You have until October 20th to register to vote.
We would like to join the MyVote Democracy At Work Project and encourage each and every one of you to vote. What’s more is we’re going to make doing so brain-dead easy.
Register to vote in person or by mail by clicking here. *(1)
Yup, there is no easier way to register to vote than by clicking the above link. In just a few clicks and keystrokes, you can be registered to vote in the November 4th general election. You can even use this link to get your ballot by mail.
Did you recently move? Have life circumstances prevented you from voting in a recent election? Do you want a say in how your government is run and who represents your interests in both Sacramento and Washington D.C. ?
It is up to you to take the first step in advocating change by voting.
(1) Important note: Please do NOT use this link to register or re-register to vote if you are enrolled in a confidential address program such as Safe at Home. If sharing your address could put you in life-threatening danger, you may be eligible to register to vote confidentially.
For more information, contact the Safe at Home program at (877) 322-5227 or visit www.sos.ca.gov/safeathome/.
And now our not entirely popular political views:
Do you want to send a justice packing for his administrative acts like Mr.We Own The CCMS Code ? Note that we do not support sending all justices down in flames come November 4th. The reason we mention, yet do not endorse this effort is because justices do not get county benefits.
We’d like to see the law tightened up to completely stop all county benefits to judges for the reasons set forth in the video and do not believe this can be achieved by holding responsible those who do not receive those benefits. It is legislators that made the law and it needs to be legislators and the governor that fix it.
Furthermore, we believe that judges should also stand for retention elections much like justices do as a measure of public accountability. It is our belief that it is in the peoples best interest to have all judges stand for retention in addition to contested elections.
If an election is a contested election, there should be an option to retain a judge in addition to voting for a prospective judge. None of the above with the possibility of our governor appointing a judge to a seat vacated by the voters should be an option.
We strongly endorse tossing off the bench everyone on Team George (link) for the good of the branch and the people of the state of California.
Finally, since a bond is a tax on the next generation, we strongly endorse following Scotland’s lead by promoting those age sixteen and older the right to vote.
Posted in: Judicial Council of California
← Alliance Members Identify Priorities for Incoming Administrative Director
Jerry’s pfabulous spending spree…. →
117 Responses “You have until October 20th to register to vote.” →
I give this a thumbs up.
Unionman, I’d give you a thumbs down on this one, but you’d probably know its from me. lol
Debra Bryant
No thank you. I am not a 14th Amendment citizen.
Fourteenth Amendment: Definition of Citizens (1868)
Everyone (including former slaves) born or naturalized in the U.S. is a citizen of the country, as well as the state they live in.
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/amendments/fourteenth-amendment-general/definition-of-citizens/
Hmmm. See also, relevant to our discussions herein:
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/checks-and-balances/
“And now our not entirely popular political views”
Too funny! Okay, I’ll bite.
First of all, JCW, I really do appreciate you drawing attention to this matter.
No matter what one’s political view of how to vote on Nov 4th; the public AND California jurists need to understand that judicial appointments are not life-time appointments. By law, the voting public does have the right to decide who remains on what trial/reviewing court benches in this state — free from interference by judicial court officers.
To my extensive knowledge, many jurists failed to remember this fact of law in the June elections; and inappropriately acted accordingly to cause the judge with the state’s worst ethics record to remain on the bench. (who BTW, I hear is soon to retire)
I mention this only because the acts of how this re-election occurred, greatly shook my confidence in a particular group of judges. To this very day, I remain leery if their members are really motivated to act for the public’s good by upholding laws, or simply their own good. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Feb/21/judge-candidate-feels-gaveled-out/?Watchdog#article-copy
I still want to believe that they are working to clean up the branch, because the public desperately needs someone to cause drastic change. Seems to me and to many others, that cronyism causes laws to be broken everyday in the branch — and no one is ever punished. THIS is what needs to change from top to bottom.
So…in the link you provided as to who makes-up “Team George” while inferring who needs to be voted out in Nov to save the branch; there is only one justice named who is currently running for re-election.
1. Are you proposing that the voters should vote “NO” retention of ONLY this ONE justice in an effort to save the entire judicial branch from fraud, waste and abuse?
2. There’s a CJP justice also running for retention, Justice Ignazio Ruvolo. A CJP recent decision caused the branch to look like the pilot for the “Bad Judge” TV series. Justice California recently enlightened us that this justice was involved in the concealment of falsified court docs in Marin. If you are encouraging the “NO” vote for only one justice on the Judicial Council, (named in your link as Team George); are you saying the public should vote “Yes” for is CJP justice’s retention?
3. Why don’t just make it simple and name the justice(s) that you are endorsing should receive a “NO” vote? The public is never going to understand what you are saying about who you want out, if you don’t say it.
4. This board is frequently used as the voice of the Alliance for California Judges. Are the ACJ members, who are still receiving the county funds via Team George giving them retroactive immunity from prosecution in 2010, now supportive of removing only ONE Team George justice — the only JCW named Team George member running for re-election?
5. Also, to my knowledge, no one is attempting to send anyone down to the depths of Hell in a massive ball of flames, as this post infers. Being voted out of office is not the end of the world — but for some families, systemically allowing the falsification of court docs to continue, IS. Lots of suicides have occurred and families have been ripped apart. So I kind of take offense that a “NO” vote for all justices to change the branch, should somehow be perceived as immoral and blasphemous.
JCW, I personally believe your thought process to be flawed on this one. You can’t stop covered-wagons from circling by taking away only one mule-ass from the dog and pony show that the judicial branch has become. (Ha! How’s that for a mixed metaphor?)
Even if the general public (or even the readers of this board) could decipher your cryptic message (that you all want Justice Bruiniers, who chairs many Judicial Council IT committees/advisory boards, off the bench and out of the way); I do not believe that voters removing ONE justice from office on Nov 4th, will SHAKE-UP the MAKE-UP of the systemically dysfunctional branch, enough to cause any real change.
THE POINT IS:
VOTE PEOPLE and VOTE to cause a re-birth of branch-wide ethics, so she may rise like a Phoenix from the ashes of cronyism and conflicted interests that she has sadly become.
Again, I have to agree with the Center For Judicial Excellence. I’m going to vote a blanket “NO” retention of ALL California Justices in an effort to bring true change from top to bottom in the nation’s largest judicial system, California’s, for the good of the people.
“Could a “NO” vote for all California Justices save the branch? Seems it could!”
http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/could-a-no-vote-for-all-california-justices-save-the-judicial-branch-seems-it-could/
Thank you again, JCW, for helping to cause thought on this subject and allowing the voicing of perspectives on your board, which differ from your own.
WR,
There’s more than one name on those lists.
RIS, there’s only ONE justice’s name on both the link to “Team George” that JCW provided on this post, and the link to justices’ names who are subject to voter ousting on Nov 4th.
That name is Justice Bruiniers.
Ms. Kramer, You write, “By law, the voting public does have the right to decide who remains on what trial/reviewing court benches in this state — free from interference by judicial court officers.”
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that judges are prohibited by law from taking a position to support or oppose candidates in judicial elections?
Dante,
No. I am not saying judges are prohibited by law from taking positions of support or oppositions of candidates.
There was a sitting judge in San Diego who challenged for her seat in June. What was done by fellow sitting judges to assure that she kept her seat grossly violated Canons of Judicial Ethics.
Without going into detail, a bar association was coerced by a junior judge and a judge who sits on the Executive Committee of the Judicial Council to change their policies of endorsements after the fact, in order to provide a nonsensical reason to rescind their already given endorsement of the challenger.
There was much media attention on what occurred and the fact that the sitting judge, who judges across the state circled the wagons to endorse, has the worst judicial ethics record in the entire state. The challenger’s campaign billboards were even taken down and to this day, no one will talk about who ordered their removal.
The junior judge was made to stop what she was doing. But of course, no one was punished and the sitting judge won her seat with 58% of the vote.
So what I’m saying is that while judges may want to advocate for their judicial appointments being for life and free from challenge or voter ousting; its not appropriate to do so while backdoor politicing in violation of Canons of Judicial Ethics.
Could you tell us what provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics was violated, and how it was violated, specifically? And you use the word “coerce.” Could you tell us what that word means to you in this context? What was done to “coerce” the bar association?
Well said JCW. I regret saying I would vote no for all justices this fall. It is just so frustrating the pace of reform in the branch. Nevertheless, it is not fair to hold good justices accountable for the mistakes of a few. So that was wrong of me to say.
what was wrong of you to say?
There’s 45 justices subject to an up or down vote in Nov.
Just out of curiosity. If the approximately 10 justices up for re-election, who sit on various bodies of the JC and CJP, were removed from office by the voters — where do you think the governor’s appointment committees would look for their replacements?
Historically, and with notable exceptions, Court of Appeal justices have been appointed from the trial courts.
