Verdict in whistleblower’s historic case exposes the flaws of an unregulated legal system
SACRAMENTO, CA – Former family court mediator Emily Gallup prevailed today in an historic wrongful termination lawsuit against the Nevada County Superior Court (NCSC). After three days of deliberation, a Sacramento jury found NCSC guilty of retaliating against Ms. Gallup, awarding her $313,000 for the financial and emotional damages she incurred. Gallup was represented by M.Catherine Jones and George Allen in the four week trial.
“This verdict should serve as a wakeup call to family courts across America,” said Gallup. “Children cannot be treated like widgets and shoved through the family court machine. Laws protecting the best interests of children must be followed.”
Gallup alleged during the trial that her department failed to comply with the California Rules of Court. She reported that family court mediators were making recommendations about child custody without reviewing court files, gathering collateral information, or checking parents’ criminal backgrounds. She explained to jurors that domestic violence (DV) victims were routinely not offered separate mediation sessions as required by law. Trial witnesses testified that parents were subjected to a variety of coercive tactics by Judge Julie McManus and court mediators, including threats that their children might commit suicide if they failed to reach a mediated agreement.
“Children’s health and safety were being compromised,” Gallup states. “I was being told to do what I was told, and I just couldn’t do that in good conscience. I wasn’t willing to blindly follow misguided orders,” Gallup explains, “even if they came from a judge.”
It has been a long road for Gallup toward today’s decision. She originally discussed her compliance concerns with her supervisor, the family court judge, the human resources director, and the Court Executive Officer. She called the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) for help in April of 2010 but learned that the AOC was not authorized to enforce individual court’s compliance with the law. Gallup filed a grievance against her department at that time, and an arbitration hearing occurred in September of 2010. NCSC terminated Gallup in December 2010, prior to the issuance of the arbitrator’s award. The arbitrator found in Gallup’s favor, ruling that she had raised concerns in good faith, and that her efforts had been met with retaliation. In addition to awarding Gallup back pay and attorney’s fees, the arbitrator ordered an audit of the Nevada County Family Court Services Department. NCSC subsequently had the arbitration award vacated on the g rounds that the arbitrator overstepped his authority by ordering an audit.
“There is a shocking lack of oversight over the judicial system,” Gallup said.
She has joined forces with the Center for Judicial Excellence and the California Protective Parents Association to lobby for reforms that will bring accountability to the family court system. Gallup expects that problems in the family court system will persist until judges and other court officials are held accountable for following the law.
###
Kathleen Russell
Executive Director
Center for Judicial Excellence
495 Miller Avenue, Suite 304
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Main 415.388.9600 Fax 415.388.4610
http://www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org
Judicial Council Watcher 
Alan Ernesto Phillips
October 12, 2012
Through my tears of joy, I shout, “Here’s to our most brave and *TRULY* Honorable hero, Ms. Emily Gallup!!”
(From the Chief-criminal down to the corrupted clerks, the oft covered-up, trickle-down dysfunction must stop…)
[Today is Day 581…]
Wendy Darling
October 12, 2012
Thought for the day: “She called the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) for help in April of 2010 but learned that the AOC was not authorized to enforce individual court’s compliance with the law. ”
And who was advising the Nevada County Superior Court (NCSC) regarding the workplace treatment of Ms. Gallup after Gallup filed her interal complaints with the court, as well as advising the Nevada County Superior Court as to Ms. Gallup’s termination? Well, that would be none other than the AOC’s very own Office of General Counsel (OGC). You know, the very people Ms. Gallup called for “help” and who told her they had no authority to enforce the law.
Breaking it, however, is an entirely different matter.
Quote of the day, perhaps even the year: “There is a shocking lack of oversight over the judicial system,” Gallup said.
Long live Emily Gallup. And long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
October 12, 2012
LOL. The AOC hired top level private counsel to attend cross-examinations of Marin’s defiant court mediators who were not reading court files, and did not know or follow family court rules and law. These brilliant private lawyers argued that because Marin Family Court Presiding Judge Verna Adams said the mediators didn’t have to follow the law, the mediators didn’t have to follow the law. Chris Patton, Patricia Sepulveda and our own former Chief Justice George, among many others, know this.
And Leo Terbieten, Marin’s former Family Court Services director (who took part in the Marin child custody evidence destruction but left in time to avoid interviews by the state auditor), told Marin lawyers at a lunchtime presentation that the AOC was setting time limits within which mediators had to complete their assignment.
How long did they have, Leo? I think you said 1.5 hours? To fully investigate complex family issues and make a custody recommendation, thereby deciding a family’s future in the majority of cases?
