of other judicial branch employees and at least one of the two judges associations, the Alliance of California Judges.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Name: Los Angeles Superior Court Employee
Comments: Dear distinguished members of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee,
I am a concerned citizen of the State of California. I am also a (Court or Judicial Council – Eliminate one) employee that is trying to avoid using my name due to fear of making a career limiting choice by speaking out. Today, I write this letter to you to respectfully request that you consider auditing the Judicial Council’s facilities maintenance and construction programs that have thus far escaped legislative scrutiny.
A simple internet search – or even a review of the many complaints filed with the state legislature over the past six years regarding the use of unlicensed contractors, overcharging for projects and paying contractors to fix the damage that they themselves cause are just a few themes of the many complaints.
I’m also concerned about how the 2.3 billion dollar Long Beach courthouse PPP project was awarded, why courthouses that were just built 4 years ago for millions are being shut down and whether or not the Judicial Council is safely managing the buildings that I work in.
I also question the over a thousand dollars per square foot being paid for building new courthouses and how the AOC’s outdated facilities standards might play a part in to these costs when federal authorities are able to build federal courthouses for a fraction of the cost.
I believe that only an audit of the court construction and facilities maintenance programs at the Judicial Council can expose the waste in all of these programs. Please consider auditing the Judicial Council’s facilities maintenance and construction programs before all the money is spent and it is too late.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Court Employee
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Another Call to Audit Court Construction Funds
In recent months, we have highlighted the problems with the half-billion-dollar skyscraper courthouse in San Diego, which lacks a tunnel to the nearby jail; with the Plumas/Sierra Regional Courthouse, a $4.7 million wood-clad structure in the middle of snow country which the AOC had to vacate four years after having built it; and with the ridiculously expensive Long Beach Courthouse. We now add the recently completed Santa Clara Family Justice Center to the list of California’s overbuilt courthouses.
We bring to your attention the article entitled, “That giant sucking sound? $105 million courthouse debt” from the San José Mercury News, available at this link. The county’s chief executive officer describes the new courthouse, which features “gleaming Grecian columns clad in ornamental stone imported from Italy,” as “an absolute drain on the budget.” In the words of the president of the Superior Court Professional Employees’ Association, “The courthouse may someday be featured in Architectural Digest, but right now it’s proving to be a financial albatross around the necks of court workers and the public we serve.”
Much of the money for the new Santa Clara courthouse came from SB 1407, the bill which authorized the issuance of $5 billion in bonds to finance courthouse construction. Those bonds are financed primarily by the $30 and $35 assessments we impose on misdemeanors and infractions.
All the fancy stone cladding in California can’t cover an ugly truth: The judicial branch has financed the construction of a handful of highly ornate courthouses with money collected disproportionately from those who can least afford to pay.
We repeat our call for an audit of the AOC’s construction and maintenance wing. We have a duty to ensure that the money we extract in fines and fees goes to the best possible use. We doubt that the purchase of imported stone cladding makes the cut.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Michelle Peccia
July 10, 2017
YOU SHOULD SEND THIS TO “CALIFORNIA STATE AUDIT!” Send this to them! They will investigate and the findings will be published!
Michelle Peccia
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:39 AM Judicial Council Watcher wrote:
> Judicial Council Watcher posted: “This story is late in publishing because > the AOC (ahem, the judicial council) spent months drawing out our requests > for information on a simple inquiry they should have been able to deliver > on the same day it was received because what scant information th” >
Judicial Council Watcher
July 10, 2017
The ACJ’s news release which was incorporated into this post is one of the main reasons we’re advocates of changing driving laws so that the citation is based on your income, much like many European nations. MaxRebo is correct, self-driving cars are already a reality and they will likely reduce the amount of citations for those who can afford them. For someone earning minimum wage, a 1/2% of their income would mean an infraction cost of 114.00 and for someone making a hundred grand, it would be a $500.00 infraction. For someone making a million dollars, it would be a $5,000.00 infraction.
The current system is the exact reverse of what is proposed above wherein those that can least afford it are penalized the harshest in terms of lost work and income and offers no deterrence whatsoever to those who can afford it.
___
Further thought: Incorporating the new system proposed based on ones’ income and applying it retroactively would wipe out most of the ten billion dollars owed the state after various amnesty programs only made a dent in the amount of money owed. We have asked the AOC if they have any documentation regarding the statistics of the amnesty program. Their reply is that they don’t have those statistics, which is odd given that they’re supposed to supply reports to the legislature on these matters.
Michael Paul
July 10, 2017
http://www.courthousenews.com/flashy-courthouses-spur-calls-judicial-council-audit/
Just a few comments.
1. 1.4 billion dollars builds about 3 courthouses at the $1000 psf price tag. The judicial council terminated 17 courthouses.
2. The reason to cancel all the remaining projects was Long Beach which spent nearly half of all of the money hoping that legislators would be confused by term limits and take on the rent payments.
Queenpumpkin
July 11, 2017
Is this why Jody Patel is retiring?
Wendy Darling
July 11, 2017
Instead of retiring, she needs a pair of handcuffs and a prison sentence.
Maxrebo5
July 11, 2017
I laughted so hard at this quote by Justice Brad Hill: “We feel it’s perfectly appropriate, since we helped out during the state’s time of need, to remind the other branches of government that because of that redirection of our funds, that we need our money back.”
Hill leaves so much of the story out that his perspective is crazy to me. When SB 1407 passed the JC wanted the state to pay for 5 billion in new courthouses plus the 2.3 billion the AOC had already contracted for the Long Beach Courthouse. Justice Hill and the other AOC insiders hoped to put the state on the hook to spend 7.3 billion on new courthouses when the state only authorizedthe JC to spend 5 billion. That’s some big time egos there (George and Vickrey) to try to leverage 2.3 billion more in courthouse construction funding from the state by building first and asking permission later. Horrible stuff!
By taking back $1.14 billion of the SB 1407 funds the state basically said we are not going to let the public be screwed financially by the AOC overspending spending so much on this Taj Majal called the LB Courthouse, The state attempted to fix the mistakes of the JC right there by taking back that $1.4 billion in SB 1407 funds. That is their right to do so as it was always the public’s money and never yours Justice Hull! The CA Courts still got $5.9 billion in new courthouses, if you include Long Beach, so shut the *#@% up about getting “our” money back!. You did not help the state out in a time of need. You overspent by nearly a billion dollars and now pretend to be victims. Shame on you!
The rural trial courts and Sacramento Superior Court are the ones who will not see new courthouses going forward so they will be left out but the branch as a whole did great! Stop trying to blame the other branches. The Judicial Council set all the priorites for the projects and they just spent too much on a few very large buildings (LA, SD, Santa Clara, and Yolo).
Let the Chief deal with the fall out from within the branch over time as this is 100% Tani’s politcal mess to manage. She and her insiders can complain about that $1.14 billion redirected forever, like they do about the 50 new judges they still want, but it isn’t ever going to be restored. That is their crazy 1/2 of the story perspective which I say has to change. The state rightly pushed back on the JC’s overspending by redirecting those funds. Justice Hull should not say the branch helped out the state in the State’s time of need. The Judicial Council tried to spend 7.3 billion and the state cut the branch off at 5.9 billion. How is is the court overspending helping the state?
Worst of all to me in this HUGE boondoogle is the fact that the money to pay for all of this comes from new fees that I believe violate the public’s due process rights to have a neutral judge preside over their traffic ticket. This HUGE mess is about as pretty and as corrupt as Chris Christy sitting at a public beach durring the 4th of July holiday. I hope the Chief Justice is not retained for her part in it. Maybe then the branch will finally recover from the George and Vickrey era of bullying and mismanagement which is so wrong of a fit for the judiciary of all places. The CA Courts were/are run like Enron, VW, or Wells Fargo and the Judicial Council was the board of directors allowing it all to go down. They preyed on the public and put put judges interests first and the public’s interests second. Still do.
Bring on another AOC audit as the culture at the Juducial Council has not changed to this day Nobody trusts them after CCMS and these other scandals. Oh, and I laughted too at the reference to David Yamasaki now being in Orange County as their CEO. He jumped ship just in time to avoid any accountability there in Santa Clara for their current mess. I read an article in the Mercury News recently about new Santa Clara Courthouse and one of the public commenters, after the article, said the CEO had some of the palm trees intended for the courthouse planted at his personal property. I don’t know if that comment was indeed true but given the levels of corruption I have seen in CA Courts it sounded like par for the course to me. Fight On!
Wendy Darling
July 11, 2017
Justice Brad Hill: “We feel it’s perfectly appropriate, since we helped out during the state’s time of need, to remind the other branches of government that because of that redirection of our funds, that we need our money back.”
Ok. We – the tax paying public – helped out the state’s judicial branch in their “time of need” – a couple of billion wasted on CCMS, parties for the judicial branch chosen elite costing thousands and thousands of dollars with lobster, filet mignon, and endless bottles of Grey Goose, trips to Hawaii, new luxury car leases, and other lavish spending sprees, and we’d like out money back too Justice Hill. And FYI – none of this was “helpful.” Especially since all we got for it is a state judicial branch administration deluded by their own arrogance and infected with gross mismanagement, rampant unethical behavior, and outright fraud and corruption.
So if anyone is getting their money back, the tax-paying public is first in line. State Judicial Branch administration has plenty of money Brad Hill. You all need to learn to spend it wisely. And shut up.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
July 11, 2017
Exhibit One for why California’s judicial branch administration should not be given ANY additional funding. Not one dollar, not even a single penny: “the half-billion-dollar skyscraper courthouse in San Diego, which lacks a tunnel to the nearby jail; with the Plumas/Sierra Regional Courthouse, a $4.7 million wood-clad structure in the middle of snow country which the AOC had to vacate four years after having built it; and with the ridiculously expensive Long Beach Courthouse. We now add the recently completed Santa Clara Family Justice Center to the list of California’s overbuilt courthouses . . which features “gleaming Grecian columns clad in ornamental stone imported from Italy,”
All the fancy stone cladding in California can’t cover another ugly truth: It’s not like this is news here in 2017. This obscene waste of public money by judicial branch administration has been well known and well documented for at least the last 10 years. See anyone in any position of authority doing anything about any of that? (crickets chirping) Anyone? Anyone at all? (more crickets chirping) See anyone actually ordering an audit of the judicial branch court construction and maintenance programs? Or holding anyone in branch administration responsible for the horrific waste of public funds? (whole chorus of crickets chirping) No – instead anyone and everyone who could actually do anything about any of this either has, and continues to, intentionally turn a blind eye or run away as fast as they can in the opposite direction.
Let me know when, and if, that changes. (A cacophony of crickets chirping.) Pretty sure pigs will fly and hell will freeze over – at the same time – before that happens.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
July 11, 2017
Note to Brad Hill and Queen Feckless: It’s disingenuous to be crying poverty to the State Legislature while at the same time you’re erecting monuments to yourselves with public money featuring ““gleaming Grecian columns clad in ornamental stone imported from Italy,” Your behavior in this regard is akin to Chicken Little, excepting only you have replaced “the sky is falling” with the endless whining of “More money. More money. We must have more money or the end is near.”
No one believes any of you any more. We only have to look at those gleaming Grecian columns clad in ornamental stone imported from Italy, as but one very small example, to know you are all liars.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Wendy Darling
July 11, 2017
And long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
July 11, 2017
Today’s edition of Tani’s Follies: Published today, Tuesday, July 11, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo and Matthew Renda.
Quote of the Day, courtesy of Judge Maino: “It’s counterproductive, like giving an alcoholic a drink.” By the way, there’s a word for that: it’s called “enabling.”
Lavish Courthouses Spur Calls for Judicial Council Audit
(CN) – Santa Clara County’s Family Justice Center, a gleaming, eight-story building in downtown San Jose, is an impressive architectural specimen. It boasts a sunlit glass atrium, a bright and airy cafe, and high-definition displays outside each of its 20 courtrooms. It also came with the hefty price tag of $225 million and 26 years of debt for the court.
“There are couches in that building that cost $5,000,” Ingrid Stewart, the local leader of the Superior Court Professional Employees Association, told Courthouse News when the building opened last August. She added that most courtrooms and judicial chambers were well appointed with luxury furniture.
The building’s unveiling in August 2016 triggered a strike, as the court cut public hours and slashed staff. Workers picketed outside the building for seven days in protest, toting signs intended to shame former head clerk David Yamasaki, who has since moved to Orange County.
Some judges say Santa Clara’s new family courthouse is just the most recent example of the judiciary’s tendency toward flashy buildings at the expense of service to the public. Others include a $556 million courthouse in San Diego set to open mid-July, and an even pricier one in Long Beach.
“It seems as if the Judicial Council prefers these fancy courthouses over people,” San Diego County Superior Court Judge Tony Maino said. Maino has been a longtime critic of the San Diego project, which started out with a $1.2 billion price tag, and of the judiciary’s construction program in general. He said the 22-story, 71-courtroom building doesn’t lack for glitz with its stunning views of downtown San Diego, but at a half-billion dollars, it should be more functional for the public.
“It has bling, that’s for sure. It’s like a pair of alligator shoes that’s falling apart at the soles,” Maino said. “I think it will serve the public about as well as the current courthouse does.
“It isn’t as secure as the present courthouse and it isn’t as comfortable for jurors,” he added, comparing the wooden benches in the courtrooms to rigid church pews. “It’s like going to church in Massachusetts in the 1600s.”
The Long Beach courthouse has also been contentious, as it’s entirely funded by the judiciary’s construction budget. In 2010, the Judicial Council’s staff agreed to pay developers a $61 million annual service fee to maintain the building for 35 years. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the total cost for the building over time would add up to $2.3 billion, and the strain of this financial burden eventually led to a difficult vote by the Judicial Council to cut back on dozens of other projects, nearly all in rural counties.
Excoriated by legislators, the Long Beach courthouse debacle led to a demand by the Alliance of California Judges for an audit of the judiciary’s construction program. The group representing 500 active and retired judges recently renewed that call.
“We have a duty to ensure that the money we extract in fines and fees goes to the best possible use,” they said in a statement last week.
Pointing to the travertine stone cladding at the center of many local news stories about the new Santa Clara Family Justice Center, the group added, “All the fancy stone cladding in California can’t cover an ugly truth: The judicial branch has financed the construction of a handful of highly ornate courthouses with money collected disproportionately from those who can least afford to pay.”
While the Judicial Council’s construction program staff declined to comment on the Alliance’s audit request, a spokesman assured Courthouse News that the travertine stone is not ornamental.
“The stone is travertine and is not ornamental—it’s for use in heavily used areas. The stone was provided by the lowest bidder,” the spokesman said.
San Jose residents seem mixed on the issue.
Standing under the Grecian colonnades at the courthouse entrance on Friday, Verona Nunez said, “I don’t know why anyone thought this was necessary. These architectural choices are a little outlandish.”
The new courthouse may seem extravagant, but for some, it’s certainly better than what was there before: a conglomeration of six dilapidated buildings the Judicial Council was leasing for $570,000 a year.
Now juvenile, drug dependency, mental health and family law services are consolidated at one convenient location. Court documents also show it was constructed using recycled and sustainably sourced materials, and its use of direct sunlight and high-efficiency fixtures will save on water and electricity costs.
“Compared to the previous court, this is much, much better,” resident Sahra Osman said.
And while the court is saddled with a quarter-century of debt that will swallow 4 percent of its yearly budget, it will own the building outright after 26 years – on its face, a fair long-term investment. The public will just have to endure longer lines and less access.
With a growing need for bigger, safer, more accessible courthouses across the state and judges agitating for change, an audit of the judiciary’s construction program could be on the horizon.
Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer Sr. said he would seriously consider an investigation. “I would be very interested to know how we’re spending the money and are we getting the most bang for our buck,” he told Courthouse News by phone on Friday. “There is much speculation and we just need some facts.”
Jones-Sawyer, a Democrat, hails from Los Angeles, where he served as assistant deputy mayor and director of asset management. Coming from this background, he said he learned quite a bit about how to get public buildings constructed under budget.
“You never have the clients become the project managers,” he said. “When you have police or fire departments building their own stations, you have a lot of cost overruns.”
Judge Maino in San Diego said an audit will also bring the true cost of the construction program to light. “The public has the right to know how their money is being spent,” he said. “An audit will show if the Judicial Council has been prudent in how they have spent money, and will make it more difficult for the Judicial Council to spend money in the future on lavish and non-functional courthouses.”
For its construction-money woes, the Judicial Council has long pointed to a raid on its construction fund by the Legislature during the state’s recession. Established by Senate Bill 1407, the fund authorized $5 billion in 2008 to build or renovate courthouses in 32 counties across California. That money mostly comes from fines and fees for misdemeanors and traffic tickets.
But since 2009, the Legislature has swiped at least $1.4 billion from the fund and hasn’t paid it back.
“We’re out of money, and there’s nothing we can do short of getting that money back,” Justice Brad Hill, the council’s construction committee chair, said at a meeting last year where 17 planned courthouse projects were axed. “We feel it’s perfectly appropriate, since we helped out during the state’s time of need, to remind the other branches of government that because of that redirection of our funds, that we need our money back.”
Maino said Thursday he doesn’t think returning the money will do any good.
“It’s counterproductive, like giving an alcoholic a drink,” he said. “SB 1407 is a silly excuse. If they return that money the [Judicial Council] will continue to follow present practices and will build courthouses that either aren’t needed or are too lavish.”
Jones-Sawyer was careful to point out that the intent of an audit would not be to punish the courts, but to ensure that future funds are wisely spent so projects currently in limbo aren’t indefinitely delayed.
“We need to find what is the best way going forward because we need to get as many courthouses built as possible,” he said.
http://www.courthousenews.com/flashy-courthouses-spur-calls-judicial-council-audit/
Long live the ACJ.
Queenpumpkin
July 11, 2017
Wendy Darling
July 11, 2017
Rampant unethical behavior by judicial branch administration, such as this, is a common occurrence at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Not that anyone is actually going to do anything about any of that.
Long live the ACJ.
Queenpumpkin
July 11, 2017
Maybe not, but it shouldn’t stop us from alerting people or why are we here?
Queenpumpkin
July 11, 2017
http://abc7news.com/news/controversial-photos-at-judicial-council-party-prompt-complaints-of-racial-insensitivity/2207223/
Judicial Council Watcher
July 12, 2017
We heard about the distasteful pictures and they were taken off the intranet – before we got copies – which is probably a good thing because unlike ABC News, we would not have blurred the photos. Another shout out of thanks to Michael Roosevelt is warranted.
Queenpumpkin
July 12, 2017
Many are worried he will be fired.
Wendy Darling
July 12, 2017
Well, sadly, Queenpumpkin, that is a valid worry, given it’s the usual and customary result of anyone who tells the truth about what really happens in judicial branch administration.
Not that anyone is actually going to do anything about that either.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
July 13, 2017
Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing. Those with plenty to hide do this. Published today, July 13, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner:
National Media Join First Amendment Fight Over Access to Court Records
BILL GIRDNER
(CN) – In an ongoing legal war over access to California court records, the nation’s top newspapers have closed ranks with Courthouse News in fighting for traditional and timely review of new complaints under the First Amendment.
A total of 27 news organizations and media advocates signed an amicus brief in support of traditional press access. The list includes the biggest and most widely read newspapers and news agencies in the nation – the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, among many others.
“Both the principles of the First Amendment and the realities of the news cycle lead to the conclusion that, in the context of civil complaints, a delay amounts to a denial, and the First Amendment requires timely access,” their brief, filed last week in the Ninth Circuit, said.
That legal argument reflects the actuality of widespread press access to new complaints on the day they are filed, before clerks run the complaint through a set of clerical tasks. That tradition has been challenged by a coterie of state-court clerks primarily in Southern California allied with the staff of the overarching administrative body for the California courts, the Judicial Council.
As a result, the underlying case setting Courthouse News against Ventura’s court clerk Michael Planet has come to represent a more fundamental clash between the media and the court bureaucracy in a time of economic and technological change.
Originally filed in 2011, Courthouse News v. Planet is now in the briefing stage of its third trip to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The current appeal stems from a decision last year by U.S. District Judge S. James Otero, who ruled that the First Amendment applies as soon as the new complaints are filed and journalists are then entitled to see them in a timely manner – before the clerical tasks that follow.
The Ventura clerk and the Judicial Council have continued to fight against press access with scorched-earth tactics, and a few likeminded clerks have continued to withhold the new complaints despite Otero’s ruling.
As the immediacy of news contained in a fresh complaint fades into “old news,” the clerks run through clerical tasks that are dependent on the vagaries of the work schedule of civil servants interrupted or slowed by vacancies, holidays and staff parties. Delays in press access run from one day to a couple weeks, and in at least one court in California, have extended out to 3 months.
“Immediacy has always been an essential component of newsworthiness,” the media brief said. “A delay beyond timely access irreparably harms the public’s interest in learning about cases pending before the courts. That is even more true in the modern news environment where timeliness is critical to newsworthiness.”
Tactics employed by clerk and council have included a flat denial of the tradition of press access to new court filings, requiring submission by Courthouse News of declarations from reporters all around the country as well as past reporters for Ventura newspapers.
The Ventura clerk also denied any delay in access to the filings, until an official in his office let slip during a deposition that the office tracked delays through internal memos. After requiring extensive discovery by Courthouse News, the clerk dropped his denial and eventually provided the memos.
Spending roughly $5 million to overcome those tactics and get to the merits of its First Amendment claim, Courthouse News won a summary judgment motion last year from Judge Otero who ordered Planet to provide timely access to the new complaints before going through the clerical tasks, whether the complaints were filed in paper or electronic form.