Sharon, you said “Again, I have to agree with the Center For Judicial Excellence. I’m going to vote a blanket “NO” retention of ALL California Justices in an effort to bring true change from top to bottom in the nation’s largest judicial system, California’s, for the good of the people.”
I think you meant Richard Fine’s organization (Campaign for Judicial Integrity), not CJE. To my knowledge CJE has not taken a position on the issue of voting all justices out.
JCW, I appreciate this post. It tackles tough issues and anyone who doesn’t want to read about them should probably stop reading what I am writing now.
Re the county payments and Richard Fine’s campaign to vote no on all justices up for retention election:
Under Team George retaliation has been employed as a means of control throughout the branch. It happens at all levels– to judges, court employees, lawyers and litigants who don’t tow the party line, and/or won’t shut up and accept the way things are, no matter how rotton.
But the branch should NEVER underestimate the power and determination of a) idealists (and a lot of those are involved with the judicial branch); or b) someone who has been wrongfully screwed by the judicial branch, or especially c) idealists who have been wrongfully screwed by the branch.
I expect Dr. Richard Fine, ESQUIRE, falls into that third category.
Most people grow up expecting those in the judicial branch to behave with the highest degree of fairness and ethics. When someone rightfully calls out bad or illegal or just questionable behavior in the judicial branch, and gets crucified for it (wrongfully lose their children, property, job, freedom, reputation, chance for advancement, etc.) they will never forget it.
Lawyers usually call out genuinely questionable judicial behavior by filing CCP 170 et seq challenges, and interestingly, that is often the quickest way to end up in State Bar lawyer purgatory. (Let’s not forget the connection between the State Bar and the Supreme Court. “Founded in 1927 by the legislature, the State Bar of California is an administrative arm of the California Supreme Court”). Dr. Fine legitimately filed many 170s, pointing out the illegality and objectively compromising nature of judges hearing cases involving entities from whom the judges had received substantial annual payments.
Dr. Fine was responsible for taking a lot of money out of a lot of judicial pockets, and was brutalized by the Judicial Branch as a result. No one in power in any of the three branches did a damn thing about it. Everyone looked the other way. Shame, shame, shame. And now. . . .
Undoubtedly Dr. Fine’s take-no-prisoners stance about voting out all justices up for retention election has something to do with how he was disbarred and imprisoned for so long in connection with the county payment issue, the genesis of SBX211 that was passed in the dead of night (as I recall tuck-tail-and-ran Ron George was involved in that disgrace with Darrell Steinberg) and how he has been treated by the Courts of Appeal and CA Supreme Court. I think everyone would agree that what happened to Dr. Fine will always be a great and historical embarrassment to the branch. Pure and vicious retaliation. His law license should be reinstated –I believe the last I heard the state bar was ok with that, but Tani and co were blocking it– ).
People can and do have their own feelings about Dr. Fine’s judicial ouster campaign, and will vote how they want to in the privacy of a voting booth. Perhaps Fine believes he is in a win-win position, because his campaign sends a message to those who tortured him (because isn’t that really what it was?), and those who supported or looked away at the torture, and even a small spike in no votes will send a message that looking the other way is not ok. I know a LOT of people at all levels who have been tortured by judicial branch members, who have done or would love to do the same. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
Moving on.. . .
JCW, I was just looking at the Team George page this morning before this new post and thinking how compromised so many of the players listed there are, and how much better off the branch would be without compromised branch members. Starting with the former blackjack dealer/cocktail waitress who could not get a job out of law school.
Justice Ruvolo is on my own personal Team George list, and I believe for good reason should not be on the CJP, and should be voted out in November. Just my opinion, you understand. As a supporter of really bad Marin County Superior Court behavior, he should not be reviewing further really bad Marin County Superior Court behavior. (I suppose the same could be said for Tani Cantil Sakauye and various other Judicial Council members and staff. . . .but oh well, we were sent there by the AG and Guv.)
I agree that the public should have the opportunity to vote on all judges, including those with no challengers. In some counties lawyers dare not run against sitting judges.
http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_25038589/terms-five-marin-county-judges-due-end-this
JCW, please educate me more re the bond issue.
Yes. That’s exactly what I meant, JC. Like you, I am not aware that the CENTER for JUDICIAL EXCELENCE has taken a stance on this matter.
ALL, please know that it is the CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL INTEGRITY that is endorsing a blanket “NO” retention of all 45 justices up for re-election. My apologies for mixing up acronyms.
JC, you also write,
Those who have never experienced this, will never comprehend what those words really mean. Its like being shown that something you have believed since childhood was good and right and protected the world; is in reality a major part of the problem destroying the world. It cuts like a knife through one’s heart.
I know there are many on this board who know exactly what I mean.
JCW, do tell more of the bond issue.
http://californiapolicycenter.org/calculating-californias-total-state-and-local-government-debt/
Current California state and local bond debt and long-term public liabilities: an unsustainable 1.1 trillion dollars or about 28,000 for every man, woman and child in the state.
There are two primary methods to financing the government. One is taxes which are paid yearly or with more frequency and the second is to issue a bond. A bond is a method of getting cash now based on a promise to pay later. It impairs future tax revenue and will force future generations to pay for them when they become due in 30 to 40 years…by raising taxes.
Yikes! Scary debt in CA. Thanks for that link. At the Fed level we all know the debt is really out of control. Seems we just keep raising the debt ceiling as if giving ourselves a bigger credit limit is doing something to address the problem but that is a bigger topic than this board.
On your Team George link I didn’t see Jody and the Curts. They are for sure insiders who have played along and cashed in making them worthy of inclusion on that list.
Exactly right JCW.
JCW, you write,
“The reason we mention, yet do not endorse this effort [of CFJI to vote “NO” on all 45 justices] is because justices do not get county benefits. We’d like to see the law tightened up to completely stop all county benefits to judges for the reasons set forth in the video and do not believe this can be achieved by holding responsible those who do not receive those benefits. It is legislators that made the law and it needs to be legislators and the governor that fix it.”It is legislators that made the law [Senate Bill X2 11] and it needs to be legislators and the governor that fix it.”
I don’t think the above is complete enough info when giving reason not to support CFJI’s efforts. Although CA justices may not receive supplemental incomes from counties, CA justices have played a key role in aiding CA judges to continue to receive them; which causes an unconstitutional situation in which judges are receiving money from litigants who sometimes come before them, i.e. the counties.
In addition to Dr. Fine and CFJI bringing this practice to public light; Judicial Watch has done much to try to stop the practice via Sturgeon v. LA County.
In December of 2010 (George’s and Schwarzenegger’s last days in office), Justices BENKE, NARES and HALLER acknowledged that the practice is unconstitutional, but then refused to rule to stop it.
See Dec 2010 opinion:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1549990.html
“on its face SBX 211 is not a permanent response to either the constitutional issues we identified in Sturgeon I or the difficult problem of adopting a compensation scheme that deals with varying economic circumstances….”
The matter is back in the courts again. In April 2014, Judicial Watch filed another lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against the practice.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-taxpayer-suit-against-los-angeles-county-to-end-illegal-supplemental-judicial-benefits-to-superior-court-judges/
“Following a trial court ruling upholding the payments, Judicial Watch appealed. In 2008, a California Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, declaring the benefits unconstitutional under Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution because they had not been “prescribed” by the Legislature. In 2009, Los Angeles County and the judges hired lobbyists to successfully push the California Legislature to pass a bill temporarily authorizing the county payment on an interim basis until a comprehensive response to the first Sturgeon lawsuit could be enacted. To date, the Legislature has failed to establish a comprehensive response…. For Los Angeles County to continue to pay judges $24.6 million a year – over and above the salaries and benefits they already receive from the State and without proper authorization from the Legislature – violates California’s constitution and is an abuse of the taxpayers’ trust. The fact that a second lawsuit had to be filed to enforce the law against abuse by judges is a scandal.”
NARES is one of the 45 justices subject to voter retention or ousting on Nov 4th.
You asked,
1. “Could you tell us what provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics was violated, and how it was violated, specifically?”
Yes. I can. See two below links:
http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/complaint-to-san-diego-presiding-judge-for-subordinate-jurists-election-tampering/
http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2014/03/
2. “And you use the word ‘coerce.’ Could you tell us what that word means to you in this context? What was done to ‘coerce’ the bar association?”
Coerce — to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition.
See link below of email from San Diego THLA Bar president to the sitting judge’s challenger, Feb 2014:
Click to access Fox-Email.pdf
“As you know, both Judge Rubin and Judge Rosenstein have expressed a concern coming from their colleagues on the Superior Court regarding your running against a sitting judge. As strong supporters of THLA, Judges Rubin and Rosenstein wanted to alert THLA of these concerns.
As you know, many judges on the Superior Court support THLA and its mission. They attend our events, including our annual dinner. In fact, I think the THLA annual dinner has the best showing from the Superior Court as compared to all other diversity bar associations. Our good relationship with the bench is something we have worked hard to establish, and something we cherish and need to protect.