Family court mediators and judges and other court personnel have to follow the law, not the policies and preferences presented by the AOC. Or maybe they wil have their own day in court.
Ctr for Judicial Excellence
October 12, 2012
The jury has spoken! Emily Gallup is the canary in the coal mine of the broken California family court system. The court retaliated against her for trying to lawfully perform her duties as a family court services mediator, and for protesting when she was urged by a supervisor to break state laws. California needs more Emily Gallups! Thanks for sharing news of this important verdict, JCW. And Wendy’s comment above points to the importance of this verdict for branch governance issues, or lack thereof. We desperately need accountability in the family courts.
anna
October 13, 2012
It’s not just family court. Civil courts have been corrupted just as long.
courtflea
October 12, 2012
Again I am going to say something unpopular here but, know the people before you praise them. While I do not know Ms. Gallup personally, I know about quite a few mediators. But I have heard about Ms. Gallup and like some mediators they have a huge sense of self importance and often do not hide their biases for or against fathers or mothers. Now wait a minute I know there are good ones out there as well, and there are judges that are unscrupulous out there, but a mediators job like it or not is to recommend. They make recommendations regarding child custody and visitation. It is up to the judge in the case to ultimately decide the matter. The mediator does not need access to confidential criminal records (CLETS) or court files, they are there to make UNBIASED recommendations based on interviews with the parents and the children.The judges determine if one parent or another is unfit for any reason. Unfortunately, some mediators let the parents think that they have the power to make the ulitmate determination regarding custody and that a judge just rubber stamps their recommendations and intimidate the parents and children alike. Don’t get me wrong mediators have a very difficult job and their work is vitally important. But There is a lot more to this issue than what meets the casual observers eye. Just trying to get folks to see both sides of this coin. I know and respect people’s concerns and causes and that some parents get discriminated against and a huge portion are fathers, but in this particular case, think about it. Questioning judges orders, i can realate to that but that too but that is what the appelate courts are for, not mediators second guessing.
Ok I know, I’m fired.
JusticeCalifornia
October 12, 2012
Flea, love you. you are not fired. Fathers and mothers alike are horrified at the recommending mediation situation. Mediators should not be making custody recommendations at all. In truth, it is a quiet and improper delegation of judicial authority.
anna
October 13, 2012
Truer words could not be said! Judges have been “delegating” their work in family and civil matters for years.
unionman575
October 13, 2012
Agreed.
disgusted
October 12, 2012
Did anyone see this on Fox 11 News this morning?
http://www.myfoxla.com/video?clipId=7831588&autoStart=true
disgusted
October 12, 2012
Former Judge Admits that The Judges are Trained Not to Believe Women Who Claim The Children Are Abused
Posted on October 10, 2012
2 Votes
A former California judge has gone to the press and said, “What I found is this justice system is about dollars, and it isn’t about justice.”
Deann Salcedo, a former family court judge, says she was given forty hours of training in Monterey County and taught that if a divorcing woman says her husband was molesting the children, not to believe her. Because of this bad training, she gave a molester custody of his children. Watch the video:// Los Angeles Local News, Weather, and Traffic
Ben S
October 12, 2012
So is the use of Custody Evaluators. Take for example “cat credentialed” Stephen Doyne in San Diego. Take for example Michael Roddy and Lorna Alksne who are permissive of ALL Custody Evaluators in San Diego County for many years NEVER filing MANDATORY forms that would qualify them to perform the work as Expert Witnesses—they were never qualified! http://thepubliccourt.com
anna
October 13, 2012
Everything M. Roddy touches is corrupt and criminal. Yes, you read that right. He’s been engaging in UPL for years[unlicensed practice of law]. So has the AOC. Why no one takes that view of it is beyond me? That’s why the AOC is allowed to exist. He’s not a lawyer, and he is not allowed to give legal advice. They are only supposed to be able to do ministerial acts. However, they have been getting away with this shit since King George came into power.
disgusted
October 13, 2012
http://www.myfoxla.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7831588
lawlessamericaflorida
October 13, 2012
Great idea about CPPA I would love to see one in every state I would like to start one in Florida FLORIDA PROTECTINE PARENTS ASSOCIATION and I am in alliance with Lawless America with Bill Windsor and am involved with him and the Florida Chapter
courtflea
October 13, 2012
Justice CA thank you. I agree whole heartedly.
Francesca Moore
October 13, 2012
Need to investigate the Pinellas County courthouse i am also a Victim/ My only Child was Not returned as Court ordered. Here my Horror Story! Put injunction on me to keep me from going after the criminal and Dangerous Pediatricians receiving Huge Kickbacks, awards from “Forest Labs ” who plead guilty in 2009..