Since then, the clerk has complied with the order and most weeks the press sees every single new case on the day it is filed. That level of press access is similar to access in California courts that have worked with the press to ensure timely access to both e-filed and paper complaints, including Kern, Fresno, Sacramento, Placer, Stanislaus and San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Solano, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo and, with respect to paper filings, Los Angeles.
Federal judges in other jurisdictions have ruled in favor of the press on the same issue. Late last year, for example, a federal judge in New York enjoined Manhattan’s state-court clerk from withholding the new complaints while his staff undertook administrative tasks following receipt of the complaints.
After Judge Edgardo Ramos ruled in favor of Courthouse News, the Manhattan clerk provided an electronic inbox for e-filed complaints that mirrors the wooden box traditionally placed on the counter for press review of new paper complaints.
Since the judge’s decision, a total of eight state courts in New York have set up electronic inboxes that provide immediate press access to just-filed civil complaints, in contrast to the California administrators who continue to fight Otero’s ruling tooth and nail.
Stonewalled by clerks in Ventura’s neighboring court, Santa Barbara, as well as those in Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange County, Courthouse News tried earlier this year to enforce Otero’s ruling by filing a federal action against Orange County’s court clerk, David Yamasaki.
But in that case, U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford in Santa Ana wrote a tentative ruling that distinguished Otero’s opinion, saying it involved a smaller court. And in the meantime, the Orange County clerk has continued to withhold the complaints during clerical processing.
The Yamasaki case has added fuel to the heated briefing battle underway in the Planet appeal, which turns on the same issue.
“Timely access to civil complaints is ‘an essential part of the First Amendment’s purpose to ensure that the individual citizen can participate in and contribute to our republican system of self-government,’” said the media brief, quoting from the first Ninth Circuit ruling in the Planet case.
The brief cited “Covering America’s Courts,” by former journalist and now professor Toni Locy, in which she describes daily checks of a “wooden box on a counter where they placed the papers versions of the day’s lawsuits.”
The 48-page brief, written by Bruce Brown, Caitlin Vogus and Selina MacLaren with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, reinforces the main point made by Courthouse News, that new complaints are public when they cross the clerk’s counter and press access must come before clerical processing.
“In the modern news environment,” the media brief said, “court policies that delay access to judicial records can amount to a complete denial of meaningful access, because ‘old news’ does not receive the same level of public attention as timely news, and thus may not be published at all. In contrast, timely access to civil complaints allows the news media to learn of new civil lawsuits as they are filed and to report them to the public when their newsworthiness is at its height.”
The news and public interest groups also signing onto the brief include the E.W. Scripps Company with 33 TV stations; Gannett Co. with 109 newspapers including The Arizona Republic, The Indianapolis Star, The Des Moines Register and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in addition to USA Today; Hearst Corp. which owns 30 TV stations and a number of newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle and the Houston Chronicle; McClatchy Company which publishes the Miami Herald, The Kansas City Star, The Sacramento Bee, The Charlotte Observer and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram; Media News Group out of Colorado with 56 newspapers in 12 states and a set of TV stations, in addition to Meredith Corporation out of Iowa with 17 TV stations.
News associations signing onto the brief include American Society of News Editors, Association of Alternative News Media, Center for Investigative Reporting, International Documentary Association, National Press Photographers Association, New England Newspaper and Press Association, News Media Alliance, Online News Association, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reporters Without Borders, Society of Professional Journalists and the Student Press Law Center.
Media advocacy groups signing the amicus brief include the First Amendment Coalition, New England First Amendment Coalition, and the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University. The appendix to the media brief includes a description of the New England coalition as an “organization of people who believe in the power of transparency in a democratic society.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/national-media-join-first-amendment-fight-access-court-records/
One can only wonder how many millions of public dollars 455 Golden Gate Avenue has spent on outside legal fees in this matter. And, once again, the hypocrisy of the State’s judicial branch administration endlessly whining poverty to Sacramento while at the same time spending those millions of public dollars on outside legal fees in this matter is . . . well, the only polite/non-profane word that comes to mind is . . . stupefying.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Paul Frehley
July 26, 2017
David Yamasaki is now moved to S.Cal and is in Orange County. He is a very bad administrator
Maxrebo5
July 14, 2017
Fight on Courthouse News! I hope you win in Federal Court (again).
wearyant
July 14, 2017
The thugs ( aka AOC aka judicial council staff ) are trending! How trendy and chic for them. LOL!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/07/californias_judicial_council_racial_sensitivity_bureaucrats_dress_up_as_black_convicts_for_office_party.html#.WWjKe9cJdFs.email
Queenpumpkin
July 14, 2017
Dan Noyes has a follow-up tonight on KGO at 6pm.
Wendy Darling
July 14, 2017
Today’s installment of Tani’s Follies. Published today, July 14, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Judicial Council Slammed Over Insensitive Party Photos
MARIA DINZEO
July 14, 2017
(CN) – Pictures that recently surfaced from a California Judicial Council office Halloween party have ignited a firestorm of criticism from the Legislature, as lawmakers and other groups condemned council staff for dressing up in prison garb in a display that prompted accusations of insensitivity to the social issues of race and gender identity.
“The racist actions of those associated with the Judicial Council are shameful! As a diverse state, we expect these legal professionals to show greater sensitivity and awareness to the feelings of others,” said Assemblyman Chris Holden, a Democrat from Pasadena and chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus.
The controversy stems from a 2016 Halloween party at the council’s Sacramento office. In photos posted to the council’s intranet, staff for the state judicial rulemaking body were seen posing in cubicles made up to look like prison cells, darkening their faces, and wearing wigs with dread locks in imitation of the TV show “Orange is the New Black.” In one photo, a man posed in a woman’s wig, impersonating a transgender actress on the show. The costumes were an apparent hit, as the employees ended up winning a “best decorations” award.
The NAACP demanded an apology from the Judicial Council after the ABC affiliate in San Francisco broke the story earlier this week. Rev. Amos Brown, president of the NAACP’s San Francisco chapter, told ABC’s Dan Noyes, “It does concern me because they have adopted in their minds, their spirits, the prison culture. They don’t see these prisoners as being human beings, they see it as being a fun thing.”
Noyes reported that the photos have since been taken down.
The Alliance of California Judges, a group representing 500 retired and active judges, circulated the ABC story on Thursday. “As of last November, the AOC has a workforce of over 740 employees,” the alliance said in a statement. “Apparently, many of them have too much time on their hands and not enough sense and sensitivity to use it wisely.”
The ABC story noted that a longtime employee of Administrative Office of the Courts, as the Judicial Council staff was previously called, complained about the Halloween theme and criticized the agency’s cut in funding for black history month. The office cut about $1,600 for black history events, canceled a field trip in a state-owned van and relegated the black history display to the basement of the federal building. The council’s black history month committee had voted to feature the Black Panther Party, but the council apparently decided it could not support the theme, thereby resuscitating a conflict from a half-century ago.
The photos of the prison-garb Halloween theme also prompted outrage from the state’s black legislators, who on Thursday blasted the bureaucracy not only for the racist and allegedly transphobic display, but also for an incongruous insensitivity toward those in prison.
“The California Legislative Black Caucus advocates for diversity and equality and is appalled by the actions of the Judicial Council, the policymaking unit of the justice system. Oversight on such activities calls into question the diversity in the Judicial Council,” Holden said. “Council employees made light of those incarcerated, not considering the negative effects incarceration has on them physically, mentally, or psychologically. The costumes worn by employees of the council insinuate that those who are in the prison system are only minorities and are justly incarcerated.”
Martin Hoshino, the administrative director of the Judicial Council staff, issued a statement late Thursday. “In a public organization where the number one goal is access, fairness, and diversity, the events that transpired last October at a staff Halloween costume contest were insensitive and unacceptable. Corrective action was taken and executive management continues to take steps to rectify concerns and to promote an environment of respect in the workplace,” Hoshino said.
“As someone who spent more than 15 years in our state corrections and rehabilitation system working to promote rehabilitation strategies for incarcerated individuals, a prison theme was wholly inappropriate. The images of the event were more disturbing because they were of staff whose mission is the advancement of the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. Our employees should be held to a higher standard where even the appearance of bias or prejudice is not permissible.”
Hoshino went on to apologize to Amos, as well as to the Judicial Council staff and Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who chairs the council.
“I am sorry that this event occurred and have relayed my apologies to the chief justice, the Rev. Amos Brown of the NAACP, and to our staff. I will be continuing outreach with the NAACP as discussed with Rev. Brown as well as with other groups, and continuing efforts will be made to promote an environment of respect in the workplace and respect for the diverse people we serve,” he said.
The California Capitol Black Staff Association also rebuked the council, saying it was trying to “sweep the incident under the rug.” In a statement, the nonprofit called for disciplinary action to be taken against the participants.
“The Judicial Council’s attempt to downplay the incident by arguing that ‘no employee wore blackface’ is a clear and atrocious attempt to sweep the racist actions of their personnel under the rug,” said the staff association. “We join the other organizations that have called for a public apology and for disciplinary action to be taken against the employees who participated in these malicious acts.”
Assemblyman Mike Gibson of Los Angeles, who chairs the Democratic Caucus, also called for disciplinary action, posting a statement on his website saying, “For a public policymaking body that is equipped with the responsibility of fair access to the courts, it is highly disappointing that a group of judicial staff members would put down a race simply to win a contest.”
He added, “It is never okay to engage in stereotypical behavior or homophobic mockery, all while distributing offensive photos over a public server for ridicule. This action will not go unchallenged.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/judicial-council-slammed-insensitive-party-photos/
Just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. As personally witnessed, all of the following – and more = have been used by various judicial branch/AOC supervisors, managers, Assistant Directors, Directors, and other branch administrators, in referring to AOC employees of various races, ethnic backgrounds, etc.: “fairy”, “fag”, “faggot”, “little faggot”, “stupid bitch”, “stupid black bitch”, “Oreo”, “Africoon”, the “n” word, the “c” word, “Jew-Bag”, “wetback”, “burrito boy”, “chink”, “chink face”, “Abi-dabi” and numerous variations of all of the above. Many internal complaints have been filed by AOC employees regarding the abusive racism and other unethical behaviors by branch administrators. Branch administration hasn’t done a thing about any of those complaints other than then making a person’s life a living hell so that they quit or firing them.
Not that anyone is actually going to do anything about any of that either.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ,
Wendy Darling
July 15, 2017
And then there’s the unspoken racial slurs at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. For example, the Assistant Director who hung a black monkey plushy/stuffed toy up in his office with a rope around the monkey’s neck. After he orchestrated the firing of a female African American employee, he hung up the woman’s AOC office name plate underneath the hanging monkey. Branch administration has known about all this behavior and much more for quite some time, and it has been well documented, so their expressions of disbelief and ignorance are not to be believed.
But, hey, it was Martin Hoshino himself who stated it would take 20 to 25 years to change the “culture” of 455 Golden Gate Avenue and judicial branch administration. So there’s that to “hope” for – maybe by 2037 the folks running the California judicial branch will have figured out that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. Not to mention illegal. But probably not.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Mycotic
July 17, 2017
K. Spoke directly again this morning to CA Atty General in a public forum. Nice guy. Nice words in reply to my comments. But I want some REAL action — including stopping CJP retaliation against judges who refuse to go with the flow of misconduct in the judicial branch.
I was so intuitively disturbed by what was not said between the lines of the smiling responses of “I have to change hats to criminally prosecute those who I normally defend in civil proceedings” and “my hands are tied until the legislators act” that I came home and made this 1.5 minute video. I call it “The Scarecrow Effect” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7783dgHiL0&feature=youtu.be
Maxrebo5
July 25, 2017
The JC Staff (formerly known as the AOC) is still using their public newspage as a pure propaganda tool to lobby for their agenda. Case in point:
http://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/the-trial-court-funding-formula-explained
They say, “Unfortunately, chronic underfunding of the entire trial court system continues” and I say to this how so? Based on what data? WAFM is the agreed to formula the Chief made with the Governor. Case filings have tanked over 30% in recent years and continue to fall so there is no underfunding. If anything the other branches have been kind to back fill the falling fine and fee revenue the branch used to provide to the state since it is handling less work.
The branch is getting more money now than it did in 2009 to handle 30% fewer cases. That line I put in quotes above by the AOC is pure BS and should be taken down. They should not be allowed to post an unsupported lie on a public web page. It is pure spin and not based on facts.
I hope the folks at the DOF and Legislative Analyst Office see this and keep the JC honest. The JC is already working as fast as they can to tweek the case weights in WAFM to get more money per case. The JC can control the case weights so they are all over that adjustment but they can’t contril the fact their caseloads are tanking year after year.
They also talk about Prop 47 and I believe the branch already got multiple additional millions of dollars in to help the branch cope with Prop 47 resulting in new hearings. However, that should have been one time monies not ongoing increased funding needing to go into the WAFM case weights. They are forever greedy and their mantra is more money. Fight on!
Wendy Darling
August 17, 2017
Not able to post the article directly from my remote location, but for today’s edition of Tani’s Follies, Courthouse News published an article today on the CJP’s legal challenge to the audit.
It isn’t the audit the CJP fears – it’s what the audit will expose that the CJP is afraid of. Hypocrites one and all.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Maxrebo5
August 18, 2017
Here is a link to the Courthouse News story Wendy mentioned:
https://www.courthousenews.com/fear-driving-judges-commissions-audit-fight-judge-told/
Maxrebo5
August 18, 2017
A funny court administration story gained national attention today:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/17/n-y-state-worker-fired-172-000-job-after-admitting-he-barely-works/577933001/
The public comments that follow the article are great. Here is one I especially liked:
“Oh the court knew exactly what was going on. They were trying to keep him on payroll so he could get his last few months in and get his pension. But they got caught instead, and to save face they fired him.”
This could easily have happened in CA Courts. Not that long ago we had AOC staff telecommuting from Switzerland. LOL
Maxrebo5
August 30, 2017
Sacramento has made their CEO selection:
https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-lloyd-connelly-takes-sacramento-courts-ceo/
Seems like a good choice. If Connelly wants to get Sacramento Superior Court’s WAFM numbers accurate then he might want to look first at their civil cases which were vastlyinflated in the past. Sacramento handles 50,000 default judgement cases a year (limited civil cases in WAFM) that are basically filed by state agencies as collection matters. However, there is zero judge time on any of those “cases” but I believe Sacramento gets credit for them in WAFM as it makes them look like they are doing more work. If Connelly is indeed a man of integrity, which he seems to be, then Sacramento should admit these defailt judgment cases should not be counted at all as part of their workload. When their analysts reviewed it years ago it was at most two clerical positions a year. This fix will mean that the court will finally be honest about it’s real caseload but it will cost them money and normally money matters more to most of the CEO’s statewide.
Second, since he was over traffic for a time how about Connellly taking on the Judicial Council and saying it is wrong for courthouse construction fees to exist on traffic tickets because having them there makes judges biased in hearing those cases. Those fees are unconstutiional as they violate the due process clause preventing judges from being neutral figures in traffic cases. With a courthouse construction fee built into every traffic case to pay off 5 billion in bonds (already spent) that means every California driver who gets a ticket does not have venue to go to where they can get a neutral judge to hear their side of events. The CA driving public is screwed. Under the current design since SB 1407 traffic judges are biased to favor the police officer and to ensure the traffic fine is collected to pay off the branch’s new courthouses.
Wendy Darling
September 6, 2017
Today’s edition of Tani’s Follies. Published today, Wednesday, September 6, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner:
Twin Cases on Press Access at Crossroads in 9th Circuit
BILL GIRDNER
PASADENA, Calif. (CN) – Twin cases on First Amendment press access will either proceed separately through the Ninth Circuit or come together before the same panel of judges, depending on the outcome of a motion filed Wednesday.
The two cases both challenge a new practice by a few California clerks of denying press access to the new cases until they are put through a set of administrative procedures. As a result, the news in the filings dissipates.
In one case, a federal judge ruled that clerk Michael Planet’s denial of access in Ventura violated the First Amendment. In its sister case, a different federal judge ruled that clerk David Yamasaki’s denial of access in Orange County did not violate the First Amendment.
The Ventura case is currently in front of a panel of judges who have considered the underlying issues twice before as the case has gone up and down the appellate ladder. The Orange County case, on the other hand, is a newcomer to the appellate court.
Wednesday’s motion argues for assigning the new case to the already formed panel of judges hearing the long-running Ventura case.
“The panel should hear both appeals because if the Planet order is correct, then Yamasaki cannot stand,” said the motion by Courthouse News.
The basic facts and defenses in the two cases are alike. But Ventura uses the older paper medium for filing cases, while Orange County uses the newer e-filing medium most of the time.
“Given the importance of ensuring that First Amendment rights apply equally across the paper and digital worlds, this weighs heavily in favor of hearing the cases together,” said the motion by Bryan Cave lawyers Rachel Matteo-Boehm, Roger Myers, Katherine Keating and Jon Fetterly.
They noted that the order by U.S. District Judge S. James Otero in the Ventura case said specifically that it applies “regardless of whether courts use paper filing or e-filing systems.”
The Orange County clerk had not taken a position on Wednesday’s motion by the time it was filed. The clerk is represented by Robert Naeve, Jaclyn Stahl and Craig Stewart with Jones Day.
Demonstrating the difference in effect between the two lower court rulings, new complaints filed in Ventura are now seen by the press without delay nearly 100 percent of the time. Cases filed in Orange County continue to be withheld about 50 percent of the time.
A single case against amusement park Knott’s Berry Farm illustrates those effects.
The complaint was filed on a Monday at 4:05 p.m. in Orange County Superior Court. But the clerk withheld the case for processing. As is his policy, he also kicked everybody out of the records room right at 4:00 p.m., while his staff continued processing cases.
The Knott’s case was brought by the father of a child who was in injured on the Log Ride. His complaint says California safety officials had repeatedly warned Knott’s about the ride and it had caused injury to children in the past.
The father asked for punitive damages, saying the park’s management was putting profits from a popular ride ahead of safety.
The LA Times, the Orange County Register and Courthouse News Service all reported on the case, but all reported late because the clerk withheld the case for processing in addition to shutting down the records room.
Both the withholding and the early exclusion from the records room would have been contrary to the order in the Ventura case – but both were OK under the order in the Orange County case.
The legal battle against the policy of withholding the new complaints has a long history.
For decades past, courts including Ventura and Orange County kept a press bin in which the day’s new complaints were placed for review by local reporters. The same was true in federal courts in California.
But in the early 2000s, a select group of administrators in California jumped on the bandwagon leading to electronic filing. In their embrace of a new technology, they pushed press access backwards, forcing reporters down the line behind the docketing of a new complaint, or processing, as it is now called.
In essence they moved the standard for press access backwards while moving forward towards a new technology.
In contrast, the federal courts and a growing number of state courts kept in place the traditional paper standard of access but adapted it to the new technology. They now give the press and public access to the newly e-filed documents as soon as they are received, keeping public access in its traditional spot ahead of processing.
As one aspect of press freedom, the issue has become a rallying point for news organizations. A long list of the best-known news groups in America filed an amicus brief supporting the order in favor of press access in Ventura.
“Immediacy has always been an essential component of newsworthiness,” said the brief signed by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, among a host of news groups and First Amendment organizations. “A delay beyond timely access irreparably harms the public’s interest in learning about cases pending before the courts.”
The battle between the press and a few court administrators has already gone up to the Ninth Circuit twice and is now returning in a double-barreled format.
On one of those earlier trips, the panel of Circuit Judges Kim Wardlaw, Mary Murguia and John Noonan reinstated the Ventura case, saying, “There is no doubt that CNS itself has alleged a cognizable injury caused by the Ventura County Superior Court’s denial of timely access to newly filed complaints.”
https://www.courthousenews.com/twin-cases-press-access-crossroads-9th-circuit/
Don’t really see the point in even posting anymore. Nothing ever changes at 455 Golden Gate Avenue and the idiots running the California Judicial Branch.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 7, 2017
You might believe that the chief justice would put the brakes on all this litigation and waste of taxpayer funds by putting the kibosh on it. Instead, they rack up huge legal bills and unlawfully stiff their attorneys with promises of future work if they accept the reduced payments.
Wendy Darling
September 7, 2017
Quote of the day: “You might believe that the chief justice would put the brakes on all this litigation and waste of taxpayer funds by putting the kibosh on it.”
HaHaHaHaHa! ROFLMAO! Put the brakes on all this waste of taxpayer funds by Queen Feckless and her entourage of panting, blindly obedient, and absolutely non-thinking minions?! Thanks JCW – best laugh I’ve had in ages.
And fyi, at least one law firm aligned with Queen Feckless and Judicial Branch Administration – Wiley, Price, & whatever they’re calling themselves now – have billed, and been paid, millions of tax-payer dollars by 455 Golden Gate Avenue, and they have no interest in having that gravy train come to a stop. Much less investigated.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians. And still no one – absolutely no one – in any position of authority is doing anything about it. Nothing at all.
Long live the ACJ.