Many of THLA’s lawyer members practice in the San Diego county courts, and Fox claims those attorneys also expressed concern about judges becoming alienated by THLA’s endorsement of a challenger to one of their judicial colleagues….
The underlying tension is that these supportive judges are concerned by a THLA Board member taking on one of their colleagues in an election. Although all judges are individuals and subject to electoral challenge, they also collectively form part of the greater “Superior Court.” There is a great deal of collegiality among judges, and having a Board member of an organization that the judges strongly support directly challenge one of their own colleagues has raised concern…
There is a generally expressed a concern that a Board member openly challenging a sitting judge will reflect poorly on the organization and be seen as an affront to the Superior Court and its sitting judges generally. The Superior Court’s perception of THLA may be negatively affected (as is perhaps evidenced by the concerns received thus far)…
In addition, because of these changed circumstances, I need to emphasize that the endorsement THLA provided to you back in October 2013 was for an election to a vacant seat on the bench. Now that you are running against a sitting judge and not for a vacant seat, THLA’s prior endorsement is no longer in effect under Policy 2 of our Standing Policies and Procedures…”
POLICY 2 was changed in Feb 2014 to give a false reason to rescind the challenger’s valid endorsement from Oct 2013. The judges intimidated THLA to rescind it. Attempts were also made by the junior judge to cause the SD Democratic party to not endorse the challenger.
She stopped abusing her judicial position (publicly), once several media outlets publicly called her out for it.
3. This is just a fraction of the tale of how jurists overstepped the bounds of ethics while advocating that their appointments should be for life, not subject to voter ousting.
If you need further clarification, please do not hesitate to ask. I think several on this board could also help to explain it further.
I’ve read your response, gone to the links and read that information, and tried to understand it. What you say is nothing more that innuendo, self-serving conclusions and gossip. Judges did nothing more than speak at public meetings, or attempt to persuade groups to endorse in a particular way, and then you say that someone “felt” pressured. That’s not coercion, that;’s politics. In spite of what you say, sitting judges are allowed to do that. There is nothing ethically, legally or morally wrong with it. The fact is, you have a personal ax to grind with the San Diego bench because your cases haven’t gone the way you like, so you are on a vendetta, and you will use this forum and any other forum that will let you to pursue that vendetta. You will call anyone who disagrees with you corrupt and evil, and will go after them, their families, and any other target you can. That, Ms. Kramer, is why people are giving your posts the thumbs downs.
Thank you for taking the time to try to understand the matter.
What part do you not understand that a non-profit bar association changed the org’s policies after-the-fact to provide a non-sense reason to rescind a valid judicial seat challenger endorsement — upon being informed that the local judges may retaliate/ostricize the org for the endorsement?
October 3, 2013 THLA multi-seat endorsement of Keehn http://vc-thla.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2013-11-08-13/20131003thlabodminutes.pdf
February 6, 2014 THLA Policy #2 after-the-fact change http://vc-thla.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2014-02-07-14/standingpoliciesprocedures.pdf
February 10, 2014 THLA/Fox email to Keehn http://www.weightiermatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Fox-Email.pdf
This is just the tip of the iceberg on this one. Search the phrase, “Thou Shalt Not Challenge A Sitting Judge” to see what all comes up.
Well said and true Dante. I have been perusing the inflammatory and misconstrued posts on this website. Astonishing and demonstrating sour grapes mentality. Thank you for your thoughtful and accurate response.
I wasn’t aware of what happened in San Diego, but I was personally told by a lawyer bench candidate in another county that he got a personal visit from a thug who essentially suggested that it would be way better for this candidate’s health if he dropped out of that race.
In further violation of Rules of the Court and Code of Judicial Ethics, the San Diego Presiding Judge never even acknowledged my complaint in writing. However, the junior judge did stop giving speeches in the capacity of a sitting judge attempting to stop the challenger’s campaign base endorsers from endorsing her — while claiming judicial elections are “different”.
I spoke to the Presiding Judge at the “Informed Voters – Fair Judges” gathering last month and reminded him that in accordance with Rules of the Court, he owes me a response in writing AND that a complaint such as this one is to be sent to the CJP.
To date, I have still not received his written acknowlegment of the complaint.
Sad to see this site highjacked by those that have limited and personal concerns that have nothing to do with the much more important issues we need to address such as branch governance , democratization of the Judicial Council, the waste of billions on courthouse construction and software projects not to mention the abuse of the hardworking and loyal employees of the trial courts and those at 455 Golden Gate. I am sorry but I am really tired of hearing about San Diego and their internal politics and issues which have nothing to do with why the rest of us are here.
Thanks Lando I totally agree. I can’t tell you how frustrated I am constantly hearing about the Marin family law court and the attacks on San Diego judicial officers on a blog that once was innovative, progressive and focussed on the need to bring huge reform to an entire judicial branch taken over and captured by HRH-1 and now HH-2 and her minions.
I agree Lando and OBT.
And now a word from Sofa Man…
Click to access SP14-09.pdf
Action Requested
Review and submit comments by November 3, 2014
Judicial Administration: Revision of the
Conflict of Interest Code for the Judicial
Think you have a niggling conflict of interest? No problem, advises couchman. Just scratch your name out and call it “macaroni”! Change the gov’t code for California to that effect and all is well. The uninterested and ill-advised California citizens really don’t care — until their ox is gored. Then it will be too late.
Long live the ACJ. And I bet they will not be changing their name — ever! 🙂
Unless Cali divides itself into 11 new entities, maybe then.
How a Proposal Becomes a Rule – Fact Sheet
So true, UnionMan. I wish I could lift the plastic sheet and make certain of the people in charge of the agency formerly known as the Administrative Office of the California Courts disappear. Hell, they did it with their infamous name, the AOC, they lifted that plastic sheet and they think they erased all their bad deeds and reputations. No, I don’t think so, kids. The sentient public wishes to thank and excuse the baddies and send them to bed without their caviar, fine steak, foie gras and Grey Goose vodka. Good try with the innovative thought, baddies and pukes, but no cigar!
It has been brought to my attention that I have made an error, which I wish to correct now.
Its not just Justice Terry Bruiniers who JCW named as a Team George member; and who is up for voter retention/ousting in 29 days. Its also Justice Ronald Robie and Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst. As Justice California pointed out, CJP’s Justice Ignacio Ruvelo is also subject to an up or down vote.
OBT and Lando,
With all due respect, I have disagree with you that JCW is no longer “innovative and focus[]ed”. I think that maybe you are not understanding the purpose of this artful thread.
Although I do not completely agree with JCW’s voting recommendations; I find it brilliantly innovative and focused for JCW to have “hijacked” CFJI’s campaign to Vote “NO” on all 45 justices — and flip it to the message of Vote “NO” for only Team George justices — without directly naming names.
I think the innovate manner by which JCW relayed this message while creating discussion on the subject, may be one of the finest (and funniest!) I have seen.
As far as the concept that stopping concealment of court document falsifications in Marin family courts and in San Diego courts, is not relevant to JCW’s goal of furthering ethical branch governance statewide; I would have to strongly disagree with you there, too.
Concealment of court document falsifications, is a very serious issue which is in dire need of being addressed by the Judicial Council. Just weeks ago, Justice California and CJE members from SIXTEEN counties (not just Marin or San Diego) traveled to the Crystal Palace and were assured on video tape that the JC would be addressing who is ultimately responsible to stop this practice. Like this state’s judges, JC & CJE appear to have been promised change is coming from the helm, only to be blown off.
To diminish the relevance of this, or portray that JCW has lost its focus of cutting off the head of the snake for helping to shed light on yet another problem continuing by slight of hand of Team George members, does not seem accurate to me.
I guess what I’m trying to tell you judges is this:
We are all in this together. If one desires to increase the voting public’s awareness of the problems within the branch’s governance and garner their and their legislators’ support for change to restore autonomy in the courts; it doesn’t seem wise to deem the public’s stated concerns with branch governance as uninformed, personally motivated, frivolous, off-topic and irrelevant.
While I and many others disagree with JCW that voters removing a few Team George justices will correct the problem. I agree that it could help!!!!!
I fully intend to vote “NO” on the justices that JCW has so artfully suggested (along with several others). And I sincerely appreciate JCW starting this thread, which has hopefull stirred thought by many.
Let’s just agree to disagree on several of the finer points of this discussion.
I think that what we can all agree upon is that the point of this thread is:
a.) to make sure everyone remembers to register to vote by Oct 20th; and
b.) to encourage your vote on November 4th be one which you feel could best help to restore integrity in California’s judicial branch; and
c.) to please spread the word to your friends, family and associates to do the same.
Objection,
Your comment was broadly dismissive and provided no reference to what words you find to be “inflammatory and misconstrued posts on this website”.
As proven above, if I am ever in error I will correct when proven to be in error. I have noticed that some others on this board will do the same.