Pediatricians have a Vendetta, with DCF staff and Gal against MOTHERS!
My only child was born five months premature in 1997, weighing a mere one pound, eight ounces at birth was diagnosed with severe “Failure to Thrive”. Feeding disorder. DCF also known as Dept. Children and families Coalition team, “Eckerd Management” filed a petition to terminate my parental rights on 2003 based on allegations that my “medically needy” child was not gaining adequate weight while in my custody. I have never been charged with any form of abuse, neglect, abandonment or harm.
While in the custody, care, and control of DCF medical foster care, my 3 ½ year old “medically needy” toddler was secretly, illegally administered two “Adult” psychotropic medications (“Celexa” and “Lexapro”), without my knowledge, authorization, or consent as required by F.S. 39.407. These two “adult” medications list the two most common side effects as: “weight loss” and “loss of appetite”.
Upon my baby being re-unified with me (biological mother), I was blamed for my child losing weight. I did not get a “Fair or impartial trial” DCF withheld the fact that my child was illegally provided the adult psychotropic drugs “Celexa” and “Lexapro”. I was denied “Due Process” by DCF when they knowingly, intentionally withheld information vital to my defense. I was not allowed notified, to see case, hear, or participate at the hearings to defend myself against DCF aka “Eckerd mgmt.” false statements and charges.
These parties, acting under the “ Color of law” administered two “Adult” psychotropic drugs, “Celexa” and “Lexapro” to my 3-½ year old toddler. Both medications were not studied nor approved by the FDA for use in pediatric patients as clearly stated on the labeling of both medications.
A box of new discovery was sent to my door in 2011 which clearly showed DCF completed and signed-off on a report stating, “There was a court order for the medications” when no such order was ever issued by the Court. This report was completed in 2003, and my TPR trial was the very next month. However, this report, which would have vindicated me against DCF’s misguided allegations, was not filed with the Court until the following year (2004) After the TPR trial was finalized one of the “Adult “psychotropic medication “Lexapro” was secretly added with the other hidden Adult psychotropic drug “Celexa”
The facts absolutely vital to my defense, i.e. the administration of Two “Adult” psychotropic medications with known side effects of “Weight loss” and “Loss of appetite”, were withheld from the record until after my parental right’s were terminated.
By hiding these criminal acts; illegal and unethical prescription practices, DCF staff, their pediatricians, and other cohorts successfully tore apart my family by denying my right to a fair, impartial or any trial because, I was not allowed to participate in DCF defendants hearings against me. My IAC was part of this sick scheme later years finding out from a news article for his financial GAIN. Attorney “Patrick Bennett Calcutt” other alias who should have recused himself from my case, not accepted my money; No he switched to “Eckerd mgmt” aka DCF side for his financial gain as “Founder with Wife” , Owner of a Adoption agencies and services all over UK, Australia, Georgia and Florida with wife attorney, In 2012 after many failed attorney’s that stated I could win my case hands down and I needed to pay for services. I decide to write a pro-se letter and after exposing the “Adult “and other psych drugs and was shunned away, now the word now way out from many patterns and Channel 10 News with “Mike Deeson” almost killed my baby for Gift, Money, Greed, Power, Control, drug Experiments research, financial gov’t fund “Medically needy ‘ Medicaid fraud, and Adoption for a family DCF friend and employee. My movie about the “Horror to my only child and I torn apart and sabatoged and Destroyed a Awesome, loving, nurturing Catholic- Christian mommy and daughter LIVES! Will air coming to a theatre near you saying for yrs. Finally in history opened a 2012 pro-se letter with pure, crucial evidence to show that DCF staff, their few pediatricians, counselors etc secretly hidden with Family Continuity Program aka”Help A Child Team ” who was shut down in 2002,with Growth and Development Team in 2002 which I had no knowledge of; are 100 % responsible for damaging and almost killing my only child. These DCF aka CPT Pediatricians should be off the street with their clan of high crime ring so they could never harm or experiment or steal innocent children from parents ever AGAIN! There also was another mother whose children had one of the DCF pediatricians in my case on Channel 10 News with “Mike Deeson” and her children have returned. I pray that my child will come home and get these criminals off the Street. Out of 18 cases including mine from the two Pediatrician sole responsible,18 misdiagnosed and FALSE! Woman, mother and grandmother is facing 15 yrs. for a crime the same Pediatricians in my case were witness, not expert