Sharon Kramer
September 13, 2017
FYI, CJP’s lawsuit to obstruct an audit of their performance rages on and a new bill awaits Gov Brown’s signature to make obstructing an audit a finable offense. https://veritoxmeanstruthpoison.wordpress.com/2017/09/12/comm-on-judicial-performance-is-confidentiality-discretionary-or-absolute/
wearyant
October 7, 2017
The same old …
Justice for all? Or just those at the top of county courts
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/06/justice-for-all-or-just-those-at-the-top-of-county-courts/
Maxrebo5
October 11, 2017
Floodgates of change are opening outside of CA Courts:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/11/autonomous-cars-without-backup-drivers-could-come-to-california-roads-before-june/
This news I believe very much relates to CA Courts because 5 million of the branch’s 6.8 million “cases” are actually just traffic tickets. If those traffic tickets that they pretend are serious cases go away and if car accidents drop then civil auto injury cases would fall as well. This change on our roads will mean CA Courts can expect HUGE workload cuts in the years to come. This future decline is on top of the 30% decline in case filings in CA Courts has already experiences since 2009. It is brutal math they are trying to hide.
The Chief plans to move traffic cases from the criminal side to the civil side in an attempt save the traffic fees revenue the branch uses to pay off the courthouse construction bonds. Those revenues are at risk because if they stay on the criminal side parties could sue in Federal Court for having their due process rights violated (since there is a jail time risk as criminal matters). By moving traffic to civil the Chief believes the fees can stay in place far longer which buys the branch additional time to keep that important revenue source coming in the door. Her plan will work short term but long term they are still screwed. If traffic cases never come in the courthouse doors at all does it matter if they are labled civil or criminal cases? Those traffic fines and fees are just gone with self driving cars.
This is a checkmate technolodgy change impacting 85% of CA Courts workload. The branch is blockbuster video and the internet is coming fast. They refused to let anyone but their yes men on the Judicial Council or be their CEO’s so it could not happen to a nicer bunch of jerks. The Chief’s mantra has been more money more money and I have been saying that is nuts that is nuts for years now. Funding should be based on workload need not on the desires of judges to have more pay, nicer digs, and more staff. How rude of me to say such a thing. I’m blacklisted and on the outside for my views which are based purely on respect for the workload data and ethics in court administration. I feel like the Colin Kapernick of court administration being black listed from my field despite having earned a spot in the game based on merit. I believe I am right and will be vindicated. A story like this one gives me hope. Fight On!
Sharon Kramer
October 12, 2017
Funny phrasing: “The branch is blockbuster video and the internet is coming fast”. Changes are coming fast. The CJP’s lawsuit against the State Auditor (purposed to obstruct her ability to see what they’ve really been doing to control outspoken judges and reward team players) is scheduled for oral arguments on Nov 3rd, 10am, SF Superior Court, the Hon. Suzanne Bolanos presiding. Brown just signed AB562 into law. It’s now a misdeameanor with a $5K fine if caught obstructing an audit. http://www.bakersfield.com/columnists/dan-walters-new-law-born-of-uc-scandal-will-punish/article_ab4ae986-aace-11e7-858d-63e845754144.html
sharonkramer
October 18, 2017
More evidence that change is coming fast.
1. CJP has a new director, Gregory Dresser. He takes office on Oct 30th. He’s currently a Deputy Chief Trial Counsel w/the State Bar.
CJP’s press release:
file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/3O2B7UB3/Dresser_DCC_PR_10-12-17.pdf
2. The CJP has commenced formal proceedings against Judge Bruce Mills. Speaking of “team players”, this judge abused his power to help retaliate against one of the leading advocates, Joe Sweeney, who caused the audit of the CJP (for covering up for “team players”).
A.) CJP’s notice of formal investigation:
file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/3O2B7UB3/Mills_NFP_10-13-17.pdf
B.) East Bay Times for the back story:
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/10/17/controversial-contra-costa-judge-charged-with-willful-misconduct-could-face-removal/
sharonkramer
October 18, 2017
Opps. My first two links may not work. Look them up under “announcements” at the CJP website: https://cjp.ca.gov/
Delilah
October 18, 2017
The State Worker
Chronicling civil-service life for California state workers
California judicial employees gain union rights with new law
By Adam Ashton
October 17, 2017 3:57 PM
About 500 state judicial employees who had been banned from collective bargaining can vote to join a union under a new law Gov. Jerry Brown signed last weekend.
The law, by Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, D-Los Angeles, allows administrative employees of the California Judicial Council to join a union. Most of them work in San Francisco for the organization that sets policies for California courts.
The law gives Judicial Council employees the same bargaining rights that are granted to rank-and-file state workers, as well as to employees of California trial courts. Trial courts, such as Sacramento Superior Court, allow collective bargaining through local unions.
State government’s largest union, Service Employees International Union Local 1000, sponsored the bill. The union represents 96,000 workers, including ones in administrative and information technology positions that are common at the Judicial Council.
“Today is a great day for Judicial Council employees,” said SEIU 1000 President Yvonne Walker. “Every day more workers are choosing to come together in a union. They know that together we have the power to negotiate better wages, benefits and retirement security.”
Gov. Brown vetoed a similar bill last year, writing that “the state has no experience collective bargaining with employees from the third branch of government.” He wrote last year’s bill was not “ready to become law.”
The new version of Santiago’s bill spelled out how Judicial Council employees could petition to join a union and detailed a process for the department to work with a union.
A legislative analysis said the law could increase annual expenses for the Judicial Council in the “high hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article179395761.html#storylink=cpy
Delilah
October 23, 2017
Oh brother. The more things stay the same.
_________________________
Judicial Council’s Audit Watchdog Vows Better Eye on Court Spending
October 20, 2017 MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – A new Judicial Council committee that will act as a clearinghouse for all audits concerning California’s judiciary held its first meeting Thursday, where it approved an annual plan to ensure that public money is being spent properly.
The council’s advisory Committee on Audits and Financial Accountability replaces its Committee on Financial Accountability and Efficiency, a holdover from the last year of Chief Justice Ron George’s tenure.
George created the accountability and efficiency committee in 2010, partly in response to growing concern among judges about the scope, size and salaries for the council’s administrative arm, formerly called the Administrative Office of the Courts.
He named incoming Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye as its chair, and its first order of business was to approve a 3.5 percent pay hike for administrators in a closed meeting.
At Thursday’s meeting – which was open to the public – the committee’s new chairman, Presiding Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County, said he hoped the committee will be useful to the state’s courts.
“I’m hoping this committee as it develops its work will be very proactive, not just reactive, but will be in a mode to help courts and staff and the Judicial Council by making good suggestions on things that will be useful for them,” he said. “If we see things in one court that will help other courts we want to make sure we spread the word, not in a bad way, but in a good way. Not in a way of one-upping or criticizing, but providing useful information to the courts.”
While the committee’s agenda included a closed session where it was to consider approving a draft audit of the Placer County Superior Court, Rosenberg decided to make that portion public since there weren’t any sensitive issues to discuss.
“I don’t sense that we have any concerns that would require a closed session,” he said.
The Judicial Council renamed the committee and refocused its priorities in late July.
“Historically, the Judicial Council has not been as diligent as it should be on following up with audit findings,” Judicial Council chief of staff Jody Patel said. “The chief’s thought was we have a budget committee now branch-wide that is going to focus on allocations and everything money related, but we don’t have an entity responsible for the back end of it to make sure that all of the money that is allocated is appropriately utilized.”
State law requires that all trial courts be audited at least once every four years, but the committee also added appellate courts and the state Supreme Court to their list. The committee will also approve the public posting of all judicial branch audit reports.
It will respond to audits by the state controller, state auditor or Department of Finance, three outside agencies that regularly audit court finances and services to make sure they comply with contracting laws.
Audit reports will no longer go to the full Judicial Council, which in the past approved the audits at its business meetings with little or no discussion. But the audit committee can vote to pass the audit reports on to the full council if they anything particularly alarming.
“The hope is there will be more structure and oversight as it relates to fiscal accountability in the branch. That includes every judicial branch entity, including the Judicial Council,” Patel said. “You’re going to hold us accountable.”
And Rosenberg added: “The scope is pretty big but it puts the oversight in one place.”
sharonkramer
October 23, 2017
Concisely tells all re: Ministry of Truthiness, “George created the accountability and efficiency committee in 2010, partly in response to growing concern among judges about the scope, size and salaries for the council’s administrative arm…He named incoming Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye as its chair, and its first order of business was to approve a 3.5 percent pay hike for administrators in a closed meeting.”
Little Mermaid
October 26, 2017
Why have you stopped posting JCW? We’re getting soooo close to stopping Ursula from turning good judges into sea urchins. We could not have gotten here w/o you helping to educate the public of the systemic ethics problems trickling down the helm of the judicial branch.
Maxrebo5
November 1, 2017
It is now November of 2017 and the Judicial Council Staff have not released a court statistics report for CA Courts for the prior year. The last one was out in 2016 and it contains data for FY 2014-2015. The new report should show caseload data for FY 2015-2016 which is now over a year old as we are currently in FY 2017/2018. Normally a new court statistics report is released by the end of October but this year it was not put out by the end of the month.
I suspect the case filing data is bad for them again. It is tough to advocate for more money for CA Courts if the statewide caseload continues to decrease as it has consistently done now since 2009. I’d like to see if that steep decline trend continued for another year. Case filings are down 30% since 2009, juvenile crime in California is way down, so is adult crime which means this should likely be another year of falling court caseloads.
I believe avoiding this topic is why the Chief and the JC Staff are so excited to talk bail reform. They see bail reform as a way to get some additional funding for the CA Courts at a time when the branch should in all fairness be getting significantly cut. Plus the Chief looks progressive at the same time she distracts. It’s a win win story for her which is why that is the news they focus on. They did a news story on bail reform on October 24th and then piled on with made up fake questions the public is apparently frequently asking. To me it is pure spin to get the public and legislature to focus on anything other than the caseload declines. Check it out for yourselves:
https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/frequently-asked-questions-pretrial-detention-reform.
The Chief’s mantra is “More money, More money” and it has been this way since Ron George recommended her as his hand picked successor.
.
Maxrebo5
November 7, 2017
Big progress for fully autonomous self driving cars in the news today:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16615290/waymo-self-driving-safety-driver-chandler-autonomous
I believe CA Courts will lose millions of traffic ticket “cases” coming in the courthouse doors when this technology is widely adopted by the public plus the civil caseload will drop due to the end of personal injury cases from car accidents. This is the courthouse bread and butter. Only in one very small part of Chief’s Future’s Report related to the loss of fines and fee revenue is this issue ever mentioned. It says on page 188 of the Report to the Chief Justice by the Commision of the Future of California’s Court System 2017:
“Advances in technology such as communications improvements that facilitate telecommuting, autonomous vehicles, and public transit projects like high speed rail—may result in fewer violations or fewer cars on the road that will likely hasten the decline.”
The next sentence of the report then talked openly about how the Governor had to prop up the branch this most recent fiscal year. It reads:
“In fact, the Governor’s proposed budget for 2017-2018 contains a $55 million appropriation from the General Fund to backfill a continued decline in revenue from fines and fees.”
So already case filings are way down and the legislature is prop up the branch to spare CA Courts from having to make cuts due to the falling fines and fees coming in. The other branches won’t want to do that (nor should they) forever. The Court Administrators know this filing decline in cases/fees is very real but seek to downplay it with just a small paragragh mentioning it within a 290 page report. Behind the scenes the loss of cases and fines scares the crap out of them. Anything that impacts their money supply is a big deal for the JC Staff. They are so screwed. This is why I ask, where is the latest annual report on case filing data? They have not published it yet. Things that make you go Hmmm.
Haha. Fight On!
Maxrebo5
November 15, 2017
CA Courts have still not posted their workload numbers and it is now November 15th of 2017. The most recent report for 2016 has FY 2014-2015 data in it. Compare that to this link where Utah State Courts already have data for FY 2016-2017 nicely posted on their public web page:
https://www.utcourts.gov/stats/
Our Chief very much wants to hide the onging free fall in cases going on in CA Courts. She doesn’t want anyone to notice how the CA Legislature and Governor are already having to augment funding for the CA Courts to the tune of $55 million a year out of the General Fund due to the drop in fine and fee revenue. This is currently being done because there are far less cases coming in the doors of CA courthouses.
I think the legislature could call for the CA Courts budget to be cut significantly in the coming fiscal year instead of continuing to make up that difference. After all there are far less cases today so it makes total sense to spend less. Why should the people of California keep paying the CA Courts the same amount to do 30% less work? They should not! This is an important story and the press in California or nationally would be wise to follow up as the Chief must be held accountable. She needs to put out that workload report to the public so the Department of Finance and the analysts for the Legislature know the facts. The other branches can see the drop in revenue so the other piece of the puzzle is what about the filing data and the Chief is not being transparent as she should be.
sharonkramer
November 15, 2017
“the Chief is not being transparent as she should be” is a gross understatement.
The numbers confirming decreases in business would help the legislature when putting the pieces together, confirming why the CJP is obstructing the State Auditor from seeing all those confidential complaints they closed without investigation.
Unpunished acts of misconduct have caused more litigation and fees in traffic courts, family courts, criminal courts, civil courts and appellate courts. It’s been a real money makers — and everyone knows it. We’re already seeing some changes from so much dirt coming to light.
https://www.courthousenews.com/california-judicial-watchdog-gets-leg-secret-records/
Wendy Darling
November 15, 2017
455 Golden Gate Avenue and the California Judicial Branch – a house filled with a wide array of dirty little secrets.
Not that anyone is actually going to do anything about that.
Long live the ACJ.
Maxrebo5
November 16, 2017
This is from Martin Hoshino’s AD Report which I found today on the agenda for the upcoming JC meeting:
“Annual Court Statistics Report
The court statistics report for fiscal year 2015–2016 and the 10-year filing trend analysis was
completed and will be published on the California Courts website. There were slightly more than 6.2 million statewide filings in trial courts in fiscal year 2015–2016, representing a nine percent overall reduction in filings….”
So there we have it. Martin confirms just what I was expecting. Case filings are again way down and this time it is 9 percent from just the prior year. In the last fiscal year of data the branch had 6.8 million cases and now it only has 6.2 million. This latest drop is on top of consistent declines in case filings since 2009.
Now look at the JC’s legislative priorities and it is totally out of touch with the workload reality. They want more money for everything and more judges yet their caseload is in total free fall. Shame on the Judicial Council for all being yes men and women to the Chief Justice and always asking for more money. The data is saying cuts are due to the branch yet the JC members push for more money and downplay the truth. It is totally unethical.
Wendy Darling
November 16, 2017
The Judicial Council totally out of touch with reality. Yeah, that sounds about right.
Not that anyone’s actually going to do anything about that.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
November 17, 2017
Hi Kids! Back from a long stay in the mountain retreat. Thought this site was DEAD, but glad to see Maxrebo5 and Wendy are still contributing.
Nothing at the AOC/JC surprises me. The AOC/JC has been successful in infiltrating most the Trial Courts throughout California and replacing local administrators AOC/JC supplicants. I understand that in my former Court there is virtually nothing to do since Moonbeam reduced almost all felonies to misdemeanors so it now takes at least two judges to do the work of what about 75% of one judge did 20 years ago.
For those of us around when Moonbeam was in Stage 1 of his term, none of this is news. Tani simply fell in line to survive and wait out her term for retirement.
Expect a s–t load of Midnight appointment when Jerry leaves, just like the first time. Tani will probably be replaced by someone on the First District who was appointed in 2012 and elevated in 2014 to be Presiding Justice.
My old sources in my home town of Sacto say the betting line is 7-2.
Hope all of you are well. This was a short stop to replenish before Winter. Off to the hinterlands.
General Nat
Maxrebo5
November 28, 2017
The CA Courts are falling behind in updating their fast facts:
https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/facts
They still show the branch has 6.8 million cases when they are now down to 6.2 million according to their own latest report. I think they will continue to downplay their falling workload trend as much as possible so I try to bring attention to the truth the data is showing. Court case filings are down 9% from last year alone. The branch had over 10 million cases back in 2009 but that amount has fallen more than 38% since then down to 6.2 million in their latest report. Nevertheless, the JC says they need more money and more judges in their legislative priorities. The new motto for the JC should be expect less pay more.
Wendy Darling
November 28, 2017
For at least the last 10 years, 455 Golden Gate Avenue has purposefully and intentionally engaged in the “art of misleading” (lying) to the State Legislature in order to get “more money, more money, more money.” It is just one of the many, many, many, things that hasn’t changed one bit in Judicial Branch administration.
But, once again, it’s not like anyone is actually going to do anything about any of that.
Oh, and what ever happened to an audit of the Court Construction and Maintenance Programs? (entire chorus of crickets chirping) Meanwhile, the double invoicing and various forms of other fraud, corruption, embezzlement, and waste/theft of public money continues unabated at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Going back now to napping under the apple tree with Rip Van Winkle. The California Judicial Branch is a lost cause. The last thing anyone is going to find there is justice.
Long live the ACJ.
Maxrebo5
November 30, 2017
Case filings in CA Courts are down 40% in just a few years which already is an amazing story! As big as that workload decline is, it’s still happening before self driving cars impact the 5 milion traffic “cases” the courts are claiming as workload. GM says today they will roll out autonomous cars in mass around the country in 2019. That is very very soon! Here is a link to the article:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-autonomous/gm-plans-large-scale-launch-of-self-driving-cars-in-u-s-cities-in-2019-idUSKBN1DU2H0
It’s not checkmate yet for the Chief and her Judicial Council yes men yet but it won’t be long. They will likely go from 10 million cases in 2009 to maybe 1 million cases (mostly divorces) by 2029. That is a HUGE decline! Literally a 90% drop coming for the CA Courts, They are already 40% of the way there right now jsut as I have been saying here for some time.
Nobody will give the JC any money as the state will have to bail out the judicial branch to pay off the 5 billion in courthouse construction bonds which were supposed to be paid off without taxes by using fees from cases. Without those cases the taxpayer is on the hook to pay the tab. Furthemore, without those cases the 19,000 CA Court employees will need to be dramatically cut. Judgeships will go from 1,800 down to several hundred and all of this is not just doom and gloom speculation on my part but the actual most likely trend based on multiple news stories about where the car technology is going.
How many bookstores are in your local town now? Movie rental stores? Same thing will happen with judgeships and court staff. There just won’t be a need for that many judges without car accidents, traffic tickets, and personal injury cases filling court dockets with cases.
The sooner the CA Courts starts planning for this more realistic future the better. I advise staff to unionize and get a voice on the JC and fast! Trial court judges need to speak to their PJ’s and get vocal now. Court administrators have to stop being yes men and come clean on the data trends even I can see from outside the branch.
The current strategy of the Chief’s is like living in a cliffside mansion on the CA coastline and thinking it will be this way forever. The inconvenient truth is climate change is real, storms will be stronger, and sea level rise will make errosion worse. Denying climate change is happening, maintaining the cliffside is stable, and thinking everything will be the same is the Chief’s current practice. It is going to be exposed as a foolish and even worse as a fraud. She keeps asking for ever more money and judgeships without the underlying cases to support her demands. She needs to stop her calls for more funding. This was her exact response to the 2017-2018 budget:
“I am pleased with the provision for funding legal aid organizations and those attorneys representing foster children, but I remain disappointed that our underfunded court system did not receive more help. Chronic underfunding of the courts unfairly affects members of the public seeking their day in court. Trial courts receive a little more than a penny for every general fund tax dollar, and in the past the judicial branch has had funds swept to support the state budget during times of crisis. Now the courts have an ongoing funding crisis, new laws are added annually, there are more complex cases, but there is no stable funding solution for the judicial branch and the people we all serve.”‘
What ongoing funding crisis? She complained while getting more money to do less work. It is shameful leadership and a total fraud. Time will expose her weakness just as that cliffside mansion may not be there in a few years.
Sharon Kramer
December 2, 2017
Oh man, you guys gotta read about this major f**k up. If I was going to blog about it, I would title the blog “Santa Clara courts break bones to prove man’s claim they abuse power like Harvey Weinstein.”
Here’s the gist of the court’s harassing stupidity and how it’s backfired on them:
So, there’s this guy who claims a judge in Santa Clara has been fixing his case and retaliating to CYA — and that no one will do anything to stop the abuse. So he got a bullhorn and stood outside the Santa Clara courthouse for a month shouting about how the courts abuse their power like Weinstein.
On Nov 14th, he was in the records department taking pictures of his case file with his cell phone. A couple of deputy sheriffs came in and told him to stop. He did, after some protesting banter.
An independent reporter, who writes of CA court corruption and who is helping the man shed light on the court’s abuse of him, became concerned that the deputies were going to rough him up. So she pulled out her cell phone and started filming the heated exchange.
The deputies turned to her and told her to stop filming. When she refused, they grabbed her cell phone and broke her finger in the process — lending credibility to the man’s claim that the courts abuse power like Harvey Weinstein (maybe even worse by using deputy sheriffs who break bones of people who try to report it.) Doh!
It strongly appears to be retaliation by deployment of bone-breaking thugs b/c there were other people taking pictures of their files on the same day, and no one said a word about it. Double-Doh!
Now, several news outlets (Bay area NBC, Mercury News, San Jose Inside and a few others) are reporting about basically — Santa Clara courts trying to prove who can be the biggest power-abusers when retaliating to CYA their prior abuses — sex-pervert Weinstein or justice-pervert courts. Shades of Bill Cosby, the court is still trying to portray they’ve done nothing wrong — even with the bone breaking harassment being on video. Triple-Doh!
And now, many reporters from all over are following this story b/c it impacts their ability to use their own electronic devises to lawfully and timely take pictures of public records in court houses w/o getting their writing hands broken while trying to report a story. Quadruple Doh!
Here’s some key quotes from San Jose Inside’s article. It links to Mercury News’.
From 12/1/17 San Jose Inside:
“But beyond that, could the local court system have an interest in denying the public easy access to information? Let’s take a walk…..