Can you quote the words you feel are “inflammatory and misconstrued on this website” and provide the proof that they are incorrect?
Justice Hollenhorst doesn’t deserve to get a “no” vote because others of his ilk are ratfinks — I mean court leaders. Here’s what I found on one of my favorite websites, the JudicialCouncilWatcher:
“My name is Associate Justice Thomas Hollenhorst and I have served as a member of the California Judiciary for 32 years. From the time that the SEC report was made public, it was clear that the recommendations were far reaching, that the case has been made for meaningful reform in California Judicial Governance and the Administrative Office of the Courts. This is not to say that the contents of the report were all that surprising, I and many others have watched the size of court administration mushroom and administrative decision making being further and further removed from the courts. The situation has become dire. Judges have become disillusioned with the size and structure of court governance, that it is non representative and that ‘speaking with one voice’ has led to a number of disastrous decisions which have wasted court resources, weakened the branch and undermined confidence in court leadership. Despite continuous videos of ‘happy talk’ from our court leaders, moral is at an all time low and distrust at an all time high. To begin to the long way back from where we are today, it is imperative that all of the recommendations made in the SEC report be implemented immediately. Dithering and studying the problem, endless surveys and committee reports will do nothing more than exacerbate a festering mess.”
Please see: https://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2012/11/28/using-judicial-ethics-to-silence-dissent/
This is the link where I found J Hollenhorst’s comments. Sorry. The JCW website is a wealth of info. I just thought to hear comments from the judges’ own lips might prove valuable in the upcoming election …
These comments are also from Nov 2012 regarding adopting the SEC recommendations:
“I join with others in asking the Judicial Council to adopt and implement the Committee’s recommendations.” Brian M. Hoffstadt, Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
“The time for reform is now.” – Lee Edmon
Please see: https://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2012/07/19/telecommuting-lawyers-kcra-3-mike-leury-and-a-reminder-from-acj/
From the above link, here’s what our buddy Ronald Robie had to say, in part:
” … In closing, we acknowledge the thorough work and some very good structural ideas in the SEC report that should be seriously considered. We reiterate our offer to work with the Council on thoughtful consideration and implementation of appropriate recommendations in the report. However, we caution against adopting recommendations too soon without studying their implications – and getting input from those who would be affected. Our comments on specific recommendations are attached to this letter.
We appreciate the willingness of the Judicial Council to go through this valuable input process because it obviously has resulted in more work for Council members as you sort through the many comments received. But we hope that the quality of the many thoughtful submissions will inform your decision-making and that you will not be swayed by a high volume of comments urging a quick result without addressing the complex issues clearly reflected in the report.”
Turn out for what?
http://www.upworthy.com/heres-the-rock-the-vote-video-everyone-is-talking-about-because-its-stuck-in-all-of-our-heads
What a heated divide has taken place on this particular thread, which JCW warned was controversial.
However, there appears to be one thing judges and the public can agree upon with respect to their feelings about the judicial branch under current “top leadership”.
“Despite continuous videos of ‘happy talk’ from our court leaders, moral is at an all time low and distrust at an all time high.”
And the good news is: Change is borne from contention.
Even Santa Barbara has been having a time of it, thanks to ol’ Jer’s use-it-or-lose-it mantle among other things. Think AOC. We know who you are even if you delete your infamous name! Woe is felt in the beautiful area as the temps have been in the three digits all the way to the shoreline. Interesting article as to what do the rich people do? Hiya, Judgee-poo Herman! 🙂 The courts are down approximately 30 percent across the board, and meanwhile, the crystal palace crew is growing like a scary blob. Same ol’, same ol’.
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/oct/04/juvie-court-relocation-gets-temporary-reprieve/
I wanted to let you know that I received a response yesterday from the Presiding Judge of San Diego’s Superior Court in regard to a complaint I had filed in March. It was very respectful and apologized for not responding sooner; and indicates that he did take action back in March.
The letter was mailed on September 26th, long before I brought the matter up on this board day before yesterday, while stating I had received no response.
The delay in receipt of the letter after we had spoken at the Informed Voters — Fair Judges Project gathering, is because my mail is currently being forwarded. (hubby and I at the beach for several months).
I have always heard that this judge is an honorable man. The receipt of this letter confirms that reputation.
Logged in as Katy.
Click to access jats-20141014-notice.pdf
Notice of Open Meeting of the
Joint Appellate Technology Subcommittee
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED BY ELECTRONIC MEANS
Meeting Date: October 14, 2014
Public Call-In Number: 1-877-820-7831 Public Access Code # 4348559
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_6
“(c) The council may appoint an Administrative Director of the Courts, who serves at its pleasure and performs functions delegated by the council or the Chief Justice, other than adopting rules of court administration, practice and procedure.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“(d) To improve the administration of justice the council shall survey judicial business and make recommendations to the courts, make recommendations annually to the Governor and Legislature, adopt rules for court administration, practice and procedure, and perform other functions prescribed by statute. The rules adopted shall not be inconsistent with statute.
Regarding item (c), it says MAY. The operative word in law would be SHALL if an ADOC was required. This “group” does not need an ADOC, in my humble opinion. Direct the savings to the trial courts.
Regarding item (d), nowhere within this paragraph does it state that the AOC — whoops — I mean the judicial council staff is the policy-making body. And that goes for the judicial council, also. Recommendations are made to be considered. That’s it!
Somewhere on this website or on the AOCWatcher a very funny and true comment was made about the AOC’s similarity to a delinquent run amok with the family car keys. Instead of going to the library as promised, the brat went to the liquor store, held it up, stole booze, then ran about town at excessive speeds, etc., etc.
Long story short and too late, they are NOT the policy making body. It’s a matter of constant repetition that they hope will become believed. If the truth has to be regurgitated over and over again to this agency who chose to hide behind a name change to anonymity, so be it.
Such an interesting day today.
My considered prediction? The entire Marin County bench (because they were all notified) is going to go down in flames for actually or tacitly (by refusing to act) supporting the Marin County Superior Court’s now-undisputed (via letter by Marin Presiding Judge D’Opal) backdating of official Marin court records.
Let’s see. LOL.
Thumbs down me all you want at your blog credibility peril. Let’s be real. It is news when a Team George Judicial Council member/appointee (Kim Turner) violates the law by knowingly and intentionally backdating official court records. . . . with approval at all levels of the branch.
If the State of California cannot clean up the Judicial Branch itself it is time to call in the FBI and DOJ. . . . .
It’s so in-your-face appalling that everyone looks past it.
Kim Turner was a recipient of the William C. Vickrey Excellence in Judicial Administration award. You know, the guy that most of us believed should have been fired, including a few legislators.
It takes some serious brown-nosing to earn that award. Backdating the court records is probably one of the few things she had time to do for her court outside of all her purported service to the judicial council. Along with the decision to redefine and destroy court records while holding the auditor at arms length that’s all some real fancy footwork worthy of a Vickrey award granted in the true spirit of the award.
Did they happen to try to soundly justify the reason for the backdating?
this is all a tempest in a teapot. I am so glad I live in a country where everyone can speak their mind, and thank you JCW, for giving us this forum. you guys are great. I hope to meet you all when day when the death star has been destroyed. 🙂
I totally support the right of everyone to speak their minds but I thought this site was all about the many issues and problems the overlords at the Crystal Palace have created throughout the entire branch. Bringing democracy back to 455 Golden Gate would be on the top of the priority list along with scaling back the size and power of the Judicial Council and staff over the trial courts. Auditing the abuses in the courthouse construction world would also be of major state wide significance. In contrast the continual beat down of Justices, Judges and court employees who are alleged to be corrupt because they disagree with someone in Marin or San Diego just undermines credibility and drags the voices of reform down.
OBT,
I composed a big ole nail spitting reply to your latest post; and then I decided not to post it.
This is the toned down version:
I take issue with your erred portrayal that there are two lone voices on this board whinning of their irrelevant personal problems while getting in your way as you are diligently trying to stop corruption.
This is what I want to know:
Why do you think it is okay for you to complain of cronyism in the JC making it harder for judges to administer justice; but it is not okay for those who speak for those who lives are ruined by judges failing to administer justice, complaining of the same?
The reality is MANY in this state — not just judges and AOC employees — are being harmed by the dysfunction in California’s judicial branch.
Quite frankly, it appears to me to be short-sighted, myopic and narcissistic to only want to look at how the broken system impacts judges’ inability to control the money in their courts.
If the trial court judges want to silence the public who speak of the end results of the compromised JC having too much control over the courts; then why would you even think that the public be inclined to think the trial court judges would do any better job if they were in control?
And more importantly, why would any legislator believe that?
California’s judicial branch needs to be repaired from top to bottom. Pretending it only needs to be repaired at the top, does no good for anyone.
One can’t completely solve a problem without completely acknowledging what the problem is.