witness, FALSE WITNESSES! These pediatricans DCF, CPT Inv. Help A Child Team, medical Director, hates women, and mothers , Are” She is with co-league both dangerous to Society and even had to resign in 2001 from All Children’s Hospital. ,I fired them back then, it took revenge on ME and MY CHILD! PLEASE I pray that the Task Force or someone will do a heavy investigation with this ring of criminals who has put babies like mine and children in “DANGER” with all their different aliases and false licenses including Attorney’s, doctor’s and offices, DCF staff, hospitals, counselors, court officials. The guardian ad litem who is the head one with the pediatricians both, with Family Continuity, Help a Child. GAL is the Head conspirer also “Best friend” of the medical foster mother who gave access to anyone; everyone to sabotaged mother’s case and evidence to hide the Adult Psych drugs and accomplish the adoption goal before and after the TPR is Finalized. My child was never returned on three occasions to me as court ordered, in 2001 when the MFM decided to return my baby at the age of three and half after she was swapping my baby back and forth without court order or knowledge from mother, council or Court. Without my knowledge my sister (maternal aunt) who was court ordered custody while case plan or if mother’s rights were terminated, and Mr. Dunville is NOT the FATHER and was never married 11 years to him or anyone, dated nine months and broke up before my baby was BORN. ! GAL and DCF also hid that information and documents from maternal aunt, mother, council and the Court. My sister was approved by DCF aka CPS in New York State and ICCP, which also were defrauded by DCF staff, and GAL interference with court custody, never gave o informed anyone. Instead my daughter, only miracle child was targeted at birth as a pawn, experiment for “Forest Labs and possible Abbott Lab” Adult Psychiatric medications only for, Strictly for ADULTS ONLY! Just like the packet states, Noone followed Florida laws, DCF laws, Florida Bar and the Dept. of Health laws, Chapter 39 laws, GAL Laws, Judge’s Laws and tainted, sabatoging and destroying the whole case un-recognition any human being, to any lawyer or anyone to understand. I know there is a “Huge money TRAIL! My life, my only child’s life, and my Constitutional rights was/are completely SHATTERED beyond REPAIR. If I knew what I found out back in 2000-2006 if I was allowed to see, participate or defend myself against these dangerous crooks and dangerous pediatricians they would be in PRISON! Huge Epidemic and murders of over 300,000 babies and children would be ALIVE TODAY! Gabriel Myers, little twelve yr. old girl from Ohio, so many more…. My baby would be home growing happy living in life, liberty. Joy, liberty, with her Catholic- Christian religion, and the pursuit of HAPPINESS! I had to go through after my case was closed; years retrieving piece by piece to see the truth of the custody and not returning my baby to “ME” or to my “SISTER”. The ADULT PSYCHOTIC DRUGS STRICTLY FOR ADULTS ONLY! NOT STUDIED OR APPROVED! NOT ON THE MARKET PERIOD IN 2000-2002. There was NO Court ORDER or PSYCH EVAL! There was NUMMEROUS, MANY EMERGENCY VISITS MOTHER NEVER KNEW OR THE COURT! I am PRAYING to GOD, PLEASE this is a ILEGAL, CRIMINAL ACT to drug a baby without the mother, court or anyone KNOWING!I have spoken to Congress in their offices and other States who are helping me. DOH and Forest Labs FDA and other officials been trying to help me. I Need YOU HELP! Gov’t FRAUD! MEDICAID FRAUD! DANGER TO ALL CHILDREN! I received after fighting for my files to find out the Eckerd Mgmt could Not find any Psychotropic drugs or Adult Psychotropic drugs given to my baby at ALL! The Court, other officials and Senators, GAO, DOJ, Forest Labs, News stations, Channel 10 News, St. Pete Times, other Senators and Congressman, Congresswoman Castor, us a few of many have the Evidence and Pediatricians including the DOH to SHOW that FRAUD UPON THE COURT! FS. 39.407, FS 1.540. People in my case including children never met or had contact. Been trying to find the parents to these children used in my case.. I NEED HELP! OUR Children are being Damaged, Murdered, and DRUGGED! Someone has to CARE!
If you can help me get Justice like this woman Ms. Gallup, email me franmoore7777@yahoo.com
Destroyed, Heartbroken
Francesca
Francesca Moore
October 13, 2012
I just Need to Get in front of a GRAND JURY! JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED!
Wendy Darling
October 13, 2012
News about happenings at the CJA conference going on in Monterey this weekend.
Published today, Saturday, October 13, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller and Scott Graham:
New CJA President Hungers for Judicial Unity
[Cheryl Miller]
Maybe it was the approaching lunch hour. Maybe he was just hungry when he wrote his speech. Whatever the reason, new California Judges Association President Allan Hardcastle delivered an inaugural address Saturday that was well-spiced with dining analogies.