David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a group that has worked with San Jose Inside on several recent legal disputes, tells Kaplan [of Mercury News] that there is ‘no principled justification’ for the no-photo rule beyond throwing up a ‘barrier to pubic access.’
But when Kaplan pressed the court on this thought, ‘Court officials in Santa Clara County defended the policy, saying it eliminates the risk of people with cell phone cameras harassing other courthouse visitors by taking their pictures.’
This is such a non-sensical argument one would expect it to come from court spokesman Joe Macaluso—except Macaluso got canned in the spring for being bad at his job.
Benjamin Rada, the court’s current media relations rep, admitted in a call Friday that people aren’t playing paparazzi on one another in the Hall of Justice. ‘No, it’s not a thing that happens all the time,’ he said. While there is a rule forbidding cell phone photos in the courthouse, not once have I seen people spying on one another as they wait in line for sedated court clerks to amble between files.
Speaking of lagging, Rada noted that the court generally takes about a week to grant a waiver to those who can’t afford fees, which could be the difference between winning and losing a case. The court spokesman suggested a person in dire need of a waiver could file an ex-parte motion. Of course, that would usually require an attorney, who, of course, would need to be paid by someone who is admittedly broke…
A more complex question is why does Santa Clara County’s court system continue to make its legacy one of opaqueness and obstructionism, where the court’s interests are prioritized over the public’s?
Recent examples include Judge Ron del Pozzo failing to disclose his conflicts of interest in a highly publicized corruption case, court officials ignoring the fact that an interpreter shortage resulted in people having their rights deprived, and the entire judicial community rallying around Aaron Persky as the Stanford rape case judge is on his way to being recalled.
Kaplan notes in her report that greater enforcement [including breaking bones] of the no-photo policy only came after an outspoken critic of a judge was seen taking photos of court files. We’d ask presiding judge Patricia M. Lucas if increased enforcement stemmed from a personal dispute, but her honor has never once granted San Jose Inside’s interview requests. Rada told San Jose Inside on Friday that the court has no plans to revise its policy on photographing court files.”
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2017/12/01/santa-clara-county-courts-game-the-system-with-no-photo-policy/
Here’s part of the video of the Santa Clara courts lending credibility to the man’s claim that they are perverts (of justice) who retaliate against those who tell of it.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Woman-Claims-Santa-Clara-Deputy-Broke-her-Hand-After-Courthouse-Confrontation-458410203.html
Any questions of why the sleeping watchdog, CJP, is fighting so hard to stop the State Auditor from being able to see their confidential complaint files?
On a personal note, you all know I have tracked the problems caused by case-fixing and retaliation to cover it up for a long time b/c I have personal experience with it in civil court. Yet, through all the abuse, my family has remained intact and was never at risk of being ripped to shreds by the case-fixing.
Some of the victims of unpunished court officer & court clerk crimes in family courts are having their children taken from them and their families destroyed. Some in criminal court are being locked up for crimes they did not commit — also destroying their families.
No joke, guys! For some, it’s an unbearable injustice to have their families destroyed by problems in the courts. I am growing concerned that abuses of power and push-backs to stop it, are only going to get more physically confrontational if the CJP gets away with obstructing this audit. We all desperately need this audit to help the courts get back on the right track. I hope I am not saying a year from now “I told you so.”
sharonkramer
December 8, 2017
The Recorder 17/12/07 “Court Staff and Judiciary Mum On Misconduct Claims Against San Jose Appellate Justice”
https://www.law.com/therecorder/sites/therecorder/2017/12/07/court-staff-judiciary-mum-on-misconduct-claims-against-san-jose-appellate-judge/
Questions. How is this a “personal matter” when outside counsel was paid with an undisclosed amount of public funds? Why is newly-retired Victoria Henley still being quoted as the CJP director and in that capacity is officially declining to state if any unaddressed complaints have been filed with the CJP against this justice? Sexual harassment and discrimination are crimes. Why is this “public servant” able to just retire with no criminal charges filed and most likely with full, publicly-funded, pension intact?
Wendy Darling
December 11, 2017
I laughed so hard when the news story broke about Justice Rushing I almost choked. Really? The press only unearthed one California judge involved in sexual misconduct in connection with abuse of their public position? Really? Look a little harder – there’s way more than one.
Sexual misconduct such as by Justice Rushing and many others that has been so much in the news the past few weeks has been, and continues to be, commonplace in Judicial Branch administration and 455 Golden Gate Avenue. And, as always, anyone who tells the truth about this behavior or makes a complaint, is ruthlessly gotten rid of. Queen Feckless knows ALL about it. It’s a Pandora’s Box Queen Feckless and many others in branch administration are desperate to keep locked closed, and is one of the primary reasons branch administration is so fiercely fighting the audit of the CJP. They, and especially Queen Feckless, know what’s going to come flying out of that box if they can’t keep the lid shut.
Not that anyone is actually going to do anything about any of that.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
December 11, 2017
Wendy, you write “I laughed so hard when the news story broke about Justice Rushing I almost choked.” #metoo! While using the Justice Rushing matter to market the false concept that Tani will not tolerate abuse of power in her courts, she and the Judicial Council also just publicly acknowledged that they do have the legal authority to stop judicial abuse power.
Here’s a video from 2014 of people literally crying to them about their lives being destroyed by the unpunished abuses and lack of oversight.
Shall we set up a new website where all the past and future complaints to the JC may be publicly shared?
sharonkramer
December 11, 2017
For some reason, this link did not show above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4dGUXcE4WI
Maxrebo5
December 12, 2017
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-s-chief-justice-I-ve-had-a-few-12422968.php
The Chief should have named names but didn’t.
sharonkramer
December 12, 2017
Bingo. Max! Was waiting for an article such as this to come out. Several of us have been wondering if the leaks to the media re: Justice Rushing, the CJP and JC were so Tani could appear to be part of the #MeToo campaign that fights abuse of power — while portraying herself to be innocently above the fray of what happened.
She misstated fact in this SFGate interview: “She said the complaints ‘are still allegations’ and were not made public because the state’s Commission on Judicial Performance had not taken disciplinary action against Rushing before he resigned.”
Untrue. Somehow the allegations and findings of the CJP were leaked to Mercury News. This is in spite of the fact that they are bound to confidentiality under their Rule 102 that they’ve made up for themselves. (aka the heart of the fight between the CJP and State Auditor).
Mercury News 12/06
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/06/appeals-court-justice-conrad-rushing-resigns-while-facing-sex-harassment-bigotry-allegations/ [Read this link. They spell out what the allegations were]
12/06 Mercury News
“The confidential five-page report commissioned by the state Judicial Council painted a devastating picture of the 80-year-old Sixth District Court of Appeal justice’s conduct over the past decade” HOW DOES MERCURY KNOW WHAT THE JC’S CONFIDENTIAL COMPLAINT says?
Recorder 12/06
The Mercury News reported that after Sacramento law firm Ellis Buehler Makus produced the report for the Judicial Council, the Commission for Judicial Performance, the state’s judicial watchdog, launched its own investigation, which reached similar conclusions. HOW DOES MERCURY KNOW WHAT CONCLUSION THE CJP REACHED?
SFGate 12/12
“She [Tani] said the complaints ‘are still allegations’ and were not made public because the state’s Commission on Judicial Performance had not taken disciplinary action against Rushing before he resigned.”
WHO LEAKED WHAT THE CJP FOUND TO MERCURY NEWS? HOW DID THEY KNOW WHAT THE CJP FOUND — UNLESS RULE 102 WAS VIOLATED BY SOMEONE ON THE CJP WHO SHARED WHAT THEY SAID? HOW DID THE MEDIA GET RUSHINGS RESIGNATION LETTER HE SENT TO THE JC & TANI?
AND WHY IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST ABUSERS OF POWER IN THE CA COURTS NOW ABLE TO USE THIS LEAKED CONFIDENTIAL INFO TO PUBLCILY MARKET THAT SHE IS PART OF THE #METOO CAMPAIGN?
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2017
Quote of the day: ““I’ve had a few ‘me-toos’” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
Mirror, mirror
On the wall
Who is the biggest hypocrite
Of them all?
Oh, you
Queen Feckless
By every measure
Across all the realm
You are, and remain,
By far
The biggest hypocrite
Of them all.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Sharon Kramer
December 13, 2017
Hypocrisy indeed! She made a key misstatement of fact that is quoted in the article:
“She said the complaints ‘are still allegations’ and were not made public because the state’s Commission on Judicial Performance had not taken disciplinary action against Rushing before he resigned.”
Really? If the allegations were not made public, then how was Tani able to use them to publicly announce via SFGate that she is part of the #MeToo movement — that works to stop abuses of power?
Remember when she, Noreen Evans, Lynn Schreck and a few others played that card to stop the Trial Courts Bill of Rights — based solely on the fact that Calderon said Tani is pretty? (which she is — on the outside)
Delilah
December 13, 2017
Completely off topic but possibly of interest to some, no matter where you stand on the bail issue.
__________________________________________________________________
Compton Herald
Ending California’s bail about money, not justice
“If the Judicial Council truly wanted to lower the bail schedules, it could ask the courts to do it tomorrow, at no cost”
December 10, 2017
‘The Judicial Council sought to blame the California bail industry for having some defendants in custody only because they cannot afford bail’
By TOPO PADILLA
President of the Golden State Bail Agents Association
The California Judicial Council’s recent 108-page report recommending the elimination of the California bail industry and adopting a pretrial risk assessment program, is one of the most underhanded and dishonest documents I have witnessed in my 34 years of working with the courts and bail agents.
First, the California Judicial Council refused to hear testimony from California bail agents, the industry they are seeking to eliminate. To check the box, the Judicial Council brought in an out-of-state employee of the surety insurance companies to speak on behalf of California bail agents. That insurance employee lives and works in Colorado, not California. Further, the Judicial Council could not justify denying California’s bail agents their testimony because there is no defense for them intentionally excluding stakeholders’ input.
Next the Judicial Council sought to blame the California bail industry for having some defendants in custody only because they cannot afford bail. The simple fact is that the courts, not bail agents, have the responsibility for imposing their bail cost schedules.
Let us be clear, only the courts have the power to impose and increase or lower bail schedules under California law. The bail industry does not have anything to do with bail cost schedules or determining the financial condition of defendants. In fact, bail agents more often than not finance the cost of bail bond premiums.
In 2014, the California bail industry unsuccessfully sought to lower the bail amounts by sponsoring Assembly Bill 1118 (Hagman). The Judicial Council opposed the bill and now tries to blame the bail industry for current bail cost schedules harming poor defendants.
If the Judicial Council truly wanted to lower the bail schedules, it could ask the courts to do it tomorrow, at no cost. The Judicial Council report, it seems, isn’t about helping the poor or making the justice fairer, it is about the money, and quite frankly their desire to get more money.
The Judicial Council recommends eliminating the California bail industry and imposing a county-by-county risk assessment program that requires Adequate Funding and Resources:
California’s courts and local justice system partners must be fully funded to effectively implement a system of pretrial release and detention decision-making and supervision, including having resources for new judges and court staff, infrastructure for local justice partners, assessment tools, and training. Adequate funding must be available to ensure effective, accurate, and complete systemic data collection and exchange between justice system partners.
Significant initial investment of resources and ongoing funding are essential. If this system relies on anticipated savings to cover new and continuing costs, it is likely to fail before the public gains any benefits. Without adequate and consistent funding, the system cannot be effective, which may result in a rise in the number of accused who fail to appear in court and an increased risk to public safety. [emphasis added]
What the California Judicial Council presented, in essence, was a wish list, lacking many key details. It transfers costs to taxpayers, adding to the state’s already significant burdens imposed on its citizens and businesses.
Nowhere in Judicial Council’s recommendations do they indicate how or with what public purse the state will pay the recommended $2 billion to $3.5 billion pretrial release program’s costs.
As long as it is spending billions in public funds that don’t exist, the Judicial Council may as well add their high-cost, dream-worthy no-bail program to wistful proposals for universal health care, stopping Donald Trump from tweeting and wishing for world peace. Each sounds nice, but fail to identify who will pay for such monumental tasks.
Perhaps most obvious and serious for public safety, the Judicial Council entirely fails to name any responsible parties to capture those defendants who ultimately fail to show up to court. They also ignore how this pretrial program — proposing to ensure that dangerous criminals remain in jail while those with lesser offenses are released on their own recognizance without bond — has failed in nearly every other jurisdiction and state.
While blinded with dollar signs of new money the courts can control and spend, the Judicial Council recommendations are little more than a dangerous social experiment and easily could be one of the worst criminal justice mistakes ever made in California’s history.
http://comptonherald.org/ending-californias-bail-money-not-justice/
Sharon Kramer
December 13, 2017
Not off topic one bit, Delia. It’s more evidence of why the CJP is desperately trying to stop the audit of their confidential files; why the Chief Justice’s reappointment of San Diego CEO Mike Roddy to the JC is such a disgusting display of cronyism and a sham; and so is her using Justice Rushing’s “confidential” matter to tell reporters that she’s part of the #MeToo movement to stop harming people via abuse of power. https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/this-really-happened-in-the-4th1-appellate-court-yesterday/
Delilah
December 19, 2017
The never-ending same old story. The issues never change, but at least having interaction with others here at JCW was somewhat cathartic. I miss those days of old. Oh, well.
Happy Holiday Greetings and Best Wishes to All!
___________________________________________
Courthouse News
Audit Dings California Judicial Council on Contract Fumbles
December 19, 2017 MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – California’s Judicial Council risks overspending on multiple contracts and paying more than necessary for services, the state auditor says in a report released Tuesday.
In her audit, California State Auditor Elaine Howle says the council’s staff generally complied with the judicial contracting manual, but some discrepancies show that the rulemaking body for California’s courts may not be getting the best value out of its spending.
“We reviewed 60 procurements from fiscal years 2015–16 and 2016–17 and identified five instances where the Judicial Council did not follow policies outlined in the judicial contracting manual,” Howle wrote in her introductory letter. “We also reviewed 60 payments for fiscal years 2015–16 and 2016–17 and found three that did not comply with the judicial contracting manual. The Judicial Council processed two payments without proof it had received the goods or services, and one for services rendered prior to the creation of a corresponding purchase order.”
She added, “When the Judicial Council does not follow established policies, it risks that it will not receive the best value for the goods and services it purchases. Finally, the Judicial Council risks making inappropriate payments because its guidance to staff for reviewing invoices does not adequately describe the process they should follow to review invoices prior to payment.”
For example, Howle said, staff ignored judicial branch policy when it signed off on two of four purchase orders without getting permission from management. In another case, a supervisor who was only authorized at the time to approve purchases up to $50,000 signed a purchase order for $345,000 for “networking equipment.”
“According to the procurement manager, the supervisor’s position should have had a higher approval limit, and the Judicial Council later changed its policies to give that position the authority to sign purchase orders up to $500,000,” Howle said.
The council also didn’t adequately account for why it spent $8,000 on office supplies that it could have bought for less, according to the audit, highlighting Howle’s concern about sole-source procurements.
“When the Judicial Council neglects the competitive process, it risks not receiving the best value for its procurements and paying more than necessary for goods and services,” Howle wrote.
Her audit also uncovered a similar problem with a parking contract.
“The procurement manager stated that although the two parking garages are different vendors, they are both sole‑source because they are the two least expensive out of the three options nearby that meet the Judicial Council’s needs,” she wrote. “However, whether a sole‑source procurement is appropriate should not depend on assumptions about prices but rather on whether only one vendor is able to provide the services.”
Finally, the council could have saved money if it had a more detailed definition of contract splitting in its contracting manual, the auditor found.
In its review of the council’s contracts and purchase orders of less than $5,000 from July 2015 through June 2016, Howle’s office found the council awarded a single vendor more than 20 contracts totaling roughly $50,000 for captioning services at its business meetings.
“All but two of the contracts were exempt from competitive bidding because they were each less than $5,000. For the two contracts that each totaled more than $5,000, the Judicial Council noted in noncompetitive bid justifications that the vendor’s prices were reasonable, based on price comparisons from prior quotes. However, by itself, this explanation does not identify why the procurement could not be competitive,” Howle wrote.
Howle said the council could have saved $10,000 had it combined the services into one contract from the beginning instead of dividing it into 20, noting the council finally did obtain a master services agreement with the vendor in July 2017 with an hourly rate that was lower than what it had paid in the 20 contracts.
Howle recommended the council train its staff to better comply with the contracting manual to make sure payments are issued with proper authorization, properly document its justification for non-competitive purchases, and not rule out potential vendors based on price assumptions.
In his response, the council’s administrative director Martin Hoshino wrote the council’s staff agrees with that recommendation and will enforce its policies with additional training. He added the “limited errors identified by the auditors represent rare instances when policies were not strictly followed and is otherwise indicative of a generally strong and well-functioning procurement process.”
Hoshino said he agrees in principle with the auditor’s recommendation on getting the best value on contracts, but disagreed with Howle’s findings in the case of a vendor excluded from the bidding process on a software contract because the council’s staff thought his prices too expensive.
He said the staff’s program manager saw that the vendor had changed its service model to a cloud-based system that would require a yearly subscription fee, and additional user fees.
“The program manager wanted to continue with a non-cloud based solution (and one-time purchase of hardware/software),” Hoshino said, noting all of the other vendors provided these types of products.
Howle also recommended that the council update its contracting manual to better define contract-splitting and sole-source procurements, which Hoshino said will have to be approved by the Judicial Council.
https://www.courthousenews.com/audit-dings-california-judicial-council-on-contract-fumbles/
Sharon Kramer
January 7, 2018
Gee. Maybe someone should have stood up for Judge Kreep when he was boycotted and systematically retaliated against for making autonomous decisions to release non-violent, accused-offenders w/o bail, eh?
https://www.dailyrepublic.com/opinion/state-national-columnists/calmatters-commentary-long-running-judicial-feud-has-a-new-battleground/
“Late last year, the rebel Alliance hailed a report by the state auditor, Elaine Howle, that mildly criticized the Judicial Council’s purchasing processes.
“This is yet another blow to the branch occurring right before state budgeting action,” the Alliance said. “The Judicial Council/AOC is the same entity that brought shame on the judicial branch for wasting over a half billion dollars on a failed IT project.”
The most likely battleground in 2018 is pending legislation that would overhaul the bail system for criminal defendants, reducing the power of judges to set cash bail and relying, instead, on newly created “pre-trial services” agencies in local court systems to determine whether defendants can be released without bail.
The measure, Senate Bill 10, has passed the Senate but was stalled in the Assembly, in part due to strong opposition from judges, as well as from law enforcement groups and private bail bond agents.
The Judicial Council is also opposed because it reduces judges’ role in pre-trial release. And while the Alliance is opposed, it is critical of giving “a vast amount” of oversight responsibility for a revised system to the Judicial Council and the AOC even though they “failed . . . to build a statewide case management system, wasting over a half a billion dollars (and) lavished hundreds of millions of dollars on opulent new courthouses while the older buildings rot and crumble.”
Maxrebo5
January 11, 2018
The Chief is happy:
https://www.courthousenews.com/california-courts-see-substantial-funding-boost-in-2018-budget/
I very much support CA Courts and want them to be well funded but I also believe funding increases should be based on workload need (case filings going up). Case filings are down 9% since last year from 6.8 million down to 6.2 million cases. Filings have fallen 38% statewide since 2009 yet funding to the branch has been going up for several years in a row now.
It is wrong for the branch seek and get more money to process less work just as it would be wrong for a school district to seek more money when there are fewer kids living in the district to teach. The Chief’s sales pitch wins again as apparently money is not an issue for the other branches at this time given the stock market boom. The grey goose will be flowing in SF as the “more money always” matra wins again over ethics, the “Courtools” logic of court administration, and basic common sense. Then again it is just the proposed budget and lots can happen between now and the May revise. Fight on!
Wendy Darling
January 16, 2018
Quote of the day: “Your silence and your amnesia is complicity.” Senator Cory Booker
Here’s looking at you 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Sharon Kramer
February 2, 2018
2/1/18 City Watch “Tyrants of the Bench. If the Public Only Knew” http://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/los-angeles-for-rss/14820-tyrants-on-the-bench-if-the-public-only-knew
Maxrebo5
February 2, 2018
Nice article by Courthouse News on their ongoing struggle with the CA Judicial Council to get courts to provide same day access for the press on case filings:
https://www.courthousenews.com/chicago-clerk-appeals-first-amendment-ruling-on-press-access/
I hope Courthouse News wins (again). Fight on!
Maxrebo5
February 7, 2018
Another great article in Courthouse News today:
https://www.courthousenews.com/san-francisco-moves-to-end-nickel-and-diming-of-criminal-defendants/
The City of SF is on the right track with their fee reforms. The CA Courts went down a horrible path of adding fees onto traffic cases to pay for new courthouses. Those fees make it so the judge on a traffic case has a vested interest in the defendent being found guilty so the fee is assessed so the bonds that pay for the new courthouse can be paid off. Such a funding method should never have been approved by the Judicial Council but new buildings and the Chief being able to say at dedications that this new courthouse is paid for without raising taxes was how they chose to sell it. It was an unethical policy and I am proud to have spoken out about it for years now.
Maxrebo5
February 9, 2018
I have been asking the JC Staff to update their “Fast Facts” page for several months now and they finally did it!
https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/facts
I just wanted them to update their case filing “fact” from the 6.8 million they showed from FY 2014/2015 down to 6.2 million for FY 2015/2016 as they should given that lower figure is the latest statewide number available at this time. My point was they shoudl keep their “facts” current if they want it to be honest and accurate. Instead of showing the lower number I asked them to show they just removed the case filing fact/line entirely from the “Fast Facts” page. They are horrible! Kinda funny though the lengths that they will go to in order to keep the case filing decline hidden.