Click to access tcpjac_ceac-20141016-JLWG-notice.pdf
Notice of Closed Meeting of the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee/Court Executives Advisory Committee Joint Legislation Working Group (JLWG)
Short sighted,myopic and narcissistic? Really? You have no idea how long I have worked and what I have done for the citizens of this great state or the efforts I have made to reform our branch. Your continual diatribes do a great disservice to this once strong and powerful website. JCW you have failed. You allow Ms Kramer to insult the very people who are working every day to bring real change to 455 Golden Gate. Today you lost one more of your great supporters.
Don’t go OBT.
OBT, I just saw this post of yours. I wasn’t writing of you personally. I was writing in general terms of the need to comprehensively look at the problem. I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings. That was certainly not my intent. You can ask MP, we have this same debate about every three months! He knows its not personal. 🙂
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED BY ELECTRONIC MEANS Meeting Date: October 14, 2014
OBT I agree with you, Dante , Wendy (an awesome person) and others who try and keep this site focussed on the big picture. Enough however is enough. It is sad to see how a few angry people can wreck a blog that had a significant voice in the effort to end the royal rule of HRH-1 and HRH-2. I will do my best to continue the good fight to end the dysfunctional and arrogant rule of our branch.. When we succeed and fear and retribution are over I will host a party for all the great people I have met here . Wendy, Ant , General, OBT, Unionman, Flea, Max Rebo, Michael Paul, Campomadera, Versal JCW and many more. To all of you thanks for your courage and strength.
Yes! I remember Versal-Versal. And Omerta! All I know is, I will be royally pissed if any great contributors go. The OBJ, please don’t go! I will be humming that song, “Please don’t go” all day long, hoping you won’t be pushed off this website. Remember, the angry voices tend to be heard above the happy, satisfied ones. Looking forward to your further posts.
And long live the ACJ
I will be out of the country for the next 30 days without a cell phone or a computer.
Before I go I would like to make a comment about folks leaving this site because of the actions of a couple of individuals.
Please do not leave.
Let us keep in mind that people have a right to be heard but the right to be heard does not mean that one has the right to be taken seriously.
Information does not become true or even relevant just because it is said with passion over and over again.
I am again amazed at the great divide on this thread.
OBT, many of us are putting ourselves on the line to effect positive change in the branch.
As a lawyer I have been documenting and reporting systemic Marin court corruption for 15 years and studying the Judicial Council for almost a decade — because it has protected that corruption. So I really do understand that many in the branch don’t care if a Judicial Council member/appointee engages in the mass destruction of trial court evidence before a joint legislative audit committee investigation with Judicial Council and trial court approval, or backdates “official court records” and then refuses to issue a Notice of Entry of Order correcting that backdating, with trial court knowledge and approval.
The public DOES care about things like court destruction of child custody evidence and falsification of official court records.
It would be one thing if there was a debate about whether the evidence destruction or backdating really happened. At this point there is no question or disagreement that that those things happened. The Judicial Council admitted the document destruction in a Judicial Council “report”, and Marin Presiding Judge Faye D’Opal –who was notified about the backdating in writing last January, but took no steps to correct it– just admitted (without apology) in a September 15, 2014 letter copied to the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Judicial Council and others that although “official court records” reflect that a written minute order was entered on October 3, 2013, it was actually entered on October 28, 2013. In a case where the date of entry of a written order is a key issue, and the litigant has been officially requesting and been denied a Notice of Entry of Order reflecting the correct date of entry for almost a year. Query: in how many cases has that happened?
These things are unacceptable to the public and should be unacceptable to the branch.
The branch should care that these acts are taking place anywhere in the branch, because these acts (not complaints about these acts) violate the public trust and undermine the credibility of the entire branch– and that is unfair to both the public and honest, hard working judges and court employees.
It’s real simple family law folks..this is about the JC, not your beef with a local court or particular jurist.
Let’s rise above the fray, shall we?
I especially look forward to hearing from The OBJ, Tony, Lando and General Nat (hope he returns from his bunker) and others because of the insight and the views from their angles that no one else can offer. Let’s face it, the general public can be apathetic to this important plight behind this website. For the most part, they have no interaction with the courts. I found AOCWatcher because of my specific anger over an isolated issue, and probably that’s how others arrive here. Anyhoo, don’t let the creeps win because we’re breaking from the inside. The judicial branch is too important to all. Best wishes to everyone and don’t melt in this heat and go wild. 🙂
Long live the ACJ and the JCW!
Many honorable judges and court employees have worked hard to restore efficiency and democracy to the courts.
Thus far, the courts’ “policy writing body” simply changes the rules of the game whenever the honorable judges and court employees get too close to bringing any real change.
As a result, our judicial system is in shambles.
There is a problem, which is criminal, occurring because of the ongoing mismanagement.
That criminal problem is the repeated supervisional denial/ignoring of court document falsifications by judicial officers and clerks; and the retaliation against those who seek to stop the practice and the damage it causes.
It seems to me that if the ACJ and its supporters wanted to instill confidence among the public and legislators that the trial judges as a whole do not condone unabated criminal acts in the courts; and would therefore do a better job of managing their courts and tax dollars than the current system; that the ACJ would seize the opportunity which Justice California and the Center for Judicial Excellence (CJE) have provided them.
See Judicial Council’s attempt to avoid responsibility for unabated fraud upon the court, below:
http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/2014/10/07/the-judicial-councils-10314-written-response/
I think the ACJ should write a follow up letter to the Judicial Council — voicing support for CJE that a public meeting be scheduled with the Judicial Counci to address the problem. Then cc it to Governor Brown, Kamala Harris, the CJP and your presiding judges. (Brown and Harris told CJE that the Judicial Council is the ultimate responsible party to address the systemic problem.)
The roadblocks who refuse to take action to stop this criminal practice — which diminishes the credibility of all California judiciaries and increases distrust of them — are the same Team George members who have caused the branch to be in its current state of shambles.
Is ACJ willing to take a comprehensive stand against corruption caused by the dysfunctional leadership, or no?
If yes, then please send a letter in support the pleas of the public who supports the trial courts gaining more control, for the good of us all.
The public is not your enemy. We want the same thing you do: Efficiently run impartial courts with respect for all those who work honestly within the system and justice for those who depend on the system being honest and fair. We want the yahoos who have destroyed the branch removed from leadership roles, just as much as the trial judges and court employees do.
Instead of telling us to sit down and shut up, help us help you to restore efficient integrity in California’s judicial branch.
And I agree with Tony. Please do not leave.
Sharon: I would ask for a favor as a fellow commenter here that you not even refer to the infamously unnamed agency as policy writer or policy anything as that is a fallacy they promote to the general public. One of my pet peeves with those creeps is how they promote themselves as policy-makers. They are NOT. 🙂 (and I did not do the thumbs down)
Second, the ACJ, whom I do not speak for, certainly must have a lot on their plates now. I assume they are working judges and these days that means more than 40 hours a week, probably much more. I believe they are doing all they can as it is. I remember working in the trenches at the trial courts as one of the front line workers — I was not a judge and I respect the judges I worked with very much — but at the end of the day, I was totally dogged, dog tired, and barely had the ability to interact with family with the leftover scraps of time, then back to the grind again the next day. I believe the honorable judges who are part of the ACJ are doing all they possibly can.
As much as I sympathize with what you have said, you do have “katy exposure,” I believe, to carry your main concerns. I know you’re at the beach as you’ve said and the temperatures are at the three digits all the way to the coastline so I assume you’re hotter than ever. Please cool down. 😉
I don’t recall anyone referring to “two lone” voices here in a derogatory way.
Thank you, Ant.
I am one of them.
Wearyant,
Those three words you mention, “policy writing body”, really do go to the heart of the problem. I put the words “policy writing body” in quotes because those are not my words. They are the Judicial Council’s erred self description of what they are, under the color of law.
As far as “two lone” voices: Remarks concerning the problem of judicia/clerk falsified court docs, which adversely impact all of us, have been dismissed on this board as only concerns in Marin family courts and San Diego courts. To my knowledge there are only “two lone” voices on this board seeking help from members of this board, including ACJ members, to put an end to the statewide problem.
If this info was just posted on Katy’s or CJE’s websites/blogs, how do you see that reaching employees of the branch and judicial officers, who could help to cause the practice to cease?
I don’t think anyone questions that this problem is real and is yet one more big one, which illustrates just how bad things really are under the current court leadership.
Are you saying that you think the ACJ is too busy to write one letter to help stop fraud upon the court being condoned and aided to continue by the court leadership?
And lastly, I’m not hot at the beach. Its a tough subject with a tough crowd on this board.
Hard to relay key info and make direct appeals for help w/o stating the matter directly.
Warm Regards, (pun intended)
I am not asking the ACJ or anyone else here to write a letter. I am fully aware that everyone here has their plates full doing what they can to change the system.
A main focus of the Center for Judicial Excellence (which is based in Marin) has been family law matters, and the records I make are in family law because that is what I do, but my personal focus has been and is much broader.