On the judiciary’s shrinking budget: “My mother used to tell me that the table manners changed when the pie got smaller. That’s so true,” the Sonoma County Superior Court judge told a receptive gathering of State Bar and CJA leaders in Monterey. “And that pumpkin pie we used to have? It’s looking like a three-day- old Pop-Tart to me right about now.”
And on the need for judges to “unite” against state budget cuts: “Like a family coming home for Thanksgiving, we must ensure that the front door is open, and we must ensure that everyone gets a seat at the table. And once they’ve gotten that seat at the table, we need to ensure there’s adequate food on the table to feed everyone.
“Once we win that goal, then there’ll be time to discuss whether two years ago mom should have used the stainless steel flatware or the sterling silver flatware,” Hardcastle continued. “Only when everyone’s at the table and their needs are met should we have a debate about whether the dinner fork goes on the right or the left.”
Some judges may not find Hardcastle’s message so palatable. Critics, most notably the Alliance of California Judges, have described the call to quell dissent as stomach-churning. Hardcastle, a Harley-riding Army veteran, has the next 12 months to make his plea bear fruit.
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/10/new-cja-president-hungers-for-judicial-unity.html
Percolating Problem: Appeals With No Trial Records
[Scott Graham]
The big legal issues du jour get thrashed out at the concurrent State Bar and California Judges Association conventions each year. But what will be the issues of the next jour?
A potential big one that surfaced a couple of times at the conferences in Monterey this weekend were the disappearing court reporters phenomenon and the monkey wrench it could throw into appeals.
California’s Rules of Court require that a transcript of proceedings be filed with writ petitions, noted Susan Horst, a senior writ attorney at the First District Court of Appeal, during a Saturday program on writ practice. It’s unclear how the appellate courts will treat the rule when proceedings weren’t transcribed, she said. In the meantime, she encouraged counsel to bring a reporter to court whenever appellate review could be in the offing.
A similar concern was aired at a CJA program on making record for the appellate courts.
When former Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno emphasized the importance of putting settlements on the record, a judge in the audience asked what he would do if there’s no reporter on hand to create the record.
He and Moreno, who is now of counsel at Irell & Manella, agreed that the parties would probably need to type up an agreement and sign it.
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/10/percolating-problem-appeals-with-no-trial-records.html
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
October 14, 2012
The cj/jc/aoc continue to act secretively, defiantly, irresponsibly and disrespectfully.
Justice Corrigan and now the new CJA prez ask: Can’t we all just get along?
Sure, when “leadership” cleans up its act. And Corrigan and the CJA prez and the state bar should be using their influence to make this happen, not going along to get along and encouraging others to do the same. Sakauye, Jahr, Patel, Child and Soderlund need to be taken out to the proverbial woodshed and given some intense attitude adjustments by those within the branch, and then the latter four need to be sent on their way.Two are not qualified for their jobs and all four were key players in getting the branch into this mess. As for Sakauye? She needs to shape up or ship out. She is arrogant and stubborn. It she continues down her current path, it would seem she needs to be presented with a declaration of no-confidence signed by key members of the branch and a request that she step down.
Harsh words? Yes. But this has been going on for years now. The “search” for the best and the brightest to run the AOC was an inside joke. Does ANYONE think the largest judiciary in the Western World has a competent, effective adminstrative team? I think not.
In fact, the policies, procedures and actions of the cj/jc/aoc have been and are exposing trial courts to public outrage, liability and financial ruin.
The legislature cannot be expected to be branch taskmasters forever.
The judges in the branch have the power to band together and demand a change in how the branch is run, and by whom. That is what they must do.
disgusted
October 14, 2012
“Get It On the Record
Practice and Procedure – When the judge calls you in for a chat, take the court reporter with you.
October 2008
[Continue to Test]
Comment
Print
Reprint
By Amy E. Margolin
The slogan “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” is also a good guideline for many aspects of civil litigation: client communications, settlement negotiations, and everything else meant to be kept confidential. But when it comes to protecting your client’s interests in the event of an appeal, what you say and do in the courtroom should be put on the record.
From an appellate court’s perspective, “if it is not in the record, it did not happen.” (Protect Our Water v. County of Merced, 110 Cal. App. 4th 362, 364 (2003).) This judicial sentiment reflects one of the most basic principles of appellate practice: that all judgments and orders of the lower court are presumed to be correct. To win on appeal, you must affirmatively demonstrate that there has been an error. (See Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 557, 564 (1970).)