Delilah
February 14, 2018
Budget Cuts to Courts Now Affecting Criminal Cases; Creating Backlogs Similar to Civil Case Calendars
By Stephen Stock, Rachel Witte and Michael Horn
Published at 10:51 PM PST on Feb 12, 2018 | Updated at 7:37 PM PST on Feb 13, 2018
An NBC Bay Area analysis of state court disposition data shows thousands of felony criminal cases have delayed for years, and sometimes even decades, in jurisdictions around California.
The analysis shows Santa Clara County Superior Court and San Francisco County Superior Court have some of the largest criminal court backlogs and the lowest percentage of felony cases resolved within a year in the state.
The same data, sent by county Superior Court administrators to California’s Judicial Council, shows in both 2015 and 2016, Santa Clara County ranked last in the state in the percentage of cases disposed of within 12 months.
A memo released in late 2017 by the Santa Clara County Superior Court disputes that data, claiming the numbers were flawed and inaccurate.
The memo came in response to a civil grand jury report that cited the Judicial Council data and blamed the low resolution rate on “a culture of complacency that tolerates delay.”
The civil grand jury report, which was released in June 2017, looked at the Judicial Council’s 2015 report and showed nearly all of cases resolved that year— 47 percent — were settled without a trial, meaning there was a guilty or no contest plea or the charges were dropped. The data released by the Judicial Council a year later showed the processing time for criminal cases actually fell to 45 percent
The Santa Clara County Superior Court memo says the felony resolution rate is actually closer to 85 percent for that same time frame.
The memo attributes the discrepancy to a miscalculation. It says the report relied on data that only includes “held to answer” cases or those cases where a defendant is kept in custody to answer charges. The court memo says the 85 percent figure includes all of the remaining felony cases in the county.
The memo shows the disposition rate for 2016-2017 dropped to 80 percent.
The adjusted rate still falls below the state average, which in both years, according to the state Judicial Council, is 88 percent. No matter how you calculate the Santa Clara County Superior Court rate, it still falls below similar processing time rates in other counties like San Mateo County, where the 2016 rate was 89 percent, and Sacramento County, where the rate that year was 98 percent.
Judge David De Alba, who is presiding judge at Sacramento County Superior Court, attributes his county’s high disposition rate to a culture of “cooperativeness” amongst the various justice stakeholders in the county. He also credits the county’s use of home courts.
“Many of the criminal filings both felony and misdemeanor cases are filed in what we call home courts, and they stay in those courts unless they can’t be resolved and then they’re sent to a trial court,” he said.
NBC Bay Area asked to talk to the judge overseeing Santa Clara County’s criminal docket about this issue. The presiding judge for Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Patricia M. Lucas, did sit down to speak about delays in the civil court, saying budget cuts dating back more than a decade were a major causes of delays in civil court.
“It’s not the way we want to run the courts,” Judge Lucas said. “The major backlogs are in family and civil (courts), and there we have wait times for people who have an emergency need for a custody order (or other needs).”
Short staff, short work hours and a lack of funding for administrative and clerical positions have created a crisis according to Lucas.
“I’d say it’s gotten worse (in the last 10 years),” Lucas said. “Because the cumulative effect of years of underfunding is really taking its toll, even in courts that were able to absorb some of (the underfunding) early on. The cumulative effects is really taking hold (now).”
NBC Bay Area also asked to speak to the judge in charge of criminal courts in Santa Clara County. However, court administrators suddenly canceled that interview and said there would be no one available to answer questions about delays specific to criminal court calendars.
The below-average disposition rate in Santa Clara County has a very real impact on the families of crime victims, many of whom wait years for their cases to be resolved, said Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen.
“Victims are outraged. (They) are entitled to be outraged. And their District Attorney is also outraged,” Rosen told NBC Bay Area.
“We have a case from 2007 where two men raped and murdered a woman, and that hasn’t been resolved yet. That’s not just unacceptable. It’s outrageous,” Rosen added.
Rosen pointed to other case examples, including the case against Jae Williams and Randy Thompson, two self-proclaimed Satanists who were accused of murdering their high school classmate, Michael Russell, in 2009. Williams was sentenced to 26 years to life in 2014 and Thompson was found guilty in 2016.
Another example: the case against Christopher Holland, who was convicted in 2015 of raping and murdering a teenager named Cynthia Munoz. The crime occurred in 1983, but it went unsolved until 2007 when DNA testing matched Holland to DNA left on the victim’s body. Holland wasn’t convicted until 2015.
While high profile crimes like these can often take a long time to wind through the courts, Rosen said he believes these specific instances involved proceedings that were delayed and prolonged unnecessarily.
Along with a “culture of complacency,” the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report placed blame on prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges who allow the delays to happen. The grand jury cited Rosen’s office in particular, saying one reason for these delays was “the District Attorney’s approach to charging.”
Rosen says he and his office are already working to fix some of the issues enumerated in the grand jury’s report.
“It’s true that the courts are underfunded. They are, and they need more funding,” Rosen said. “But it’s also true that everybody in government, my office included, has to be more efficient with the taxpayer dollars that we receive.”
Santa Clara County Public Defender Molly O’Neill took issue with the data and methodology used in the grand jury’s report, saying Santa Clara County was closer to average than the grand jury acknowledged. Even so, she admitted more could be done to become more efficient and reduce delays. She says her Public Defender’s office is already on it.
“There’s always room for improvement, and we are looking at ways to do that because at the end of the day even though faster isn’t better … it is not a good thing to have multiple delays and continuances,” O’Neill said. “So we’re looking at it.”
The court calendar backlog problem dates back to 2008, when the economic downturn led to deep budget cuts to California’s courts. The lack of funding forced courts across the Bay Area to reduce office hours, wean staffing, and close entire courtrooms. But for years, those delays affected civil courts almost exclusively; it did not affect criminal court calendars, since the right to a speedy trial after a citizen is charged with a crime has always been a hallmark under both the federal and state Constitutions. Because of that constitutional principle, criminal court has always received priority during tight budget times.
Other counties besides Santa Clara County are feeling the impact too. In Contra Costa County, the felony disposition rate for 12 months or less is 74 percent, according to the Judicial Council of California’s latest 2016 report. In San Francisco, the rate is 68 percent.
“There is a tremendous problem” said San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon.
Gascon says there simply are not enough judges, staff members and courtrooms to handle the caseload in San Francisco.
“We’re often being pushed to settle a case in order to clear the docket to make room,” Gascon said. “So, that means that you may have cases that maybe have less import or are not the big homicide or sexual assault, but nevertheless there is a legitimate victim there.”
San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi agrees that there is a “crisis in the courts” due to lack of funding, but he says the court has a responsibility to more responsibly use its limited resources.
“We don’t have as many judges, and we have heavier dockets,” Adachi said. “And what we say to that is, well, then you can’t prosecute as many cases.”
“And there needs to be a balance between wanting to efficiently handle cases and ensuring that the parties are doing what they need to do in a given case,” he added.
Wherever the blame falls, district attorneys paint a troubling picture of prosecutors routinely facing their own version of Sophie’s Choice, which cases live and which cases die.
“Surely the victim should have a right to have their case be attended to the fullest extent possible,” said Gascon. “And (right now) they’re not (being given that attention) to the case. They (the lesser felony cases) are often being sold very cheaply for judicial economy. And this is something that drives us crazy.”
Because of this, he says his office has to prioritize.
“Am I going to spend a week trying a little residential burglary or a theft or fraud? Or am I going to clear the docket on this thing so that I can try the murder case or rape or a robbery or any armed robbery?” Gascon said. “That is a daily exercise for us.”
Even Lucas agreed that the backlog across the board in courts are delaying and thus denying justice.
“I think a delay of that nature (years) is a denial of justice,” Lucas said
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Budget-Cuts-to-Courts-Now-Affecting-Criminal-Cases-Creating-Backlogs-Similar-to-Civil-Case-Calendars-473857843.html
Sharon Kramer
March 8, 2018
Hey Judges,
Please don’t abuse your office to support your fellow sitting judges in upcoming elections. Hot of the press from San Francisco ABC News.
http://abc7news.com/politics/ethics-violation-complaint-filed-against-two-sf-judges/3187047/
Sharon Kramer
March 14, 2018
Presiding Justice of California’s First District, Justice Kline, appears to live in a fantasyland.
“But because California courts, the most respected state judiciary in the nation, have not been corrupted by money and politics, at least not yet, many are unaware of the danger.”
The Recorder: https://www.law.com/therecorder/2018/03/14/letter-to-the-editor-the-politicization-of-the-san-francisco-superior-court/?kw=Letter%20to%20the%20Editor:%20The%20Politicization%20of%20the%20San%20Francisco%20Superior%20Court&et=editorial&bu=The%20Recorder&cn=20180314&src=EMC-Email&pt=Afternoon%20Update
Sharon Kramer
March 15, 2018
I found out today that the CJP is not opposing the State Auditor’s Application that the Supreme Court hear the appeal of CJP v. State Auditor.
Looks like Chief Justice Tani is going to have to publicly make the decision: Does she A: protect the legislature’s need to understand what the CJP does behind closed doors in order to assure they are doing an effective job with the use of tax dollars in the future?
Or B: protect the privacy of ethics, incompetence, and criminal complaints against judges?
I vote for Option A!!! And I bet there are several Ca judges who have been retaliated against behind closed doors for trying to administer justice via not being team players — who feel the same.
From the Supreme Court website, Case No. S247337
03/01/2018 Application to transfer to Supreme Court Defendant and Appellant: Elaine M. Howle Attorney: Myron Moskovitz Defendant and Appellant: California State Auditor’s Office Attorney: Myron Moskovitz
03/09/2018 Answer to application to transfer filed Commission on Judicial Performance, Plaintiff and Respondent Michael Von Loewenfeldt, Retained counsel [No opposition, other than some quibbling over stated facts, I am told]
Maxrebo5
March 16, 2018
Nice article by Courthouse News:
https://www.courthousenews.com/california-judge-warns-against-rise-of-partisanship-in-judicial-elections/
I’m not for partisan selection of judges in general but I am all for some turnover of judges if only to create some accountability and dissenting viewpoints within CA Courts. I once had to administer a customer service survey to the public that was designed by the National Center for State Courts. The survey asked all sorts of basic questions for the public to comment on their experience at the courthouse. The problem was the judges in my old court (Sacramento Superior Court) refused to let me leave in any survey questions where the public got to comment on the performance of the judges themselves.
The survey questions about staff were fine but the ones about the judges had to be removed before I could conduct the study. There I was trying to help the judges learn how the public perceived them but the reality is they didn’t care or even want their administrators to have such data. It wasn’t even my survey being used but rather a template regularly used all over the country designed by the National Center. The judges in my own court came off like arrogant asses who didn’t give a crap what the public thought of their experience in the courthouse nor did my judges respect what I was trying to do on their behalf either as their court analyst.
That closed minded attitude and defense of the status quo dominates the culture of CA Courts to this day. The judges like their jobs as they are and have no desire to change unless real pressure placed upen them to do so. Given that horrible culture exists, I say bring on some pressure against incumbant judges this fall because otherwise the judges on the bench have no incentive to listen to the voices of dissent (often voices of reason) from within or outside the branch. The judges act like the NRA where calls for modest reforms are considered a total assault. The problem with the judges and the NRA is their defiant attitude because many reforms are in fact desperately needed and those calling for them are often their friends. The reason why I have to post here on JCW is because dissenting voices are not allowed in CA Courts and for sure not on the Judicial Council.
Can a Court Exec openly say the branch is currently overfunded or that case filings have been falling dramatically since 2009? No way. That would not be considered speaking with one voice. However, those two facts are the truth from the Judicial Council’s own data. The branch practically hides their workload numbers at this point. Why is this? Because they like more money coming in every year and don’t want to face cuts that the data shows is fair for the branch to face. Without pressure from the public or the other branches to demand some accountability they get away with it year after year. The public literally pays more to get less. I bet you all the tea in China that the Chief will ask for more money in her State of the Judiciary address next week. Fight On!
Sharon Kramer
March 17, 2018
“Judge Stuart Rice, president of the California Judges Association, issued a letter Thursday decrying the politically charged tenor of the June election and urging his colleagues to support the incumbent judges”
What a joke. The California judges always support incumbent judges, no matter how bad they are, because if they can scare off challengers to sitting judges then their appointments the bench become lifetime appointments — no matter how bad they are.
Here’s an oldie but a goodie. Carla Keehn ran against sitting Judge Lisa Schall in San Diego. Schall has one of the worst ethics records in the entire state. But she was endorsed by the ACJ, CJA, and all the sitting judges in San Diego county.
Someone ordered Keehn’s campaign billboards taken down, and to this very day no one will tell who did it. Schall won 58% of the votes.
10 News Report:
Sharon Kramer
March 17, 2018
10 News Report (for some reason the link didn’t show in the post)
Maxrebo5
March 20, 2018
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/state/california/article205939814.html
There is no “onslaught of cases waiting to be filed” due to wild fires. That line is pure speculation on the Chief’s part and such a statement is not worthy of mention by a sitting Chief Justice in a State of the Judiciary address. The real FACTS are case filings to CA Courts are dramatically (39%) down since 2009 and the official workload data trends from the Judicial Council staff only show filings continue to fall year after year. Policy making for budgets is based on FACTS not speculation by the Chief about cases that maybe filed in future years! That line about an “onslaught of cases waiting to be filed” is shameful in such a setting.
The Chief used the fires in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, which we all know about due to news coverage, as a red herring so she did not have to report on the actual workload of CA Courts to the Legislature and the public. I also point out that the CA Courts web page no longer shows the branch filings in the FASTFACTS at all as they once did. The reality is the branch is getting far more money today to process nealry four million fewer cases than it did in 2009 and they would prefer nobody notices this trend. The Chief did not want to talk about such an incomvenient truth so she acted like the oil companies and Trump admin does on CO2 emissions imacting the climate. She simply pretended it is not happening and changed the subject with her distraction as fast as possible. Her line there was an act of pure political theatre most people would not catch on to or call her out over.
This action on the Chief’s part reminds me of a scene from Lord of the Rings. The wizard Gandalf gets mad at the Steward of Gondor (Lord Denathor) who is supposed to be in charge of the defense of the city of Minas Tirith until the rightful king someday returns to the throne. In reality Lord Denathor has done very little to prepare for a war and the city has fallen into disrepair. Denathor is stubbornly proud and insecure so he will never admit to any mistakes having been made or even that he failed to act. Denathor also wants to remain in charge of the city forever and not yield power to Aaragon (the rightful heir and king of Gondor) who Gandalf wants to return to the throne.
Lord Denathor tries to contol a visit from Gandalf to Gondor by talking about the tragic death of his son Boromir who recently died. Gandalf endures Denathor’s tactic for a time but does not fall for it. Instead, Gandalf says, “There will be a time to grieve for Boromir but this is not that hour. The enemy is at your doorstep. As steward you are charged with the defense of this city. Where are Gondor’s armies?” Gandalf sticks to the FACTS that really matter and won’t let Denathor use his grief to change the subject.
As Gandalf leaves he says under this breath to the hobbit Pippen, “He would even use his grief as a shield.” This act of distraction is just what the Chief just did in her speech to avoid talking about the true workload of CA Courts. She used a natural disaster in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties as a shield to deflect attention from the falling case filings in the branch. She did so very calculating so she and the branch look like victims when that is not true. It’s the same tactic Denathor took by using his son’s death and his mourning/loss to mask his failure prepare for a coming war and try to distract Gandalf. In the story it does not work on Gandalf. In real life this distraction seems to be working wonderfully for the Chief as nobody in the press is wise enough to understand her game.
Not one newspaper has called the Chief out on her tactic or noticed her line is simply a rhetorical trick she used to deflect attention from the filing data truths. The data which shows the branch is getting paid many many more millions per year to do far less work is the real truth. Her real situation, like Denathor’s, is shameful so she hides from it. Both are too poud to admit to any mistakes and are not above using deception if it will help them maintain their power.
In the Lord of the Rings, Denathor is in time exposed as a disgrace to his charge, goes insane, and loses his position by trying too hard to hold onto it. I think the Chief will be exposed in due time as well but it would be nice if some newspapers could see through her deception on case filings now and call her out on it. There are many things I agree with the Chief on politically but when she deceives about the workload of the branch she is not talking about the law (her area of expertise) but rather court administration (which is my area of expertise).
Judges may get the last word on making policy on the Judicial Council but they are not the true experts on the data. They really should defer to their court execs on such topics and not only have yes men telling them what they want to hear. They need to come clean on the drop in cases, take cuts as needed, and stop hiding behind the Chief’s robe as they have for several years in a row now. The JC “leaders” have learned how to work the other branches and get the courts more money year after year. I find the entire Judicial Council to be unethical for hiding the truth about case filings with such deception. This tactic by the Chief is not an accident but rather pure political calculation to get results. She has gotten away with it for several years in a row but someday it will be fully exposed. Fight on!
.
Wendy Darling
March 20, 2018
Published today, Tuesday, March 20, from The Recorder, by Cheryl Miller; the full article can be accessed if you have an on-line subscription to The Recorder.
Cantil-Sakauye Ties Court Funding to California’s Battles with Trump
“On the national front we have unprecedented disruption, attacks on the free press, threats to the rule of civility and the rule of law and judicial independence,” the chief justice said Monday.
Queen Feckless will do anything for money. I believe there is a word for that.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Sharon Kramer
March 21, 2018
If the Chief Justice had left off the words “On the national front” and replaced them with “In the California judicial branch’ we have unprecedented disruption, attacks on the free press, threats to the rule of civility and the rule of law and judicial independence” it would have been an accurate statement.
Another life was taken last week by the continuing lies of California’s Chief Justice.
“On Friday March 16, 2018, Colbern Cox Stuart III, passed away unexpectedly in his home in San Diego. He is survived by his son, Croix, father Colbern, step-mother Carol, step-father Mark Goldberg, his loving cat Muffin, aunts and cousins in Arkansas, and a world of friends and colleagues that loved and adored him. We lost an amazing, kind soul, a son, a father, an extraordinary guitar player and lover of music, a friend in life, a champion fighting for the rights of children and families that had fallen victim to the well known injustices of the U.S. divorce/family courts, of which his family was one. It is there that this very personal fight began [in the dirty San Diego County Superior Courts]. To his friends and colleagues, please continue to soldier on and fight this fight on his behalf until the battle is won. To his family and friends, lots of love and deepest condolences as we mourn this painful loss together. At his family’s request, his body is to be cremated and his remains sent home to Arkansas, to be interred with his Mother and Grandfather. It is with a heavy heart that we try to say goodbye to Cole. Gone but not forgotten. We will carry you within our hearts… until we meet again… Rest in Peace.”
Maxrebo5
April 27, 2018
This story was nice to read:
https://www.courthousenews.com/ca-state-audit-shows-traffic-fines-wont-sustain-services/
The problem is framed as fines and fees declining which is true but there is another HUGE issue going on and that is the case filing numbers for CA Courts are in free fall. The branch has lost nearly 4 million cases a year statewide from a peak of over 10 million cases in 2009 down to just over 6 million a year in their last report. The trends are all downward in terms of case filings so the totals today are likely even lower.
The Chief has been publicly saying the branch needs a new stable funding method but she also downplays how the branch has far less work (cases) for judges and staff to resolve. The easy solution I see is the branch could shrink in size to save the state money. This would return the CA Courts to the proper workload to staff ratio which is consistent with the logic of the WAFM model.
The Chief and JC act like the branch is always entitled to more money when in reality it is not. If there is more work then yes the branch does indeed deserve more funding but if the work goes down (4 million fewer cases per year) then the Judicial Council should be honest about the data and let the branch shrink. This isn’t happening anymore and that is the real problem. The JC membes are selected to act for the interest of the branch over the public’s interest and as bad as this is the other branches are no longer checking them.
In her 2018 State of the Judiciary address the Chief acted like there was a wave of new cases coming to CA Courts due to recent wildfires and that rhetorical tactic on her part was pretty deceptive. She knew full well the statewide case filing numbers have fallen by 40% in recent years but she said nothing about it! Also, the CA Courts no longer show their caseload numbers on their FAST FACTS as they once did. They hide the filing trend decline as best they can and this approach is working quite well for them. The branch is getting more money now to process millions fewer cases a year and I am one of the few people saying the CA public is getting ripped off badly in this deal.
The CA Courts should shrink when filings fall this much to bring the branch back into balance. I am as liberal a person as you’ll ever meet yet I still call for cuts. I say this not to be cruel or to see anyone lose their jobs but to just be fair. I want the branch to follow basic math concepts of court administration. The case filing trends dictate the correct path in terms of funding levels.
In contrast, the JC insiders follow the data trends but they only highlight then when filings are increasing so they can get more money. Then in years when the case filing trends are in decline they play politcs, distract from the truth, and do everything they can to avoid facing any cuts. This is why I am not on their team. I’m too honest. They only let yes men who will forever say “more money” onto leadership. I can’t do it. Fight On!
Sharon Kramer
April 28, 2018
“Santa Clara County Superior Court whistleblowers assert that the recent scandal involving sexual harassment and discrimination against women by Justice Conrad Rushing of the Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose is the proverbial tip of the iceberg within Silicon Valley courts.” https://patch.com/california/campbell/bay-area-court-reform-protests-target-santa-clara-county
Sharon Kramer
May 1, 2018
What the heck is going on with the Santa Clara courts? I heard they arrested someone this morning who was peacefully protesting on the sidewalk out in front of the courthouse. He was protesting abusive judicial misconduct in the family courts.