I actually distanced myself from the CJE for a time because I had what (back then) was considered a pretty radical goal and I did not want that to reflect on CJE– I wanted Ron George out.
I wrote a JusticeCalifornia bulletin disseminated to legislators supporting ACJ legislation, and I think I was the only lawyer to appear at one judiciary committee hearing regarding that legislation.
Those things were voluntary, with the belief–after observing the Judicial Council and their priorities, that the branch at the highest levels needs to be reformed.
http://www.coastalpost.com/07/01/03a.html
My overarching belief (and what I try to convey on this blog — let’s just say I am providing a public view) is that the branch serves the public, and that the number one priority of the branch should be providing what the public needs– open courts, court reporters, good court clerks, self help resources and impartial judges.
And if the courts are not fair, NOTHING else really matters. That applies to ALL areas of the law.
http://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/local/2014/10/09/new-courthouse-dedication-hollister/16967537/
New courthouse dedication in Hollister
The Superior Court of California for San Benito County is hosting a public ceremony to dedicate its new courthouse at 3 p.m. Friday at 450 Fourth St., Hollister.
The ceremony celebrates the culmination of more than 10 years of planning, design, and construction of a new 41,500 square-foot courthouse for San Benito County. The new building consolidates virtually all judicial services into a central location that features onsite parking, three courtrooms, a jury assembly room that also functions as a hearing room, nine public counter stations and numerous security enhancements that increase the safety of everyone participating in the judicial process.
A tour of the new courthouse will follow the ceremony.
The ceremony will include remarks by Presiding Judge Steven R. Sanders, United States Representative Sam Farr, Merced County Superior Court Presiding Judge Brian L. McCabe, who is also a member of the California Judicial Council, California State Senator Anthony Cannella, California State Assemblyman Luis Alejo, San Benito County Board of Supervisors Chair Jerry Muenzer, and Hollister Mayor Ignacio Velazquez.
The design for the courthouse, done by San Francisco-based architects SmithGroupJJR, was recognized for excellence by the American Institute of Architects’ Academy of Architecture for Justice.
Click to access cscac-20141017-notice.pdf
Notice of Closed Meeting of the
Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee – ADR Subcommittee
In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(e)(1), public notice is hereby given that the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee’s ADR Subcommittee will hold a closed session on October 17 at 12:10 PM. The meeting will be closed pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(c)(3). A copy of the agenda for this meeting is available on the advisory body web page on the California Courts website listed above.
a closed session for the civil and small claims advisory committee? you have got to be kidding me! what on earth would they need a closed session ? Oh pleeze!
Agreed, Flea. WTH?! I wonder what lame reason provoked their fear this time.
Gee, I don’t know why they would need to meet behind closed doors at this point in time.
“Under rule 10.41 of the California Rules of Court, the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee (C&SCAC) is charged with making recommendations to the Judicial Council for improving the administration of justice in civil and small claims proceedings.”
Its a big ole committee:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/civilandsmallclaims.htm#tab26242
The 17th is a Friday too. It’s party time! The public would put a real damper on the festivities.
As I sit here and sip a very refreshing Vodka Tonic, I present this month’s Death Star org chart.
Click to access jc_org_chart.pdf
Give me the Plan…
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/10/09/6772293/state-lays-out-plans-for-new-downtown.html
Thanks for the links, UMan. Is it Friday already? Their first purty chart with the new guy appears rather austere … black and white, no purty colors. Too bad, so sad, probably reflects on Howle’s crew diggin’ around, finding neato, fun stuff.
And in Sacto the developers are excited, no doubt happy, about the railway yard and the deals to be made. Whee. Pass the Grey Goose label, there’s great things in the works in construction.
Long live the ACJ. Wish they could be present at the closed meetings and backroom deals to protect the taxpayers’ pocketbooks. Also, to lend a little sanity to all the “fun” to be had.
Some food for thought. Published today, Friday, October 10, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw:
State Supreme Court Resets Ethics Rewrite
The California Supreme Court delivered news on Sept. 19 that shocked many in the ethics world, yet drew surprisingly little publicity: Matter No. S206125 was closed with “no action taken.” The matter that the court closed was the revisions to the California Rules of Professional Conduct—revisions that began over a decade ago. Those revisions are now off the table.
Despite the court’s apparent inaction, this opens the door to a renewed rules revision process.
Still, there is little indication why the court chose its path.
The court’s docket sheet for No. S206125 provides little information. The court’s per curiam order notes it had received 17 petitions for amending the rules, and granted the State Bar’s request to return the rules to the Bar without ruling or further inquiry.
So what’s really going on here? Most of the history of the commission is publicly available, and some of the less public information can be pieced together based on the recent exchange of correspondence, the commission’s public meetings and discussions, both on and off the record over the years, with many of the principals involved. So here’s the history, as I understand it.
California was the only one of 51 jurisdictions (50 states and D.C.) to decline adopting some form of the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which date from 1983. Beginning work in 1986, a California rules commission came up with its own set of rules and an entirely different organization and numbering system, which our Supreme Court approved effective May 1989. Then in 2001, under pressure from the court to “harmonize” our rules with the ABA’s formulation, the State Bar appointed a commission to engage in wholesale rules revision, keeping in mind the ABA rules and whether differences between other states and California were necessary.
The work of this Rules Commission was doomed from the start. First, instead of appointing a new commission, the Bar re-appointed the old commission, first formed 15 years before, that created the 1989 rules. This had two important effects: first, the commission was older, and less diverse, than it should have been. After all, the commissioners had aged 15 years. This meant very little new blood with new ideas.
Second and perhaps more significantly, the re-appointed commissioners were given the task of changing their own work product—the rules they had themselves created. As it turned out, the commission and its chair, Harry Sondheim, strongly resisted its charter to harmonize the rules with the rest of the country, and set out on its own path to revise the rules as they saw fit. For the first few years of its existence, the commission even refused to use the ABA rules’ numbering system, universal except for California.
After some attrition, a certain amount of “new blood” was brought on. Unfortunately, with some exceptions—most notably Mark Tuft of Cooper, White & Cooper, who was appointed as one of the vice-chairs—most new commissioners tended to be “lawyers’ lawyers,” whose primary occupation was arguing in favor of lawyer protection. As a result, the commission’s draft rules not only did not try to harmonize California with other states, but also were seriously—one ABA staffer who closely observed the process thought “shockingly”—lawyer-protective.
The refusal to make even an attempt to conform most rules to the ABA model did not sit well with the court. Nor, I suspect, did a pervasive lawyer-protective attitude that was also inconsistent with the spirit of the ABA rules. It also did not sit well with a series of State Bar presidents, at least two of whom considered de-commissioning the group and starting with a fresh commission, free of baggage and focused on public protection.
But de-commissioning after six or seven years of work ultimately seemed too extreme. In 2008, Holly Fujie, now an L.A. County Superior Court judge, became State Bar president. She made it known she was considerably skeptical about the commission’s work. It was widely understood, informally, that she considered de-commissioning the group and that during her tenure the commission heard directly from a Supreme Court representative who attempted to bring the commission back into line in following its charter.
After that, the commission began moving in that direction, although in a glacially slow manner. Although the ABA numbering system was finally adopted, at first that was only tentative.
Some lip service was paid to ABA reasoning, and the commission prepared a chart of how the rules meshed with—or varied from—the ABA’s, though the chart sometimes sounded like more of a PR pitch than a substantive analysis. The commission’s chairman, Sondheim, who initially allowed endless debate without much concrete work product, became increasingly autocratic, cutting off debate on a series of serious issues, particularly those affecting public interest.
Commission divisions
By this time, the commission had three distinct groups: a few “old-timers” who simply had the honestly-held belief that moving towards the ABA model was wrong and eventually voted against the entire work output; the “lawyer apologists” who continued to insist on rules—and, more nefariously, little “land mines” in the extensive comments sections—that would protect lawyers’ interests; and the reformers, led by Tuft and Court of Appeals Justice Ignacio Ruvolo, who saw client and public protection as the rules’ primary goals. A few commissioners were not so easily pigeon-holed, and these “independents” became occasional swing voters.
But the reformers won few battles, most significantly changing the conflicts of interest rule to an ABA model. Overall, the eventual work-product that went to the State Bar Board of Trustees in 2010 reflected the composition of the committee. To those concerned about public protection, the 67 proposed rules failed in many respects. But the Bar board, overwhelmed by the huge volume of information provided by the commission and despite the significant misgivings of the then-Bar president, rubber-stamped the rules and sent them to the court.
After preparing the rules with explanations for the court, in early 2011 the Bar submitted all 67 rules at once. The court—then undergoing a change from Chief Justice George, who was quite familiar with the process, to Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, who understandably was not—was overwhelmed. It rejected the Bar’s submission and asked for the rules to be submitted one at a time, with sufficient explanations of the rules themselves and how and why they varied from the ABA Model Rules.