It won’t do any good to explain in an appellate brief what took place off the record, because matters outside the record “may not be considered by an appellate court upon the suggestion of counsel in their briefs.” (Ehman v. Moore, 221 Cal. App. 2d 460, 463 (1963).)
Trial is where questions arise most frequently about what to do when proceedings take place off the record. This can occur for a variety of reasons–some deliberate, some inadvertent. But regardless of the circumstances, lawyers must exercise great caution. When no court reporter is present, unless you make a proper record the appellate courts will presume that no error occurred. The result, of course, may be profoundly adverse to your client. And no matter the issue and no matter the stakes, the error you allege will be unreviewable. For example, in one recent case the court of appeal rejected a challenge to a $28 million judgment in part because the defendant did not make a sufficient record of an unreported jury-instructions conference held in chambers (Bullock v. Phillip Morris, USA, Inc., 159 Cal. App. 4th 655, 677-79 (2008)).
Although there is a mechanism to cure gaps in the record on appeal after the fact, it is not fail-safe. In lieu of a reporter’s transcript you may be able to use an agreed on or settled statement (see Cal. R. Ct. 8.120(b), 8.134, and 8.137), even when the oral proceedings were unreported (Cal. R. Ct. 8.137(a)(2)(B)). This enables parties to reconstruct important unreported events if necessary. (See, e.g., Lipka v. Lipka, 60 Cal. 2d 472, 480-81 (1963) (chambers conference).) But if the parties disagree about what took place, the trial court has broad discretion to decide the matter based on its own recollection, which might differ from that of the party trying to challenge an adverse ruling on appeal. The trial court’s decision establishing the record will be final unless it is deemed to have acted arbitrarily. (See People v. Hardy, 2 Cal. 4th 86, 183 n.30 (1992); Cross v. Tustin, 37 Cal. 2d 821, 826 (1951); and Burns v. Brown, 27 Cal. 2d 631, 636 (1946).) Thus the most prudent course of action is to always make a record at the outset, and as contemporaneously as possible.
A few simple suggestions can help you chart this territory.
Make Sure There Is a Court Reporter
Of course, making a reported record will work only if a court reporter is present. But trial courts are not required to have court reporters on hand for every proceeding, and although courts often do provide them, no lawyer should automatically assume that one will always be present. Court reporters for civil proceedings function on demand. Therefore lawyers have a duty to ensure that a reporter is present whenever there is “reason to anticipate that what is said at a hearing may be pertinent to a subsequent appeal.” (In re Christina P., 175 Cal. App. 3d 115, 129 (1985).)
If the court normally does provide an official court reporter in all courtrooms, California Rule of Court 2.956(b)(3) requires the clerk to notify the parties “as soon as possible” if an official court reporter will not be available for trial. If the court normally does not provide an official court reporter at trial, then the court must require the parties to file a statement before trial indicating whether they request an official court reporter, and the court must notify the requesting party “as soon as possible before the trial” if none is available. (See Cal. R. Ct. 2.956(b)(3).) Either way, if no official court reporter is available, the parties may make arrangements for one on their own. (See Cal. R. Ct. 2.956(c).)
Know Your Rights
What should you do when ordered to the bench to address a key point off the record? Or when there is impromptu argument in chambers on an important issue?
Ask for the court reporter to be present.
Every civil litigant has a right to do this. Section 269 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that a court reporter “shall take down in shorthand all testimony, objections made, rulings of the court, exceptions taken, arraignments, pleas, sentences, arguments of the attorneys to the jury,” as well as “statements and remarks made and oral instructions given by the judge or other judicial officer.” [emphasis added]. Section 269 applies in all civil cases, either on court order or “at the request of a party.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 269(a)(1).)
Although section 269 does not explicitly require sidebar and in chambers discussions to be reported in every instance (People v. Pinholster, 1 Cal. 4th 865, 920 (1992) (dictum)), the statute is nevertheless mandatory (“shall” take down) and comprehensive (“all” such matters). And it applies as well to every word uttered by the trial court (“all…statements and remarks made … by the judge or other judicial officer.”).
Some lawyers may be reluctant to ask for a court reporter when matters take a turn for the worse. But if the issue is legitimate, discretion is not the better part of valor. “[C]ounsel must make his record for the Court of Appeal at the risk of a measure of annoyance to the trial judge.” (Gasper v. Georgia Pac. Corp., 248 Cal. App. 2d 248, 251 (1967).) At any rate, all trial court judges know that litigants have the right to make a record for appeal, and few will take offense as long as the request is made respectfully.