The below was published on Nov 26, 2017. They sent sheriff deputies to some guy’s grandmother’s house because he told the court bailiff that he was aware that the judge had a bad ethics-track record.
“In this video, sheriff’s deputies track down, harass and intimidate a Santa Clara County resident in retaliation for his in-court criticism of Judge Stuart Scott. This video documents abuse of authority and free speech retaliation by Judge Scott and law enforcement.”
Sharon Kramer
May 1, 2018
For some reason the links to videos do not seem to work. I’m posting again with spaces that need to be deleted to watch. How much farther down the rabbit hatch does the branch intend to travel b/f something is done about the judicial abuses of power and harassment in the California courts?
ht tps :// ww w. you tu be. com / watch?v = weS-rIJ GpsQ & feature = you tu.be
Sharon Kramer
May 2, 2018
Hey court employees, read this Mercury News article. YOU can now be arrested for protesting outside Santa Clara courts. What the heck is going on in this court?
Is Santa Clara Presiding Judge Lucas trying to make Justice Rushing look like a choir boy when it comes to harassment and abuse of judicial power?
“Sheriff releases protester after presiding judge orders his arrest”
By Tracey Kaplan | tkaplan@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: May 1, 2018 at 7:07 pm | UPDATED: May 1, 2018 at 7:58 pm
SAN JOSE — Responding Tuesday to an order from the presiding judge, Santa Clara County sheriff’s deputies reluctantly arrested a man picketing outside a downtown San Jose courthouse for refusing to move across the street.
Scott Largent, who claimed he had a First Amendment right to picket the court on a sidewalk outside the Family Justice Center at First and St. James streets, spent more than five hours in jail in lieu of $6,000 bail after a swarm of bailiffs led him away in handcuffs.
Presiding Judge Patricia Lucas ordered the deputies, who work in the courts as bailiffs, to arrest Largent on the grounds that he violated a general court order issued last year that bars “expressive activity” within 25 feet of the intersection of a court walkway and sidewalk.
Although Largent did not physically fight with the bailiffs, he was initially booked on a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest for verbally protesting when they tried to cuff him, according to a video of the arrest taken by fellow protesters.
But just as fellow protesters were about to pay a bondsman a non-refundable fee of $420 to get Largent out of jail, Sheriff Laurie Smith ordered that he be cited and released on suspicion of violating the court’s general order. The sheriff dropped the resisting arrest charge.
Smith said she has strong reservations about the court order and is asking county attorneys to review it.
“Today, I directed the immediate release of an individual who was detained as a result of a court order from the Superior Court forbidding the peaceful assembly and any protests in front of Superior Court facilities,” Smith said in a written statement. “The right to peacefully assemble and protest is a cornerstone of our democratic society that we value and respect and I will do everything within my power and authority to protect our community’s ability to freely express themselves’ without fear of retribution or repercussion.”
The court’s lawyer, Lisa Herrick, acknowledged in an email to this news organization that “Judge Lucas directed the Sheriff’s Office to enforce the General Order re Expressive Activity after a demonstrator was given notice of and an opportunity to comply with the General Order.”
According to court spokesman Ben Rada, the “person arrested today refused to comply after being given notice that he was violating an order designed to balance the rights of persons wishing to express their views with the rights of persons who seek access to the courthouse.” Rada added that two people trying to get into the courthouse last week were “intimidated and harassed by protesters.”
However, there is no evidence that anyone physically interfered with the two people, believed to be family law attorneys whom the protesters have heavily criticized. And there also was no evidence that Largent was among those who may have berated the lawyers as they were walking by.
Largent is a vocal critic of the local justice system who spent a month recently outside the same courthouse, likening a local judge via bullhorn to disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, an alleged serial sexual harasser.
Other courts in California have approved similar general orders, including Alameda County.
The orders underscore that the courts intend to enforce the prohibitions in a neutral fashion. For instance, Rada confirmed, a politician who recently wanted to hold a press conference outside the Hall of Justice courthouse on Hedding Street was directed 25 feet away.
The order apparently also applies to union activity by court workers. Hundreds of court clerks who went on strike in August 2016 for the first time in 14 years picketed for days outside the Hall of Justice, an activity that now would be barred under the court order approved about four months later.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/01/sheriff-releases-protester-after-judge-orders-his-arrest/
Wendy Darling
May 18, 2018
About time. Not that it’s actually going to change anything at 455 Golden Gate Avenue or the CJP.
Published today, Friday, May 18, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Lawmakers Move to Cut Judicial Commission’s Budget Amid Audit Dispute
The three-senator budget subcommittee, composed of two Democrats and one Republican, did not discuss the proposed cut before voting unanimously to recommend it to the full Senate Budget Committee.
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2018/05/17/lawmakers-move-to-cut-judicial-commissions-budget-amid-audit-dispute
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Sharon Kramer
May 18, 2018
Never doubt the power of the people. As I understand it, this is just the beginning of the chips falling.
Wendy Darling
May 18, 2018
With all due respect, that has been said and heard a thousand times over. And yet, to this very day, no one, absolutely no one, in any position of authority that could actually do something – anything – about the stench of rotting decay emanating from the administration of the California Judicial Branch has done so.
Instead, each and every one, and the respective public office they were associated with, has failed to act, if not running away as fast as they possibly can in the opposite direction, with one hand over their eyes and the other holding their nose against the smell. Cowards one and all.
So with all due respect, I will believe it when I see it. That will probably be around the same time as pigs fly and hell freezes over.
Going back to hanging out with Rip Van Winkle now.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Sharon Kramer
May 18, 2018
Well founded comments, Wendy. But if one thinks they can’t do, then they don’t try. And if they don’t try, then they can’t do. There’s a whole new generation out there fighting to reform the CA judicial branch.
Sharon Kramer
May 19, 2018
FYI, ABC 10 continues its coverage of problems in CA’s family courts. (I have to put spaces in this link or JCW kicks it out)
https ://www. abc10 .com/ article/ news/local/ abc 10- originals/ the-problem -with- family-court /550687204
Sharon Kramer
May 23, 2018
On Monday, May 21st, the Assembly Budget Committee also voted to cut $500K from CJP’s budget, just like the Senate Budget Committee did the week before. CJP v. State Auditor has been approved for priority decision in the 1st/4th Court of Appeals.
Maxrebo5
June 6, 2018
CA voters recalled a Superior Court Judge last night for the first time in 80 years. However you feel about this recall happening it is clearly a significant news story for CA Courts. The BBC covered it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44383329
So did USA Todayt:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/06/judge-aaron-persky-who-gave-brock-turners-lenient-sentence-sanford-rape-case-recalled/674551002/
Now go to the CA Courts newspage and there is nothing on the topic
https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/
My criticism is the CA Courts newspage is basically a pure propaganda page where only positive stories about the branch are shown and it needs to be more balanced and open. It should not be the FOX news version of CA Courts where one goes to get partisan stories to defend the branch. The CA Courts web page is 100% funded with public dollars so it must be a neutral government web page that should show BOTH negative and positive news related to CA Courts.
Wendy Darling
June 6, 2018
For 455 Golden Gate Avenue, silence = denial.
When I marked my ballot for the June primary, I voted against every single sitting/incumbent judge on the ballot, and I intend to do so from now on. I have advised every single person I know or am related to who is a California voter to do the same, and why, and they are doing so as well.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Sharon Kramer
June 6, 2018
The attorney general race should be interesting to watch play out. Dem candidate Becerra is on the hot seat for enabling CJP covered-up judicial crime in legal proceedings. Rep candidate Bailey is a CA retired judge who the CJP has been publicly character assassinating w/o finalizing the finding that admonishment is due.
wearyant
June 24, 2018
The DNC server goes “missing” in Washington D.C. Becerra was one of the Swamp bigwigs in charge of this “missing” server as the Awan brothers scandal comes to light. Suddenly Becerra turns up across the country in California. No surprise the powerful Swamp creatures figured Becerra would be a nice fit here in our now lawless sanctuary state. It makes perfect sense that the crooked media would try to smear anyone who tries to prevent this Swamp politician from continuing California’s downward slide into total anarchy. They’re in perfect lockstep with the left. Those in power appear to prefer this sickening status quo and the hapless citizenry be dam_ed.
Maxrebo5
June 12, 2018
https://www.courthousenews.com/california-lawmakers-set-to-approve-1-3b-in-bonds-for-new-courthouses/
1.3 billion in additional debt to pay for more courthouse construction because the Long Beach Courthouse alone cost over a billion dollars and the branch does not own up to their overspending mistakes of the past. No details are provided in the story on how the public pays for this new debt other than just saying revenue bonds backed by the General Fund. What does that mean in terms of paying those bonds off? Someone has to pay. Who exactly is that?
When a new Kings basketball arena was built in Sacramento for $500 million the public had to pay for a part of the arenas construction cost through higher parking fees on all the city and county parking garages. There is some shared pain in that example because the NBA and Kings pay for much of the construction cost while the public gets a new arena which also helps the downtown to revitalize. In contrast, for a new courhouse bond the ENTIRE bill is paid (100%) by the taxpayer all alone.
The last set of bonds for $5 billion for courthouse construction raised fees on traffic tickets and criminal cases by $40.00 to pay off the courthouse construction bonds. The problem is the traffic caseload is down over 40% since 2009 and should decline further in the future making that revenue stream not very realistic. The public is going to have to make up the difference on the $5 billion in bonds Governor Arnold called for so now the state is doubling down with more debt?
Equally problematic is how can a member of the public get a fair hearing on their traffic ticket or criminal matter if the judge on the case needs to collect that courthouse construction fee so he/she can help pay off the new couthouse he/she is happy to be sitting in. See my point? You can’t have a neutral judge at all as he/she is there to defend the branch funding level. You as a driver are the prey caught between the three branches of goverment who see you as a revenue stream. You serve them not the other way around. It is a house of cards that cannot stand economically and also there is a clear conflict of interest that makes it unethicall. The JC and Sacramento bench may as well just come clean now and say they would prefer to raise taxes to pay for it. That approach would be honest and if the public supported it then that’s fair.
The judges know a regular tax increase would likely not be approved so they’ll do this bond thing on the down low as the public does not understand how bonds are paid off. Nevertheless, this is a HUGE financial mess for the CA public to pay off. Think of San Diego where the Chargers wanted a new stadum and the NFL wanted the public to agree to raise fees on all San Diego hotels in order to pay for the bonds off for a new 1 billion staduim. The public said hell NO and voted it down! The people of SD lost their NFL team rather than be gouged that way or be held hostage by the NFL to pay off more bond debt. Good for San Diego residents.
Where is the outrage by the public on these new courthouse bonds? The public is about to take on 1.3 billion dollars in debt to pay for new courthouses when the judicial branch has lost 40% of it’s workload since 2009. The branch does not need more courtrooms. They need less by their own numbers! This spending in CA Courts is pure insanity to me. They will also want billions more for a new computer system since they mismanaged CCMS. They screw up the the public gets the bill.
Economists are calling for the next recession to be right around the corner. We have been in a recovery since 2009 which is the second longest recovery in US history. History says it is unlikely to last much longer. Given this knowledge, why add more debt when CA already has huge pension liabilities for state workers and debt to pay for expensive public works projects like dams and high speed rail? The bill does come due. These new courthouse bonds are one more debt that will make CA unafordable for the next generation.
Sharon Kramer
June 12, 2018
“Over the last two months, committees for both legislative houses had voted to cut roughly 10 percent of the [Commission on Judicial Performance’s] budget in retaliation for its legal fight with the state auditor over access to judicial disciplinary records. That cut, however, did not materialize in the budget bill published Sunday. No one is saying why.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance, said he did not have details on the resolution. ‘While both [the] Senate and Assembly had the [$500,000] reduction in their respective versions of the budget, the final agreement reflected the [governor’s] May revision—in other words, no cut,’ he said.”
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2018/06/11/judicial-performance-agencys-budget-wont-be-slashed-by-500k-after-all/
Wendy Darling
June 12, 2018
Not surprising. Not even a little bit. It’s one thing to watch institutional fraud, corruption, embezzlement, misappropriation and out-right theft of public funds, taking place in the administration of the California Judicial Branch. It’s another thing entirely to watch the State Legislature continue to fund, and thereby ratify, such behavior.
Remember the SEC report? Whatever happened to that being implemented? (crickets chirping) Or how about Reginald Jones Smith getting “to the bottom of what happened to all that money”? (more crickets chirping) Or an audit of the Court Construction and Maintenance Program? (cacophony of crickets). Noting done about any of it. And instead? The State Legislature gives the green light for yet another wasteful spending spree by 455 Golden Gate Avenue/
And back down the rabbit hole, or more accurately the sewer hole, we go.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Sharon Kramer
June 27, 2018
BINGO!!! “We do not, however, see the massive judicial corruption in civil cases….The public cannot imagine the vast corruptionism that exists in civil litigation.”
http://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/los-angeles/15690-judicial-corruptionism-is-destroying-the-republic
Sharon Kramer
July 25, 2018
TOXIC MOLD: California Department of Health QUIETLY Stops Marketing a Litigation Defense Argument
This Public Service Announcement is another nail in the coffin of the epic insurer fraud scam, based on the junk science of Veritox, Inc., that it’s allegedly proven mycotoxins in water damaged buildings cannot plausibly reach a level to harm anyone.
(If I could just get the San Diego court, Judge Earl Maas III presiding, to stop harassing me with a void judgment that fails to state that I prevailed over Veritox in an August 2008 trial — and the fraudulent entries made into the Register of Action to accommodate the void judgment’s renewal; this epic insurer fraud scam would be completely over!!!!)
https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2018/07/25/toxic-mold-ca-dept-of-health-quietly-stops-marketing-litigation-defense-argument/
Sharon Kramer
July 30, 2018
Interesting article in support of the concept that all complaints made to the CJP should be public. It looks like the audit of the CJP is tentatively set to commence in September.
“Why Complaints Against Judges Should Be Made Public: A Really Long Legal Analysis”
https://www.expartepress.com/latest/2018/7/27/why-complaints-against-judges-should-be-public-a-lengthy-legal-analysis
Sharon Kramer
July 31, 2018
Got a shout out today in the City Watch article “How Corrupt Judges Are Destroying Our Society”
https://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/2016-01-01-13-17-00/los-angeles/15903-how-corrupt-judges-are-destroying-our-society
It says: “A false judgment can take years to correct – if the victim can ever obtain justice. The matter of Sharon Noon Kramer is one example how the courts attack decent people.”
Sharon Kramer
August 1, 2018
You can thumbs down all you want. But what you can’t do is explain why Judge Maas just let a court records clerk backdate a known fraudulent entry into the ROA — to accommodate the renewal of the void judgment which falsely does not state that I was a trial prevailing party.
And did I mention the part about it being Richard Huffman who sneakily left the void judgment in effect in his 2010 appellate opinion and Kelly falsified the remittitur to conceal it?
Or the part about the ongoing case-fixing with a (now renewed) void judgement causing a multi-billion dollar, deadly insurer fraud scam to continue from coast to coast?
I KNOW “how corrupt judges are destroying our society” and they know I know. That’s why they keep retaliating to try to shut me up.
Again, here is Judge Nugent’s guest star appearance in the collusive judicial fraud a few years back when trying to shut me up.
In other words: F**k you and your thumbs down while you hide behind anonymity. Thousands are losing everything they own and some have died from our courts being so incestuously corrupt — just over this ongoing case-fixing alone.
sharonkramer
August 17, 2018
FYI, people in Contra Costa County launched a recall effort of three judges who they claim are serial power-abusers in legal proceedings. #SheToo They’re all women.
https://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/2016-01-01-13-17-00/los-angeles/16021-attack-on-corruption-contra-costa-county-three-judge-recall-launched-by-parents
sharonkramer
August 17, 2018
Also, the audit of the CJP appears that it will be starting early next month. They seem to have negotiated an arrangement whereby the CJP added (r) to their Rule 102 — which opens their files to the auditor. Gov’t Code 8545 was amended by a “gut and replace” of AB1845 to quickly accommodate CJP’s concerns of confidentiality. Go to “legal authority” on the CJP website to read of it.
sharonkramer
August 21, 2018
These are the comments received by the CJP re: proposed change to Rule 102 to enable the audit to go forward.
I was surprised to read which judicial association thinks that even the Auditor should not have access to see the names of which judges have had complaints filed against them.
The period to comment on the comments closes on Aug 27th.
Sharon Kramer
September 2, 2018
A step in the right direction? No more retiring to avoid CJP admonishment — only to return as a (double-dipping) judicial commissioner? See public admonishment of Judge Bruce Mills. https://cjp.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2018/08/Mills_DO_Censure_8-28-18.pdf
Sharon Kramer
September 5, 2018
Things that make you go “hmmmm???”
So the Chair of ACJ’s ethics committee, Julie Conger, was “very upset” that ACJ’s director did not take the title of “Judge” off of his campaign material.
And that same ACJ ethics committee chair, Conger, is opposed to the CJP changing the rules so the Auditor can see the CJP’s confidential complaint files in unredacted form.
And the retired judge who is currently being publicly tried by acts of the CJP, is claiming this is politically motivated.
Comments on CJP’s proposed rule change, Aug 2018 (ACJ’s is about half way down): http://freepdfhosting.com/84c894051b.pdf
Today’s Recorder:
Lawyers for Steven Bailey, the Republican attorney general candidate facing ethics charges tied to his tenure as a judge, told a panel of special masters on Tuesday that the disciplinary proceedings against him are “politically motivated” and inspired by a bitter formal colleague.
James Murphy of Murphy Pearson Bradley & Feeney told the three-judge panel investigating misconduct charges against Bailey that the Commission on Judicial Performance has been “over-zealous” in its pursuit of his client, the former El Dorado County Superior Court judge who retired in 2017. Murphy said the charges stem from a dispute between Bailey and the court’s presiding judge of 18 years, Suzanne Kingsbury, and his decision to run for attorney general.
“When [Bailey] raised the issue of the propriety of having one person serving so long in such an important position, it resonated” with Kingsbury, Murphy said. The complaint to the Commission on Judicial Performance was filed not long after Bailey announced his campaign for attorney general, he said.
Commission trial counsel Mark Lizarraga urged the panel to focus on the 11 disciplinary counts against Bailey, arguing that “it’s not a complicated case because Judge Bailey has essentially admitted to” the facts laid out in the 22-page notice of formal proceedings.
Bailey complains of “an amorphous, vast left-wing conspiracy out to get him,” Lizaragga said. “I’m going to ask you to resoundingly reject that rhetoric.”
The special masters convened proceedings Tuesday at the Third District Court of Appeal courtroom in Sacramento. The case is expected to take more than a week.
Bailey, who finished second to current office-holder Attorney General Xavier Becerra in the June primary, is accused of several ethical missteps during his eight years in office, including placing defendants in a private-sector alcohol monitoring program without disclosing that the company employs his son. The complaint against Bailey also alleges that he made inappropriate remarks about “gays” who “really know how to dress,” and that he appointed a friend as a special master without informing the parties in the case of their relationship. He is also accused of using his judicial title while raising money for an attorney general campaign in violation of ethical canons.
The California Supreme Court appointed Justice Kenneth Yegan of the Second District Court of Appeal, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Louis Hanoian and Imperial County Superior Court Judge William Lehman to serve as special masters in the case. The three jurists will issue a report on their findings to the Commission on Judicial Performance, which will ultimately decide on any punishment for Bailey.
A final decision on discipline is not expected before the November general election. The commission’s reach does not extend to the attorney general’s office, and its punishment options are limited for a judge who has already retired from the bench. The commission could, with the California Supreme Court’s approval, bar Bailey from holding a judicial office again.
On Tuesday, El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Vicki Ashworth and administrative analyst Suzanne Thurman testified that Bailey “shocked” them when, in 2015, he told an open-office gathering that included three other judges and the analyst that he knew his dress shirt and tie combination looked good “because a gay man put it together and gay men are snappy dressers.” [OH! HORRORS! I guess that means Judge Bailey hates all gays!]
Murphy countered by questioning whether Kingsbury had assigned Thurman to “conduct surveillance” on Bailey by asking her to review Bailey’s Facebook page. Thurman said Kingsbury directed her to look at Bailey’s as part of her job tracking judges’ absences from court.
The special masters also heard from retired Alameda County Superior Court Judge Julie Conger, who Bailey asked for ethics advice while considering a campaign for attorney general. Conger said she advised Bailey to remove his judicial title from campaign-related emails to avoid running afoul of any judicial canons. She said she became “very upset” after receiving a Bailey campaign flyer in June 2017 that referred to his position as judge.
Conger said she shot off an email to Bailey, advising him to take a leave of absence from the court and to “immediately resign” his position as director of the Alliance of California Judges. Conger said she never received a response.
Bailey retired from the El Dorado County bench on Aug. 31, 2017. Murphy, his attorney, argued Tuesday that Bailey’s activities before that date were part of an “exploratory” campaign. Judicial canons barring judges from using their title while campaigning for a non-judicial office should not extend to the period before they file candidacy papers, he argued.
“The commission is attempting to stifle political speech,” Murphy said.
Bailey appeared in the courtroom during part of the hearing, sitting stoically behind his counsel’s table.
Witness testimony was scheduled to resume Wednesday morning.
Sharon Kramer
September 18, 2018
CJP Audit is going forward.
The following transaction has occurred in:
Commission on Judicial Performance v. Howle et al.