So the submissions began, and in the last two years 17 rules, with thorough explanations, were submitted to the court. It was these 17 rules that on Aug. 11, the State Bar, in a letter to the court, asked to be sent back for “a comprehensive reconsideration.” Whether the Bar acted alone or after conversations with the court is not known.
In any event, the Supreme Court’s response went far beyond sending back the rules. It terminated its review completely, and instructed the State Bar to form a second commission.
The court insisted on being consulted by the Bar regarding the size and composition of the commission, as well as to “discuss some of the issues that have arisen in the review process.” Clearly, the court’s discomfort, first exhibited almost a decade ago, had finally prevailed over efforts to fix what turned out to be unfixable.
Reforms come late, but are welcome
Despite the general reaction on ethics forums around the country (“Why did this take so long?” or “What is the court doing?”) the action by the court should not be seen as a lack of progress. The first commission’s process simply did not work. Several Bar presidents and, I believe, the court itself, came close to abandoning the dysfunctional commission and starting over many times in the past six to eight years. But no one wants to take such extreme action lightly, and so everyone struggled on. The only problem with the Supreme Court’s Sept. 19 action is that in hindsight it should have happened five or seven years earlier.
I was the principal drafter and co-author, with professors Geoffrey Hazard of Hastings and Deborah Rhode of Stanford, of a letter submitted to the court in March. This letter, signed by 55 California law professors who teach legal ethics, singles out over 20 areas where the proposed rules were not sufficiently protective of individual clients and the public. That’s a huge set of problems. Implicit in that letter was that the current rules should not be approved as they exist.
Frankly, a new commission designed to follow dictates that our Supreme Court formulates will ultimately result in a much better outcome for all Californians—at least all who don’t want to protect the unnecessary advantages attorneys now enjoy.
This de- and re-commissioning should have happened years ago. But the Supreme Court has definitely made the right decision by doing it now.
http://www.therecorder.com/home/id=1202673053087/State-Supreme-Court-Resets-Ethics-Rewrite?mcode=1202617072607&curindex=5
Click to access mhiitf-20141010-notice.pdf
Mental Health Issues Implementation Task Force
Time: 10:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Location: Judicial Council Board Room
Public Call-In Number: 1-877-820-7831 Passcode 7505065 (Listen Only)
In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(e)(1), public notice is hereby given that the Mental Health Issues Implementation Task Force will hold a meeting open to the public on October 20, 2014, 10:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m., at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. A copy of the agenda for this meeting is available on the advisory body web page on the California Courts website listed above.
So what’s the reason for the secret meeting regarding the small claims committee? Is the intent of the committee to push small claims out of the courts into expensive alternative dispute resolution programs? What is the specific reason for making a small claims committee meeting private? I missed that in what little material they provided.
JCW,
As I read it, the charge of the committee is not just small claims. It says small claims AND civil courts. It seems to make no sense at all that there would be a reason for this committee to meet behind closed doors UNLESS some radical concept is already planned to be presented. Does it impact small claims courts or civil courts or both?
I agree, Sharon. There could be changes afoot. Could the closed meeting mean they want to avoid any resistance that they fear will come?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2249137
Looks like a pile of slag, the results of our failed court system at the hands of The Feckless. May be just the beginning of horrible effects from the queen’s misguided rule. She should give out another award in Vickrey’s name. Maybe an award should be created in ronO’s legacy. I know. The Sacto railway yard might be named after ronnie. 😀 I have to either laugh or cry and prefer laughter.
I enjoyed reading this post. I want to get back to the fundamental points. It is important to vote and if you are not registered please do so—this is an important election. Judicial Council Watcher is right “It is up to you to take the first step in advocating change by voting.”
As to what Judicial Council Watcher calls its unpopular political views –they should be unpopular. I will explain.
The California voters in this election should vote NO to each judicial officer requesting retention. Such exercise of your voting right supports the California Constitution and is necessary to engage long overdue reform. Across the board “NO” whether democrat, republican, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, gay, or any other category. Moreover, once the violators of the constitution are given a vote of “no confidence” the choice should be (1) any new candidate who wants to run (without requiring a appointment by the Governor), and (2) a judicial officer who wants to remain in office. Yes, the people should be able to decide and put forth judicial candidates!!!
Why? The people who betrayed the California voters by putting forth and perpetuating section 5 of SBX211 are in control of the selection process. (see supplemental California General Election pamphlet p. 29).
“Before a person can become an appellate justice, the Governor must submit the candidate’s name to the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission…The Governor then reviews the commission’s evaluation and officially nominates the candidate…” Who is on the commission? “The Chief Justice of California, the Attorney General of California, the senior Presiding Justice of the Courts of Appeal.” “The Commission on Judicial Appointments must then confirm or reject the nomination. Only if confirmed does the nominee become a justice”. “following confirmation, the justice is sworn into office and is subject to voter approval at the next gubernatorial election, and thereafter at the conclusion of each term.”
A substantial number of judicial officers in the second appellate district and supreme court accepted public employment and office before their appointment. These people unquestionably were county employees who accepted public office. They were required to understand and uphold the constitution. California Constitution Section VI Section 17 specifies that acceptance of public employment means you constitutionally resign from your position as a judge or justice. So why would California voters vote to retain a judge or justice who under the constitution hasalready resigned. Why are these individuals failing to tell the voters that I have to get your consent as required by California Constitution Art VI Section 21 before I proceed with your case or disclose that they are receiving “super immunnities” in the hidden section 5 of SBX2 11. Justices and judges have an obligation to address the issue of California Constitution VI 17, 21 and should be screaming their objection to section 5 of SBX2 11 and objection to all those people who had a role in putting it into place.
Nice new moniker Sharon.
Unionman,
I didn’t post that. I don’t know who did.
If I was going to use a pseudonym after the grief I’ve caught on this board for discussing an alternative way to quickly restore integrity in the Cal courts, it would probably be “Gary Webb” 🙂
(Go see “Kill the Messenger”. Its a great movie about a San Jose’ Mercury News journalist re: why journalists/newspapers don’t expose massive frauds)
http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2014/10/10/heading-out-to-san-francisco-to-stopcourtcrimes/
The judges were promised those benefits provided by SB X211, they deserve those benefits and it is NOT double dipping. Nyah! Just as ronnyGeorge did an end run to keep Angelo Buono inside, he got the judges what they were promised. Not *everything* ronnyGeorge did was bad.
I’m sure there are many on this board who are better versed on SBX2 II than I am. But as I understand it, its not a question if judges in some courts deserve cost of living subsidies or not. Its a question of whose paying the subsidies and the unlawful conflicts of interest it causes.
As I understand it, the county subsidies were found to be unconstitutional via Sturgeon, and SBX2 11 was suppose to be a stop-gap measure until the branch properly addressed it — which the branch never did.
A primary problem is, when judges receive payment from counties they work in, this causes a situation where they are being paid by a litigant who comes before them if the county is a party to the litigation. So any county judge has a conflict of interest for any case involving their county.
As I understand it, Sturgeon III was filed in April 2014. As I understand it, the JC is shopping for a county judge that can hear it w/o a conflict of interest — meaning one where the county does not subsidize judges’ incomes.
However, we all know that the city mice and country mice do not always get along. So it seems to me that if the matter was heard in a county that judges do not receive county subsidies, that could also be a conflict of interest — just not as blatant.
Search the term “SBX211” You’ll see all kinds of litigation about the inherent conflicts of interests when counties pay judges.
Someone please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
Hi Sharon. I just know what I saw within 25+ years working with judges. The majority of them worked really hard, maybe trying to impress their citizens who voted them in, which is laudable in itself. It makes my head hurt to analyze these code sections, but I’ll read it again. Just sayin’ from what I saw and heard. The judges were promised certain things or the job just isn’t worth doing. A higher caliber person is needed for this thankless job of judge; you know it and I know it. Now a horde of bureaucrats have slowly “blobbed” forth, and one of the things they do is monitor the judges closely, i.e., how long are they on the bench, how many breaks, how many cases handled down to how much toilet paper is gone through. Oh, I’m getting off on a tangent. I just say, a promise is a promise. I don’t know about nowadays, but when I was in harness, those judges at the time deserved what they were promised, and that was around the time SBX211 was put forward, yes.
The county conflict? I don’t get it. Of course they work in the county they came from. A conflict there? I guess I’m thick. 😉
If you really need something positive done, do it locally. The honcho bureaucrats I worked with couldn’t have cared less about the ADA and their rules. The ADA was ignored as too troublesome, too expensive, “F” ’em. I don’t know how Santa Barbara got this done, but congrats to them.
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/oct/10/courthouse-observation-deck-closing-temporarily-ja/
“A promise is a promise”… really! You have got to be kidding. I am hoping that was a joke.
Nope, no joke. The judges from a couple decades ago were The Top. SBX211 was a correction.