Missed Opportunities
What if an important colloquy ends before you think of requesting a court reporter? All is not lost. At the next break or the next time the jury is excused, go back on the record and summarize completely and accurately what took place. The record should be made as soon as possible. If you wait too long–until the end of trial or even the end of the day–memories might fade, or the entire event might fall through the cracks.
Get Electronic and Audio Recordings Reported
It is not unusual for videotaped deposition testimony, or other video or audio recordings, to be admitted into evidence. Sometimes this kind of evidence does not get reported, and that can lead to difficulties with the record.
In large part this is because court rules don’t automatically require the reporting of electronic recordings. The rules state that “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the trial judge, the court reporter need not take down or transcribe an electronic recording that is admitted into evidence.” (Cal. R. Ct. 2.1040(b).) Instead, the rules require the party offering into evidence any sound (or sound-and-video) recording to tender a transcript of the recording; the transcript “must be marked for identification” and a copy filed; and it “must be part of the clerk’s transcript in the event of an appeal.” (Cal. R. Ct. 2.1040(a)).)
At a minimum, attorneys should comply with California Rule of Court 2.1040 to ensure that the record includes a written transcript of evidence received electronically, be it a recorded telephone call, a videotaped deposition, or some other recording. But under rule 2.1040, counsel can ask for this evidence to be reported, and in appropriate cases counsel should do so. It may be tempting to try to save money on the front end, or stay on the judge’s good side, by not insisting on this. But such a choice might prove penny-wise and pound-foolish. If the case is appealed, appellate justices and their clerks may find it cumbersome to flip back and forth between various components of the record, particularly in larger cases. Lawyers and courts generally read an appellate record like they would a book: chronologically, from start to finish. Imagine reaching the final chapter of Moby Dick, only to find that it’s located in a separate file!
Failing to have evidence re-ported also carries practical risks. For example, the party proffering the evidence might forget to lodge a substituted transcript, or the parties might disagree about its accuracy. Making the proper record involves some risk analysis, and the level of that risk varies by case and circumstances. In every case, however, the question remains: Is the risk of going without a court reporter worth taking? The answer is usually no.
Evidentiary Rulings
Evidentiary discussions are one common situation in which substantive matters are addressed off the record: during unreported sidebar conferences, for example, or during unreported arguments on motions in limine.
Sometimes this is of no significance, such as when minor evidentiary issues will have no bearing on an appeal. But whenever important–or potentially important–evidence is discussed, a reported record should be made.
The California Evidence Code states, “[a] verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed” due to the erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence, unless the record discloses certain basic information. (See Cal. Evid. Code §§ 353, 354.) If evidence is erroneously admitted, a timely objection or a motion to exclude or strike must be on the record; the objection or motion must state the specific ground for excluding the evidence (Cal. Evid. Code § 353(a)). If evidence is erroneously excluded, an offer of proof ordinarily is required. With certain limited exceptions, it must appear “of record” either that “the substance, purpose and relevance of the excluded evidence was made known to the court by the questions asked, an offer of proof, or by any other means” or that “[t]he rulings of the court made [such] compliance …futile.” (Cal. Evid. Code § 354.)
Failing to take these basic steps on the record can be fatal to an appeal. For example, in Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California (157 Cal. App. 4th 413 (2007)), the court rejected a challenge to a million-dollar punitive damages award in which the defendant made an offer of proof concerning excluded expert testimony but did so only in an unreported sidebar conference. Therefore, whenever an important evidentiary issue arises, either make certain the court reporter is present (at sidebar or in chambers), ask that the jury be excused to permit a discussion on the record, or memorialize the colloquy on the record at the next available opportunity.
Make a Record of Jury Instructions
Arguably, jury instructions are the most crucial part of a trial to put on the record. Properly preserved, instructional error can be a fertile ground for appeal. It presents a pure issue of law: A jury instruction is either right or wrong. If the error was prejudicial, it can be a powerful ground for appellate reversal. But difficulties sometimes arise because the requirements for making a record of instructional error are exacting (and not necessarily intuitive), yet conferences on proposed jury instructions often are not reported.
The record must show who proposed the jury instruction being challenged. If it doesn’t, then the appellate court will presume that the appellant didand invited any error. (See Faulk v. Soberanes, 56 Cal. 2d 466, 471 (1961), and Lynch v. Birdwell, 44 Cal. 2d 839, 846-47 (1955).) The same is true when the trial judge modifies an instruction that the appellant proposed: If the record does not reflect the instruction in the form originally requested, then the appellate court will presume that the appellant acquiesced in the revision. (See Phillips v. Noble, 50 Cal. 2d 163, 168-69 (1958).)