Case: A153547, 1st District, Division 4
Disposition date (YYYY-MM-DD):
2018-09-18
Disposition description:
Reversed in full
Disposition status as of 2018-09-18:
The joint Application for Stipulated Reversal, filed on September 17, 2018, is granted. We find that the parties’ request to reverse the judgment of the trial court meets the standards set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal. Indeed, precisely the opposite is true. The trial judge ruled the State Auditor could not review documents the Commission on Judicial Performance, (CJP) considered to be confidential. As a result, the audit was not completed and the public currently has less information about how the CJP operates. By contrast, the stipulated reversal will allow the Auditor to perform her work fully and completely. It grants the Auditor access to all of the CJP’s documents in such a way that their confidentiality will be assured. This is important because it will protect whistle blowers and others who file with the CJP based on the understanding that their comments will be kept confidential. In a very real sense, the stipulated reversal promotes the public good. The reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. The parties stipulated to a reversal so the Auditor can review all of the CJP’s documents and conduct a full and fair audit. At the conclusion of this process, the public will have more information, not less. “Public trust” will be enhanced, not eroded by the stipulated reversal. Furthermore, the stipulated reversal was the product of a judicially ordered and supervised settlement conference. As another court stated in similar circumstances, “We fail to see how any erosion of public trust would arise from a judicially approved reversal . . . .” (Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329.) Finally, we see no risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. The parties tried to settle this dispute prior to trial but were unsuccessful. There is little risk that the parties’ prior inability to resolve their dispute but success on appeal as part of a judicially mandated and supervised settlement conference will discourage other parties from trying to settle their disputes prior to trial. The appeal is not moot and we do not resolve it on that basis. Based on the stipulation and the entire record in this matter, the trial court’s judgment is reversed.
For more information on this case, go to:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2243643&doc_no=A153547&request_token=OCIwLSIkXkw2WyAtSCI9WEtIUFQ6UVxfJiIuUz5STDtMCg%3D%3D
For opinions, go to the following web site: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions-slip.htm
Court of Appeal opinions are generally available on the web site by 5 p.m. on the disposition date.
Unpublished opinions are generally available on the web site by 5 p.m. on the disposition date or by 5 p.m. on the court workday following the disposition date.
Do not reply to this e-mail. Messages sent to this e-mail address will not be processed.
Maxrebo5
October 5, 2018
Courthouse News (CN) keeps turning to the Federal Courts to have same day access when cases are filed in CA Courts:
https://www.courthousenews.com/first-amendment-complaint-filed-over-access-policy-in-san-jose-courts/
I admire CN for not giving up and fighting for same day access for the press. Fight On!
Sharon Kramer
October 29, 2018
On Nov 6th, please vote “NO” retention of five San Diego Appellate Justices — Richard Huffman, Joan Irion, Patricia Benke, Cynthia Aaron, and William Dato. Read more and watch the video of their collective transgressions to defraud the public, Here: https://wp.me/plYPz5bp https: //wp. me/pl YPz5bp
Maxrebo5
November 7, 2018
It is now November of 2018 and the CA Courts have still not produced updated case filing statistics for FY 2016-2017! They are way behind and it appears they want to hide the facts from the CA Legislature, the Governor, and the public.
Back in 2009 the CA Courts had over just over 10 million case filings for the year. In their last report, with FY 2015/2016 data, the court caseload was down to 6.2 million filings which was a 40% decline. So what has happened since then? The CA Courts appears not to want anyone to know.
The arrest data from the CA Attorney General’s Office is all down for 2017. Juvenile arrests and referrals to juvenile probation are also way down for 2017. This should point to court cases being down too but the CA Courts isn’t putting out their report and nobody is holding them accountable.
Maxrebo5
November 7, 2018
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2018/11/07/governor-browns-still-mum-on-14-month-supreme-court-vacancy/
It is really strange for Brown to not fill a Supreme Court vacancy with his own person. I’n not a Trump fan but he was all over it when he had vacancies and that made sense. This makes almost no sense.
Sharon Kramer
November 8, 2018
Max, Perhaps it’s because now that mid-terms are over whoever Brown appoints will not be subjected to voter retention for two years.
BTW, my link calling for voters to not retain 4th/1st Justices Huffman, Benke, Irion, Aaron and Dato was not right. Here it is by name in case the link doesn’t work again:
Katys Exposure “On Nov 6th Please Vote No Retention of Five San Diego Appellate Justices”
https://katysexposure.com/2018/10/26/on-nov-6th-please-vote-no-retention-of-five-san-diego-appellate-justices/
It links to a 3 hr video I made call “The Toxic Judgment” Starting at t 1hr 24 min in are video clips of when Dato was confirmed to the 4th/1st on Feb 9, 2017.
One can see the Chief Justice cracking jokes about “harmless error” with Judge Joel Pressman — as I’m asking AG Becerra to investigate them for case-fixing SLAPP to defraud the public. He said he would (also on video). But so far, he won’t.
The last half hour of “The Toxic Judgment” is a conference presentation I gave in 2015. I’m talking about how the CA courts criminally framing me for libel with a void judgment is devastating thousands of people from coast to coast.
Judge Maas said to me on Oct 5, 2018 that “I am just a lowly trial judge.” “You need to stop blogging about what Michael Garland did.” (meaning I should stop telling about the ongoing multi-jurist case-fixing of SLAPP with a void judgment — purposed to fleece the public with a multi-billion-dollar insurer fraud scam based on junk science — or more harm will befall me?) He scared me with that warning.
Garland is the clerk who created the void judgment on 12/18/08 that the courts have been using to frame me for libel and literally terrorize me for years (b/c I dared to expose a massive gov’t backed insurer fraud scam in policies and toxic torts based on junk science).
The void judgment (that falsely doesn’t state by decree that I prevail in trial) was just renewed by Maas. A fraudulent entry (that also falsely does not say that I prevailed in the 2008 trial and was awarded my costs) had to be backdated into the electronic case file (ROA) in June 2018 to facilitate the CRIMINAL renewal of the void judgment.
If I wasn’t one who knows to check the ROA in detail from time to time, I never would have seen the false entry entered in June 2018, that they made look like was entered on Sept 24, 2008.
Even after I caught them, San Diego Presiding Judge Deddeh refused to make Roddy make his records dept clerks remove the fraudulent ROA entry. He also refused to report Maas to the CJP, twice.
On Aug 31, 2018, the records dept supervisor told me they were “directed” to backdate the (false) entry into the ROA. There is another one backdated into the stealth Case History that falsely says the party that I prevailed over in trial (Veritox, formerly GlobalTox) prevailed over me.
Maas knows that I’m not going to stop blogging and telling about the ongoing case-fixing until the San Diego judges & justices stop framing me for libel with false court docs and false electronic records.
He knows that I am afraid they will physically hurt me again (like Nugent did in 2012 when I refused to sign a false confession of being guilty of libel). Maas knows that it makes me feel safer knowing people are watching because we talked about it and what Nugent did when trying to terrorize me into silence in 2012, in oral arguments on Oct 5th.
POINT BEING: if Brown is intending to appoint Huffman, Benke, Irion, Aaron, Dato or McConnell to the CA Supreme Court, I am going to scream to high heaven!!!!
Watch my movie “The Toxic Judgment” (linked in the link above) to understand why. For some reason it’s gotten close to 300 hits since the 6th, I have no idea why and it’s a little unnerving to think that someone in the branch is reviewing it in detail and is plotting for more retaliation to come my way.
I’m scared but c’est la vie. I’m not shutting up while thousands are losing all they own and some dying from this unbridled criminal case-fixing with a void judgment and false electronic records entries being allowed to continue in the CA courts. It makes me feel safer that you all know.
Maxrebo5
November 15, 2018
Brown made his CA Supreme Court Justice selection:
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Gov-Brown-Picks-Top-Aide-for-California-High-Court-Vacancy-500574381.html
Maxrebo5
November 27, 2018
Still no report on CA Courts caseload for 2018 but this update on the Judicial Needs for 2018 sheds some light on the downwardd trend in cases coming in the courthouse doors:
“Table 1 shows the total assessed statewide need for judicial officers has declined by 118.7, or
6 percent, since the 2016 Judicial Needs Assessment.”
You can read the report here: https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6786906&GUID=C380E9CF-A1B1-4E9B-A9AC-3E69F66C3D96
The JC will be working overtime to get those case weights changed in 2019 so their fomulas will somehow say they need more judges even with far fewer cases coming in the doors.
In any case, it is a HUGE drop in cases if the JC is admitting they need 118.7 fewer judges now than they did just two years ago. Fight on!
Maxrebo5
November 30, 2018
The public affaris office of the Judicial Council said the court statistics report should be out in the first week of March or perhaps the last week in February. They did not specify what year so I assumed they meant in 2019. That assumption could be a mistake on my part. At this point I would not be surprised if they hold off reporting the data till 2020. Sort of a leap year reporting of the facts (after they have branch funding safely secured) and only if they feel like sharing it. It’s really comical to watch the lengths they go to in order to hide their onging case filing declines. Nobody is holding them accountable either.
Sharon Kramer
November 30, 2018
“Twelve Deaths from Adenovirus while Inhabiting Moldy Environments. Request for Better CDC Health Advisories.” Short link is: https://wp.me/plYPz-5bP
See footnote 22:
[22] 10/4/18 “The Toxic Judgment” I have a BBA in marketing from Ole Miss, 1977. In 2005, I publicly exposed how junk science was being mass-marketed into public health policies and physician educational materials for the purpose of staving off liability for causation of disabilities and deaths in U.S. mold litigations. For ten years, the CA courts have been framing me for libel with a void judgment that fraudulently does not state by decree that a jury found I was not guilty of libeling Veritox, Inc. In June 2018 the courts backdated a fraudulent entry into the electronic case file to facilitate the renewal of the void judgment. This is intended to keep the fraud that I exposed (subject of this letter) going by criminal means for another ten years. This is how I know that the CDC, other federal & state agencies along with federal & state legislators and courts need to do a far better job of protecting the public’s health and safety from the deeply-rooted agnotology in the mold i$$ue. “The Toxic Judgment” is a three-hour video which explains and provides direct evidence of the ongoing problem in detail.
Sharon Kramer
December 1, 2018
Why would any human being put a thumbs down on a post proving RICO in the branch purposed to cause thousands of people to suffer and some die? Its just a matter of time b/f the courts are made to stop framing me for libel with a void judgment that was renewed via falsified, backdated ROA entry (that both fraudulently do not state by decree that the jury found I was NOT GUILTY of libeling GlobalTox). Does the thumbs down mean you like to watch people suffer and die from RICO in the CA judicial branch?
Delilah
December 3, 2018
https://www.courthousenews.com/california-judicial-council-unveils-new-tech-plan-for-courts/
Sharon Kramer
December 3, 2018
CA’s court employees need one of these: “We have expanded workplace conduct orientation and training programs throughout the Judiciary, and we are reviewing recommended changes to the judicial conduct rules and code, improving the model EDR plan, and providing alternative and less formal avenues for reporting and resolving workplace conduct issues,”
Judicial Integrity Officer Named for Federal Judiciary
http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2018/12/03/judicial-integrity-officer-named-federal-judiciary
Delilah
December 6, 2018
https://www.courthousenews.com/biggest-court-in-nation-opens-on-receipt-media-portal/
Maxrebo5
December 12, 2018
http://www.capradio.org/articles/2018/12/11/court-workers-strike-seeking-pay-increase-from-sacramento-county/
This story made me laugh because both sides are not telling the full truth. The court employees are saying they have less staff (which is true) so they deserve a raise. However, the employee union fails to say that the court’s case filings are way down so maybe the court needs less staff given there is far less work to do. Similarly, the Chief was on public radio saying CA Courts should get more money yet she too never mentions case filings statewide are down by more than 40%. Likely down by over 50% since 2009 if the CA Courts would ever publish their court statistics for the most recent year which they are hiding. Hopefully Gavin Newsom will look at CA Court funding all over again based on the court statistic data and not just go along with what the Chief says.
Maxrebo5
December 14, 2018
https://www.courthousenews.com/judges-rankled-by-cuts-to-help-for-shorthanded-california-courts/
This was interesting because the Chief is finally saying there is a 40% drop in case filings! It is in the middle of the story where that fact comes up. Remember that the 40% decline they admit to is now old data. They have not put out the case filing numbers for the most recent fiscal year so it is likely to be closer to 50% (since 2009) and it could be even more. This is a HUGE decline in cases statewide resulting in the need for 118 fewer judges by the Judicial Council’s own formulas. The legislature and Governor elect should get on this fast to save the taxpayers money as the cuts needed are far deeper than the JC lets on.
Sharon Kramer
December 23, 2018
This is why the dishonest CA courts have been framing me for libel for now fourteen years. I exposed how junk science was being mass marketed into policies to profitably make the doctors think that moldy buildings can’t harm. It’s a multi-billion dollar, international insurer fraud scam. It hinges entirely upon continuing via the CA courts continuing to frame me for libel with fraudulent court documents and falsified electronic records — and NO ONE holding them accountable for the epic crime.
“There is consensus that there are people who suffer from a range of complex symptoms that are debilitating, difficult to diagnose and treat effectively,” Mr Zimmerman said.
“For these people, being unable to obtain a definitive diagnosis and consequently recover from conditions often ascribed to chronic inflammatory response syndrome that can have a significant and ongoing impact on their quality of life.”
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/health-department-urged-to-review-treatment-of-mould-affected-patients-20181122-p50hom.html
Sharon Kramer
December 23, 2018
The direct evidence of the ongoing epic crime in the CA courts is in this 3 hr video. It’s not even close to a funny “harmless error” like the Chief Justice likes to promote that it is. (See video of her cracking jokes while people are dying from the systemic corruption problem in her courts). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-_469SzJgE
Sharon Kramer
December 29, 2018
From the Chicago Tribune: “Millions of people suffering from mold toxicity go undiagnosed” https://chicago.suntimes.com/working/mold-toxicity-goes-undiagnosed-for-millions/amp/?fbclid=IwAR0IfccGQjM1HajTJ-Ztviy-sJcab7DzHwy3vmhOQC4jCcaCiypNrUDZT8w
And I have the fraudulent court documents and falsified electronic records from San Diego showing why that criminally is.
Thumbs down all you want little troll. The facts speak for themselves that justices in the 4th/1st have been framing me for libel since 2006 to keep this massive and deadly insurer fraud scam going — and multiple judges and clerks in the San Diego Superior Court have been criminally aiding them.
Maxrebo5
December 31, 2018
The Judicial Council has released the 2018 Court Statistics Report (CSR) with absolutely no fanfare. Here is the link:
The latest CSR says case filings in the Superior Courts have fallen from 10.2 million cases in FY 09 down to 5.8 million cases in FY 17. That is a 44% decline in cases! That’s a HUGE drop and the trend is all downward by their own numbers. These are very inconvenient truths for the CA Courts and they would very much hope Gavin Newsom and the legislature do not notice that they have over four million fewer cases a year now to process.
Sharon Kramer
January 6, 2019
San Diego Union Trib. “San Diego Superior Court records are rife with allegations of landlords failing to properly respond to such reports, although a review by The San Diego Union-Tribune of complaints dating back 10 years found no other major developer with as many mold-related allegations as Fenton…..”I have been extremely concerned about the health and wellness of my children and I.’…..The single mother obtained records in the discovery process that show she leased her unit just months after the former tenant complained of mold, then moved out. Her older daughter has experienced persistent health issues since she lived at Solana Highlands, the lawsuit said.
“Carre, who sued in 2013 and has been through several lawyers, is now litigating the case herself — an effort that has turned into full-time work. She is awaiting a hearing in January. Despite rejecting allegations in the Carre lawsuit, Fenton is planning to demolish Solana Highlands and start over.” [This case is currently in Judge Maas’s court]
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/sd-me-condo-mold-20190106-story.html
Now tell me again, WHY have the North San Diego County judges and their clerks (including Mike Roddy) been framing me for libel for FOURTEEN YEARS with fraudulent court documents and backdated electronic records — for my exposing that the defense in mold litigations uses junk science and lying expert defense witnesses to deny liability for causation of illnesses and deaths?
Never mind. I think I know.
Sharon Kramer
January 6, 2019
I am mad as Hell that the Ca courts continue to frame me for libel while people are losing all the own and some are dying from the ongoing corruption in the California courts. Hello Tani. I’m coming after you via exposing what a compromised whence you really are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=pojL_35QlSI&fbclid=IwAR3kG4NaWA4TQCLLDsOmzD5XvT-6C91Kt66isWhnbSYKnjezT6Leta07hc4
Maxrebo5
January 18, 2019
Congrats to Courthouse News for a small win!
https://www.courthousenews.com/silicon-valley-court-gives-quick-press-access-part-of-california-trend/
I hope they get same day access at every trial court in the state.
Delilah
February 16, 2019
Oh, JCW and all the ghosters who used to visit this place, how I miss you. But I guess everyone’s thrown in the towel. For your reading pleasure, as if anyone cares anymore, I offer the following, w/o comment. Once upon a time this probably would have generated a comment or two.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/02/16/cursed-morgan-hill-courthouse-prompts-lawsuit-over-flooding/
Love y’all, and still resisting,
Delilah
R. Maino
February 17, 2019
Plumas: a 6500 square foot courthouse was built for 4 million. It opened in 2010 and was closed in 2014.I believe it is still closed today.
Stockton: It was started in 2014. After it was about 50% constructed the Fire Marshall said it did not have the required safety features, The price of the courthouse was 30 million over budget and one year late.
San Diego. It was one year late in opening. A few of the problems: a bad security design which resulted in the Sheriff asking for and receiving 3.3 million more per year; many windows have had to be replaced; 4 judges have had to move their chambers because of water intrusion; our parking spaces got flooded; and the wood finish on many of the desks and benches had to be replaced. This is only a partial list of construction and design defects that have come to light after one year of occupancy.
A separate investigation needs to be made on the Long Beach Courthouse. It was and is CCMS on steroids.
sharonkramer
February 19, 2019
Glad to hear that they got the judges out of their water damaged chambers in San Diego. But its indicative of the underlying reckless management problems in the CA judicial branch.
Deliah posted of the JC suing for construction defects causing basement flooding in one court house where the holding cells are still being used. Tony posted of another water damaged courthouse where the judges were moved away from the damage.
I hope no one who works in the basement of the Morgan Hill courthouse is sick. Apparently there were approximately 20 workcomp claims for the prior moldy Santa Clara courthouse causing injury.
Point being: how can the JC sue for construction defects causing water damage, prove that they know water damaged buildings can cause physical injury, and then leave workers and prisoners exposed to the water damaged building w/o expecting liability for causation of injury?
Wendy Darling
February 20, 2019
Ah, Delilah – it’s not a question of throwing in the proverbial towel, but the reality of not wasting time engaging in grotesque exercises of futility.
Despite all that has been exposed, nothing has materially changed at 455 Golden Gate Avenue and Judicial Branch administration from the very first days of the AOC Watcher to this very day. Some of the name plates of the panting sycophants outside some of the office doors have superficially changed names once or twice, but other than that, nothing has really changed. It’s all still there – the fiscal mismanagement, misappropriation of public funds, ghost employees, outright fraud and corruption; branch administration has just gotten much better at hiding things behind the black curtain, helped along by all that can be made to “go away” with the use of power, money, and influence.
It has been a bitter lesson to learn and accept that this is being allowed to happen in the California Judicial Branch, but learned and accepted it has become for many.. Because, once again, despite all that has been exposed, and the many, many, many, many enforcement agencies and the respective public officials in those enforcement agencies informed and provided hard evidence of all of it, each and every one purposefully turned and ran away as fast as possible in the opposite direction and didn’t do anything about any of it. A few at least admitted “We won’t touch the judges.”
No one at 455 Golden Gate Avenue with even a speck of common sense will ever come forward again, nor should anyone expect them to, given that the one and only result of doing any such thing is to be brutally punished for telling the truth. A fitting and telling epitaph to the true state of things in the California Judicial Branch.
And to Judge Maino and the ACJ, good luck with getting an investigation – any investigation – regarding anything involving 455 Golden Gate Avenue. It is more likely pigs will fly and hell will freeze over, at the same time, before that ever happens. As observed above and as evident here over the past 9 years, money, power, and influence can make a lot of things just “go away.”
Going back to hanging out with Rip Van Winkle now.
Sharon Kramer
March 5, 2019
This is a shout out to Tani and all the other bad apples at the head of the judicial branch; and to a few “lowly trial judges” as Earl Maas says. .
I am NOT shutting up and I am NOT going away until YOU stop enabling Judy McConnell and Dick Huffman to frame me for libel for exposing an epic scam which harms thousands of people across the United States.
Health Impact News 3/4/19 “Sharon Kramer was sued and framed for libel with the intent of using the courts to permanently shut her up. She has been fighting back in the courts since 2005 to preserve her free speech right to expose the practices of toxicology consultants who are misleading judges and juries with their testimony based on their “junk science” [1] risk assessment model. [2]
Sharon Kramer’s 14-year encounter with the California court system has been marked by numerous judicial errors, case fixing, record tampering and even threats from the court. She has been jailed and had liens placed against her home for speaking out against fraudulent science, and for complaining about criminal activity in the California court system.