The conflict is like this:
If you had a corporation who was giving a judge money (for whatever reason) and the corporation was a party to a litigation that the judge was overseeing, it’d be obvious that the judge should recuse himself from the case. Judges can’t take money from litigants in their courts.
The same applies if it is a county, rather than a corporation,which is giving the judge money. (that has already been legally deemed unconstitutional to give via Sturgeon).
If it weren’t known to be an unconstitutional practice, then there would have been no need for the JC/George to give the judges’ retroactive immunity. If constitutional, immunity from what?
So…Benke and them punted on stopping the unconstitutional practice in Sturgeon II under the pretext that the legislature would fix it. But the legislature never did; and neither did most counties/courts.
So now, you have judges who have been given immunity from prior known unconstitutional acts, continuing to commit the same unconstitutional acts.
Its still a mess because they legally should not be ruling on cases which come before them involving the county– which is giving them the moola. They should, and sometimes do, recuse themselves when the situation arises.
I think there is something like only 12 counties which still do it.
Again, I’m sure someone could explain this in better legaleeze than I can. I’m not even certain I understand it all. I just understand the above part to it, of why its a dangerously wrong practice that needs to fixed for the sake of functioning, impartial courts.
I can grasp that a judge shouldn’t hear a case involving “county” versus jane doe, yeah. The case should be transferred to another county and it’s easily done. Or a “temp” judge is brought in, an assigned judge. I agree. I never saw conflicts ignored; perhaps it’s done differently in San Diego. 😉 Frankly, I am tired of everyone suffering because of the few bad apples. It happens in every layer of our lives. Because a few judges are “less than,” the judges I worked with and other fine people should not have to go without what they were promised.
San Diego County doesn’t subsidize the judges’ incomes. I have been told that this is why Sturgeon I & II was heard in the appellate court down here.
As far as it being a rare and isolated problem in counties that do subsidize — it might behoove you to do a quick rsearch on Dr. Richard Fine, Sturgeon, Branson, and SBX211, to understand that’s it a big problem.
I don’t know if bringing in a temp judge would help. Seems maybe not in complex litigations. Dunno.
No,noo, not subsidise their incomes. The judges were informed they would have certain compensation and they’re entitled to it, in my humble opinion. Nothing underhanded about it. They were entitled to have SBX 211 right a wrong. I think the judges have shit jobs now, frankly. They should be paid more. I say, root out the ethically challenged. There are many decent ones that deserve respect and good compensation.
Wearyant. You are not really informed on the issue. There are fine judges, of course. However, this is not the point. Our constitution, adopted by the people of the State of California, absolutely prohibits public employment. County employment is public employment. Who made these promises that the constitution would be ignored? What authority allowed this? This is not an issue of judicial compensation.
There are appropriate ways to have the state approve judicial employment and benefits. The point is the constitution bars public employment outside of judicial employment (funded by the state). If public employment occurs outside judicial employment this results in constitutional judicial resignation.
Who was responsible for reading the constitution when these promises were made? Our elected and appointed officials must swear to uphold the constitution and the law? Do they now swear to uphold the constitution only if some third party doesn’t make a better offer? And, how could the modifications to the constitution be made without a vote of the people. Last I heard…There were no special exceptions in the constitution.
We need to get back to basics and restore what has been taken from the people. All those fine judges your talking about should have no problem with the people developing a structure that complies with the constitution.
I like the point you make about getting back to what the CA constitution says. I believe this whole mess evolved when the courts went ” state-funded.” Some thought the courts would be better served via state coffers than county … and, blast it, here we are. The judges were sort of rolled over. But you’re right, the constitution should prevail. I just don’t find fault with the majority of the judges getting just compensation. SBX211 is an end-run, but case law shouldn’t trump the CA constitution either. I would like to take a sledge hammer to the paper mess created and go back to the mid 90s before RonnyG did his centralization throne/rule. He and his crew had a unending party while the money flowed so now the queen thinks bastions of dollars fix everything. It is evident why I’m not in charge. 😀 The jokers never admit they were wrong and go back to where they were. What can be done? A initiative to follow the law? Adhere to the constitution? Or more Sturgeon rulings? What a freakin’ mess.
I think the public comment period for the next Judicial Council meeting is going to be very, very interesting. LOL. Mark your calendars.
Looking forward to it! May reason prevail in this sea of madness called the judicial council and its STAFF, formerly known as the infamous administration of the courts. No matter how many times they suggest it, they do NOT set policy, but they MAY suggest it. Best of luck to you, JusticeCA. I will be there in spirit.
Click to access REFM-2014-03-BR-BAS-HVAC-Final.pdf
Click to access efficient-effective-trial-court-programs.pdf
“The Judicial Council of California, chaired by the Chief Justice of California, is the primary policy making body of the California judicial system. The Real Estate and Facilities Management office (“REFM”) is a division of the Judicial Council responsible for real estate and facility management for the Superior and Appellate Court facilities in California, including site acquisitions and property dispositions.”
Oh, now these people claim to be the PRIMARY policy making body … they think if they SAY it and print it, that makes it so. I call it macaroni. That claim by the agency formerly known as the infamous AOC cannot be found in any CA government code anywhere. I defy these unnamed thugs to cite it.
And the thought that these bozos claim to be in charge of site acquisitions and property dispositions is even more scary. Happy Halloween, everyone. Hold on to your socks lest they be scared off by the future plans of this hopeless agency without a name!
Rounding out the trifecta of failure with the JC “policy-writing body” and the CJP “independent state agency”, now a word about the CA State Bar from a former member:
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/522421-timothy-d-naegele/3243585-the-state-bar-of-california-is-lawless-and-a-travesty-and-should-be-abolished
“To say that the State Bar is totally worthless-and lawless, and does not pay its bills-is not to exaggerate one iota. When I was sworn in as a California lawyer, I was in awe of the State Bar. However, this has not been true for many years. It is just one more fraudulent trade association, whose existence is perpetuated to serve its staff members above everyone else. Lawyers are held in low esteem today, inter alia, because rogue organizations like the State Bar exist, which are bankrupt morally and ethically.
Its support from financially strapped Californians and the equally strapped State of California is wasted and must be eliminated completely; and its membership must become voluntary, at best.”
REALLY looking forward to this month’s JC meeting.
I do believe our LEGISLATIVE JC members should attend the upcoming JC meeting and pay attention to the public’s perception of what is going down in the branch. This is NOT a time to be absent.
Elected officials from all branches should listen in.
Court reporters: your cause is our “ask/demand” at this particular JC meeting. We are opening the door. You should attend and use the opportunity to advocate for yourselves and the public.
Me too. I sincerely appreciate the blood, sweat and tears that have caused the JC to address serious public concerns at the upcoming open meeting. I am going to be there to watch.
All that people want is honesty in the courts. They are not going away until that happens.
Great job, Justice California, et.al! Thank you for all you do.
Ant U have hushmail
back atcha, UMan
Click to access tcpjac_ceac-20141020-JRWG-notice.pdf
Click to access tcpjac-20141022-Public-Notice.pdf
Click to access LAP-20141021-notice.pdf
The situation the court interpreters find themselves in and the supposed plan proposed by the evil empire leaves me apoplectic and speechless. The bureaucrats appear to resent any sentient being with special skills that can’t be replaced by a recording device or dumb robot. See http://www.dilbert.com for Friday, 10/17/2014.
Say, wouldn’t a great idea for savings be taking all 58 court CEOs and putting them in one building in Sacto where they can be reached at any time by video? Think of all the money that could be saved on their incidentals and support staff and lovely office furnishings! Why, even that special dude who is so treasured above all by someone with clout that is telecommuting from Switzerland would approve. Simplistically put, soon it would be seen that they aren’t really needed for the courts to function at all! Wheeee! The first to go should be Michael Planet and Jake Chatters! Followed closely by Alan whats-his-face. That’s my plan and I’m stickin’ to it.
Can’t wait until Elaine Howle is finished with her report.
Hang in there, ACJ.
Documentary maker Joseph Sorge says “Vote ‘No’ to All Balloted Supreme & Appellate Court Justices”
1. To see Candor Entertainment’s newly released interview with Center For Judicial Integrity (CFJI) Chairman, Richard Fine, click on “Part 1” link in the link below.
http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=667a5e06dc26b4aac5f107bf0&id=2be89c87e9&e=%5BUNIQID%5D
2. Mr. Sorge produced the documentary, “Divorce Corp”, and is sometimes a guest on national news shows regarding corruption in the courts.
http://www.divorcecorp.com/the-film/
3. If so inclined, spread the word to vote NO more dysfunctional status quo in the California judicial branch!
Click to access campaignforjudicialintegrityflyers.pdf
PS. Don’t forget JCW’s recommendations.
REALLY Informed Voters — Fair Judges Project
Its as easy as 1,2,3.
Leave a Reply to Delilah Cancel reply