Despite the intimidation, she continues to talk about the two junk science toxicology reports, and the activity of the courts which are protecting special interest groups and denying justice to mold-injured people.”
http://healthimpactnews.com/2019/are-you-suffering-from-chronic-inflammatory-response-syndrome-how-junk-science-and-corrupt-judges-hide-mold-toxicity-from-the-public/
Maxrebo5
March 13, 2019
This was a big change in the criminal justice system today:
https://www.courthousenews.com/governor-gavin-newsom-to-halt-california-death-penalty/
However one feels about the death penalty, with this action by Governor Newsom it’s now time to make cuts to death penaltyappeals attorneys working for the CA Supreme Court.
Sharon Kramer
March 14, 2019
Another article about the San Diego Superior & Appellate Court judges and justices framing me for libel for 14 yrs. (on behalf of the USDOJ’s lying toxicologist expert defense witnesses in moldy military housing cases) And trying to shut me up of what they have been doing to keep the scam going from coast to coast.
“In a Deposition preceding the actual libel trial, Dr. Kelman described what he wanted from Sharon Kramer.
Dr. Kelman stated:
…A retraction and an apology for the lies that have been told. [6]
Sharon Kramer’s attorney asked Dr. Kelman:
Isn’t it correct that what you want from Mrs. Kramer is for her to sign a written statement in which she says, “To my knowledge their testimony and advice are based on their expertise and objective understanding of the underlying scientific data.” [6]
Dr Kelman responded:
“That retraction would work.” [6]
Sharon Kramer did not apologize. She did not agree to endorse Dr. Kelman’s science. She did not retract her original statement. By this point she knew too much about the scientific and medical truth of the dangers of indoor mold in water-damaged buildings.”
https://healthimpactnews.com/2019/one-womans-relentless-pursuit-of-the-truth-as-a-toxic-mold-whistle-blower/
Sharon Kramer
March 14, 2019
“Dear Senators,
On October 5, 2018, I was warned by a San Diego County California Superior Court judge not to blog of this matter. However, it would not be in the public’s or my best interest to adhere to the thinly veiled threat of more retaliation for my refusal of silence. Nor would it help me to help you to stop the deeply seated scientific fraud that is used to discriminate and retaliate against our sick military families residing in moldy military housing (water damaged buildings WDB).
As such, these requests made to each of you may be read online at Katy’s Exposure blog under the title of “3.11.19 Request for U.S. Senate Intervention to Stop Fraud & Retaliation in the Mold Issue.” The footnotes to this fax are working links on the blog.”
RE: 1.) Request for U.S Senate intervention to eradicate fraudulent medico-legal practices that are devastating military families residing in moldy housing and thousands of others. 2.) Request for protection from joined-unclean-hands-retaliation by bad actors in California government with the USDOJ’s toxicologist expert defense witnesses in military housing mold cases – for my bringing this matter to U.S. Senators’ attention.”
https://katysexposure.com/2019/03/12/3-11-19-request-for-u-s-senate-intervention-to-stop-fraud-retaliation-in-the-mold-issue/
Sharon Kramer
March 15, 2019
Wife of former UC Regent Richard Blum (aka Senator Dianne Feinstein)’s legislative assistants don’t want to meet with me in DC. Wonder why? (not!)
Dear Senators
What I intend to accomplish while in D.C. are two things:
A. Cause U.S. Senators to sink of fleet of deceit which sails the government backed medico-legal fraud, the Veritox Theory, across the United States with the flag of University of California proudly waving; and to cause investigation of how they have stayed afloat for so long. The fleet:
1. 2002 nonprofit American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) [21] “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment” by Bruce J. Kelman & Bryan Hardin of Veritox, Inc. and Andrew Saxon of UCLA. Published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (JOEM)
2. 2003 nonprofit U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) & nonprofit Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy (CLP) [22] “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold”. Stated authorship: Bruce J. Kelman, Bryan Hardin, Coreen Robbins of Veritox, Inc. and Andrew Saxon of UCLA.
(Kelman & Hardin were paid for this paper. [23] Saxon claims under oath that he did not author it.[24] So how did the legitimizing UC name get on it and why do the UC Regents refuse to cause its retraction, even when being aware that it is used for the defense in interstate mold litigations???? [25])
3. 2006 nonprofit American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) [26] “The Medical Effects of Mold Exposure”. Stated authorship: Andrew Saxon of UCLA, Robert Bush of University of Wisconsin, Abba I. Terr of Stanford University, Robert Wood of Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Jay Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital of Kansas City Published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI)
(Dr. Portnoy has stated in writing that he did not contribute to this paper after Dr. Saxon rewrote his work and did not even know that it had been published by the AAAAI with his name on it – until I told him [27])
4. 2006 nonprofit American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT) [28] “Institute of Medicine Report on Damp Indoor Spaces and Health” by Daniel Sudakin of Veritox, Inc. and Thomas Kurt (This paper is a dishonest critique of the 2004 IOM Damp Indoor Spaces & Health Report’s toxicity section. It is a rehash of the above three papers. Drs. Sudakin & Kurt are expert defense witnesses in mold litigations as are other ACMT members. CDC ATSDR funds ACMT to disseminate information for “nonprofit” medical associations see fn 17)
B. Find help to make multiple bad actors in the State of California stop criminally terrorizing me with and on behalf of, the USDOJ’s dishonest toxicologist expert defense witnesses at Veritox, Inc. and their California attorneys. [29][30] I am sending this fax and seeking help with great trepidation that I will be physically hurt again under the color of law in California for doing it.
https://katysexposure.com/2019/03/12/3-11-19-request-for-u-s-senate-intervention-to-stop-fraud-retaliation-in-the-mold-issue/
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 17, 2019
Despite posting to the contrary, I’m not dead. I’m in a secure remote location, where I have intermitent access to the Internet, yet great access to the classics.
Every time I come our of my lair I’m am further traumatized by what is going on in the once Great Great State of California. I miss Wendy and Max and hope that they are both doing well.
Being removed now for several years, it is amazing how California has fallen into the abyss.
I spent over 50-years working toward trying to make that a better place. I’m shocked to see how it has been torn down since the re-election of Governor Moonbeam. The current “Governor” is a joke and will take the State to the place from which it cannot be redeemed long before “Global Warming” takes effect.
Good luck to you all, God speed! There are still some places in America with a statewide population under One Million people; where the budgets are balanced and the taxes are tolerable. Everyone knows everyone else and crime is virtually non existent.
General Nathaniel Woodhull
katy
March 22, 2019
Hi All,
I am currently in DC. I am once again trying to knock the false concept (that it is proven “toxic mold” in water damaged buildings cannot reach a level to harm) out of public health policies and physician educational materials. If you have been following the news about the moldy military housing debacle; then you know that this naysaying junk science is harming our troops’ families. They can’t get medical help from mainstream doctors b/c if the doctors were taught the truth, the liability for the moldy housing causing disabilities and deaths would be increased.
We’re making progress here and have had some good meetings. But I want it publicly known that I am afraid to go home to California. It is more than likely I will experience some form of retaliation for refusing to shut up about the CA courts framing me for libel on behalf of the owners of Veritox, Inc. (creators of the naysaying junk science) for fourteen years — with the purpose of keeping the deadly scam going from coast to coast.
Health Impact News is writing of how the deadly scam continues by the ongoing case fixing in the San Diego courts; and how they will not stop framing me for libel and terrorizing me with a void judgment.
“Toxic Mold Whistleblower Fears for Her Life: ‘I Exposed One of the Biggest Frauds in America and it Continues to be Hidden”
https://healthimpactnews.com/2019/toxic-mold-whistleblower-fears-for-her-life-i-exposed-one-of-the-biggest-frauds-in-america-and-it-continues-to-be-hidden/
Sharon
Maxrebo5
March 22, 2019
Two items to share this week. One is the Chief’s State of the Judiciary address just took place. Once again, the Chief did not mention the decade of falling caseloads in CA Courts. Here is a link to her 2019 speech:
https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/2019-state-of-the-judiciary-address
The other news item of note this week relates to Juvenile Justice and in San Francisco there are multiple news stories talking about the decade long declines in juvenile crime which is now resulting in their juvenile hall being mostly empty. In SF they are considering closing their juvenile hall soon to save some money. I have been saying juvenile caseloads in CA are tanking for years now so it is nice to see this story get picked up in the press.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/3-San-Francisco-supervisors-vow-to-close-juvenile-13707500.php
The focus should not just be on juvenile probation having to change. If there are no juvenile’s in secure detention, due to far less juvenile crime, that also means there are less juvenile cases in the courts, fewer juvenile trials, and less need for juvenile courtrooms. The JC should get working on making cuts instead of always asking for more money. Overall caseloads in CA Courts are down over 44% since 2009 and this downward trend shows no signs of ending.
Sharon Kramer
March 27, 2019
“And speaking of exposing fraud and fraudsters, I would sincerely appreciate it if someone (hint, hint) would make the Administrative Presiding Justice of the Fourth District Division One Court of Appeal in San Diego, California, Justice Judith McConnell, (Legend (myth?) of the Bar #SheToo can be an enabled and disgusting power abuser) and her minions in the local courts stop framing me for libel for my exposing this massive fraud fourteen years ago.
Someone (hint, hint) needs to make Judy McConnell stop concealing & rewarding Mr. Kelman’s perjury; and stop literally TERRORIZING ME on behalf of the USDOJ’s lying expert defense witnesses at Veritox, Inc. — while CRIMINALLY CAUSING the entire scam to continue from coast to coast.”
“Pots Calling a Kettle ‘Black’. U.S. Senators Blame DOD for Ongoing Moldy Military Housing Debacle”
https://katysexposure.com/2019/03/27/pots-calling-a-kettle-black-u-s-senators-blame-dod-for-ongoing-moldy-military-housing-debacle/
Maxrebo5
April 9, 2019
A news story from Courthouse News on a state audit of the Judicial Council and Chief’s use of the assigned judges program just came out:
https://www.courthousenews.com/judicial-council-slammed-on-handling-of-program-to-help-shorthanded-courts/
I am honestly surprised there is any need for assigned judges at all given the decline in cases statewide over the last ten years. In FY 2009 the branch had 10.2 million case filings. Now in FY 2017 there are only 5.8 million cases which means case filings have gone down 44% this past decade. Every year the branch has had fewer and fewer cases to process and they sought to hide this downward trend for an entire decade.
Of the 5.8 million “cases” left, the data shows 3.6 million (over 62%) cases remaining are traffic tickets. The JC sfaff says judges handle 2,913 cases a year. However, if you reduce this caseload by 62%, to remove the traffic tickets which are mostly paid online and require zero judge time, then it comes to 1,107 cases per judge. That is a really low workload per judge and of the remaining 1,107 cases per judge the vast majority will settle out of court. The branch also inflates the civil caseload by counting things like default judgments as cases for civil. Default judgments also have zero judge time so those cases should not count. Each judgeship costs over $200,000 a year plus all the facility/retirement costs. The public could and should save a fortune of taxpayer dollars by making proper cuts to CA Courts!
I say the JC staffing models for judges are totally inflated in favor of ever more judgeships. We can see juvenile caseloads have tanked for a decade now and many juvenile halls are nearly empty. Some counties like SF are now talking of shutting their juvenile halls down to save money. Are we to believe nobody on the JC saw these downward trends in workload happening for the courts? Hahaha! I have been saying the Chief hid or downplayed the branch filing data trends for years now. The JC staff all saw this inconvenient truth but downplayed the workload drop to the other branches in order to keep the money coming in and ever increasing.
The JC staff even removed the caseload numbers from the Judicial Council’s “Fast Facts” web page a few years ago to avoid anyone making a connection of case filings and the branch budget being linked. It’s just like a school district with fewer kids seeking more money from the state. A type of fraud. Where is the accountability? Nobody ever checks them and the Chief never talks about court caseloads in her state of the judiciary addresses. She just distracts by talking about natural disasters that impact one or two counties and somehow the branch as a whole gets ever more money. It’s insane. All critics are forced out of the Judicial Council so it is run like a mafia family or very much like Trump’s cabinet. Just a bunch of yes men and women pretending to be the policy experts but are really just Tani’s pawns.
Sharon Kramer
April 10, 2019
Retired Judges Grumble at Assignment Program Reforms, as Audit Raises Questions
“Judicial Council records show that 20 retired judges were each paid at least $1.2 million for various tenures of work in the assigned program between 1999 and 2018. The top-earning retiree received $1.9 million over that time span. Those payments did not include pension disbursements or reimbursements for travel costs.”
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/04/10/retired-judges-grumble-at-assignment-program-reforms-as-audit-raises-questions/?kw=Retired%20Judges%20Grumble%20at%20Assignment%20Program%20Reforms,%20as%20Audit%20Raises%20Questions
Wendy Darling
April 10, 2019
Published Tuesday, April 9, 2019, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo. Not that it actually changes anything at 455 Golden Gate Avenue:
State Auditor Finds Temp Judge Program Reboot OK
MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – The state auditor in a report released Tuesday found that the Judicial Council of California had inefficiently run a program for temporary judges. However, the auditor was satisfied with an overhaul initiated by the state’s chief justice.
State Auditor Elaine Howle said her office launched an investigation of the Judicial Council after receiving a 2017 complaint that courts with “surpluses of judges” were overusing the program.
“The Judicial Council of California inefficiently administered the Assigned Judges Program (AJP) because it did not verify that superior courts requesting retired judges from the AJP attempted first to fill their needs either internally or reciprocally with other superior courts, as the Judicial Council’s policy requires,” Howle said.
“In fact, the AJP spent nearly $7 million of its $27 million budget in 2016 to provide judges to the five counties that had the highest number of surplus judges.”
Howle’s office interviewed Judicial Council staff and learned the program had no way of verifying that courts requesting judges from the program had first tried to use judges from their own court or other courts.
“Program staff consistently reported that they did not even question the courts’ requests but simply attempted to fill them as best they could. As a result, the chief justice approved the assignment of retired judges and the expenditure of state funds without sufficient supporting documentation that these represented the best use of AJP resources,” the audit says.
During her investigation, Howle learned California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye had already ordered council staff to do its own review of the program. This led to a swath of changes that upset both courts and retired judges in the program. The changes imposed a 1,320-day retroactive cap on the number of days a retired judge can work, the equivalent of a six-year term of an elected judge. After those 1,320 days are up, a retired judge is no longer eligible for assignment.
Howle also notes the council restructured the program’s funding “so that it assigns resources within the AJP based on the greatest need, as defined by its judicial needs assessment.”
The state auditor seemed satisfied with the overhaul, but suggested the council reassess the program again by the end of June, paying particular attention to its allocation of judges and assigned judges program funding to courts with “surplus judges.”
“The state auditor’s review reinforces our own earlier review of the Assigned Judges Program, which resulted in the announcement of various program changes last spring,” said Martin Hoshino, director of the Judicial Council staff, in a statement. “We agree with the auditor’s recommendations, particularly the recommendation to review the trial courts’ compliance with the recent program changes. The presiding judges in each of our state’s 58 superior courts are key partners in the program and we will be following up with them, as the auditor recommends.”
The audit was part of a larger investigation by Howle’s office of improper management of state resources and misuse of time by government agencies and employees.
https://www.courthousenews.com/judicial-council-slammed-on-handling-of-program-to-help-shorthanded-courts/
Sharon Kramer
April 25, 2019
Subject: California State Audit’s Criticism of Cal. Commission on Judicial Performance [CJP]
See http://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2016-137.pdf
Audit Highlights . . . Our audit regarding CJP’s processes for investigating and disciplining judges highlighted the following: » CJP’s investigators failed to pursue allegations thoroughly and ignored warning signs of ongoing misconduct. • In about one-third of the cases we reviewed, investigators did not take all reasonable steps—interviewing witnesses, obtaining evidence, or observing the judges—to determine the existence or extent of alleged misconduct. • CJP does not evaluate its complaint data to identify potential patterns of judicial misconduct that could meritinvestigation. » CJP’s structure and disciplinary proceedings are not aligned with judicial discipline best practices. • Commissioners are involved in both the investigatory and disciplinary functions, resulting in judges facing potential discipline from a body of commissioners that is privy to unfounded allegations of misconduct. • CJP’s reliance on judges to hear cases involving their peers falls short of the voters’ intent to increase the public’s role in judicial discipline with the passage of Proposition 190 in 1994. » CJP has not taken important steps to improve its transparency and accessibility to the public. • It has rarely directed its outreach activities toward members of the public—out of more than 120 events held during a five-year period, only three targeted the general public. • CJP only accepts complaints submitted through the mail instead of allowing for more convenient submissions through its website. • CJP never holds public meetings to discuss its rules or operations. » Significant changes are necessary to improve CJP’s processes for investigating and disciplining judges. • Changing its structure and operations would require an amendment to the California Constitution. • It will need additional funding to implement improvements to its internal operations.
Sharon Kramer
April 25, 2019
“The alleged misconduct reviewed by the auditor included threats by a judge to assault litigants, inappropriate comments made by judges, and jurists having improper relationships with subordinates.”
https://ktla.com/2019/04/25/investigations-of-california-judges-alleged-misconduct-fall-short-5-year-audit/
Wendy Darling
April 25, 2019
Published today, Thursday, April 25, from Courthouse News Service by Nick Cahill. Not that it will change anything:
California Auditor Calls Judicial Misconduct Probes Weak
April 25, 2019 NICK CAHILL
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – In a first-of-its-kind report issued Thursday, California’s state auditor found the state’s method for investigating judicial misconduct is shoddy, outdated and likely letting bad judges off the hook.
State Auditor Elaine Howle ripped the Commission on Judicial Performance in an 85-page report, finding it routinely ignored evidence during investigations of complaints against judges and called for changes to the state constitution to fix the feeble disciplinary process.
“We found that flaws in the commission’s investigative processes could allow judicial misconduct to go undetected and uncorrected,” the report states. “Examples of alleged misconduct from the cases that we reviewed include threatening to assault litigants, inappropriate comments, and inappropriate relationships with subordinates.”
Reacting to claims from activists that the commission isn’t strong on enough on errant judges, lawmakers in 2016 ordered Howle to dig into the constitutionally established body in charge of investigating and disciplining judges. The announcement jarred the commission, which was to be audited for the first time since its inception in 1960.
The lawmakers’ decision put the commission on the defensive, and it sued in state court to limit the scope of Howle’s search. After some back-and-forth rulings, Howle was ultimately allowed to continue.
Howle and her office ended up reviewing 30 of the commission’s investigations of judicial misconduct between 2013 and 2018. Thursday’s report comes with a telling title “Commission Judicial Performance: Weaknesses in its Oversight Have Created Opportunities for Judicial Misconduct to Persist.”
According to the audit, in nearly a third of the reviewed cases that advanced past the intake phase investigators didn’t follow all leads or attempt to recover evidence. It also found investigators missed patterns of repeated allegations against individual judges.
Howle probed one investigation sparked by a number of complaints of a judge making intimidating comments from the bench.
While court reporters initially told the investigator they may have audio of the judge’s comments, they later back-tracked and said finding the audio was an “onerous task.” The investigator could have formally requested the audio files but didn’t, telling Howle that processing the recordings “would be time-consuming” and that she believed the strength of her other evidence.
Another case involved allegations that a court restricted public access to a particular civil hearing. The investigator did interview the complainant, one of his friends and the judge, but didn’t bother to talk with the court staff or look for video evidence. The investigator eventually observed another of the judge’s proceedings, but only after telling the judge beforehand.
“These unanswered questions can have a direct, negative effect on the commission’s ability to issue appropriate discipline because doing so requires that its staff find clear and convincing evidence of misconduct,” the audit continues.
If lack of funding is the problem, the audit suggests that the commission tell lawmakers of the importance court transcripts and audio recordings can have when investigating complaints. California’s 58 superior courts have varying levels of reporting services and many smaller courts have cut back due to budget constraints.
The commission was formed in 1960 and originally included nine members. Most of its proceedings were confidential, and in 1994 voters passed Proposition 190 mandating open proceedings and increased the membership to 11.
Proposition 190 also changed the composition of the commission: three judges appointed by the California Supreme Court, two attorneys appointed by the governor, and six citizens – two appointed by the governor, two by the Senate Committee on Rules, and two by the Speaker of the Assembly.
As outlined in the audit, commissioners are involved in both the investigatory and disciplinary process. Howle says this can be unfair to judges, as commissioners could be aware of underlying evidence not at issue. She suggests the commission be split into an investigative and disciplinary body.
Along with a lacking investigatory process, the audit says the commission should modernize and open up to the public: The commission only accepts complaints through the mail and doesn’t hold public meetings to discuss rule changes. It recommends that lawmakers issue a one-time $419,000 budget item to help the commission hire a limited-term investigations manager and update its electronic case management system.
Gregory Dresser, commission director-chief counsel, says the commission intends to implement Howle’s suggestions immediately.
“We fully cooperated with the audit and I’m in favor of improving our work,” Dresser said in a phone call.
In the end, Howle says the ultimate fix for the commission will have to come from lawmakers and voters.
“The Legislature should propose and submit to voters an amendment to the California Constitution to reform the commission’s structure and disciplinary proceedings so they are aligned with best practices and ensure that the public has a significant role in deciding judicial discipline,” the audit concludes.
https://www.courthousenews.com/california-auditor-calls-judicial-misconduct-probes-weak/
One can only imagine what the audit didn’t expose. Of course, some of us don’t have to imagine it.
Long live the ACJ.
Sharon Kramer
April 26, 2019
Kathleen Russell of Center for Judicial Excellence has already started with a call for legislators to call for a change in the CA Constitution. She was one of the four driving forces who caused the CJP audit. Barbara Kaufman, Joe Sweeney, and Tamir Sukkary were the other three.
I’m sure she would welcome help from court employees, including judges, who know that the CJP has been used as a political hammer for the well connected. One can find her contact info on the CJE website.