Conversely, the trial court’s refusal of a re-quested jury instruction must also be in the record. Otherwise, the appellate court will presume the appellant withdrew it (Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. v. Moore, 67 Cal. App. 3d 278, 312 (1977)), or that the instruction just got lost in the shuffle (Bullock v. Phillip Morris, USA, Inc., 159 Cal. App. 4th 655, 677-79 (2008)).
To avoid these pitfalls, the first step to take is making sure that proposed instructions are properly prepared and submitted in writing. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 607a (“[A]ll proposed instructions shall be typewritten, each on a separate sheet of paper.” [emphasis added]). Compliance with the formatting requirements for proposed instructions helps make a written record. Among other things, the applicable court rules require a cover page identifying the party proposing the instructions. (See Cal. R. Ct. 2.1055 (b)(2).) The rules also require an index listing the proposed instructions, with a checklist the court “may use” to indicate whether the instruction was given as proposed, given as modified, refused, or withdrawn. (See Cal. R. Ct. 2.1055(b)(3).) “[O]n each requested instruction the trial judge should endorse the fact as to whether it was given or refused or given as modified, with the modification, if any, clearly indicated.” (Lynch v. Birdwell, 44 Cal. 2d 839, 846-47 (citing Vaughn v. Jonas, 31 Cal. 2d 586, 596 (1948)).) Submitting properly formatted instructions equips the trial judge with the tools he or she needs to do this. Also, during the instructions conference, counsel should ask the trial judge to mark up the proposed instructions as rulings are rendered.
Still, it is rarely prudent to rely on the written record alone. Contested instructional issues should always be placed on the record as well: Who proposed what, the parties’ objections, how the court ruled, and its reasons. It is permissible to do this after the jury has retired to deliberate. (See Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal. 3d 202, 213 n.4 (1991).) But, if possible, this should be done immediately, while memories are fresh. Otherwise, the judge’s recollection might differ from counsel’s, which could present an obstacle to claiming instructional error on appeal. In one recent instance, for example, the issue was waived when the judge recalled, during a colloquy six hours into jury deliberations, that all parties had agreed to a modified instruction during an unreported conference, even though defense counsel maintained she had not done so. (See Mayes v. Bryan, 139 Cal. App. 4th 1075, 1087-90 (2006).)
Making a proper record for appeal doesn’t have to be difficult. Understanding where the most frequent hazards lie at trial will help you avoid the most common pitfalls on appeal.
Amy E. Margolin is a director in the Appellate Practice Group at Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin in San Francisco.”
wearyant
October 14, 2012
Disgusted, excellent post! Every attorney in California should read it once a month to center themselves. Thanks for putting the post up.
anna
October 15, 2012
Really Wearyant? Phil Kay was suspended for making a record. Every attorney and judge knows this in this GD state. While he was fortunate enough to prevail, in his clients cases, he make a record regarding evidenticiary rulings, in case the jury ruled against his clients based on reversible error. Huffman and George could’t reverse the verdicts, however, they told the State Bar to persecute him anyway and claimed he “harmed the public” by making a record of the reversible error.
That’s how the Supremes and the JC along with the AOC took out the best civil right’s lawyer in this state.
It’s a laugh that a lawyer at Howard Rice wrote the article, they know what happened to Phil Kay.
Corrigan knows this. Why do you think they don’t give a rats ass about creating a record, it just makes their job easier. They don’t have to read a god damn thing.
No one in this state wants to talk about Phil Kay. They would all go to jail.
anna
October 15, 2012
Howard Rice, and Corrigan know this personally. The appellate courts “set up” attorneys.
Often, they require what’s known as “protective writs” or a process in trial that requires four steps. placed on the record.
However, in the practice guides, they all “caution” attorneys, that if they take these measures, the court [judge] or jury might take offense, at making objections [and placing them on the record] and rule against their clients, however if they don’t, they waive their clients appellate rights.
Cleaver?? Inform attorneys of their responsibilities, yet caution them not to use it, based on speculating what the trier of fact will do.
Phil Kay knew this, and did was able to do the impossible.
He never offended the jury and was able to “preserve the record”.
Even though the judges in his last three cases, were directly talking to Huffman, defense counsel and other judges as to how they could fuck Phil Kay, and his clients. There are letters and emails stating so.
Don’t kid yourself. George and his mini me, are deliberately, starving the trial courts, so there will be no court reporters in order to cover up judges ruling so they can “fix cases”.
Phil Kay knew this, however, he also “knew” how to preserve his clients rights, and wasn’t afraid to do it.
Until a judge has the courage to follow his lead and expose all this, nothing will happen.
Court reporters kept the keys to justice. You won’t see one judge standing up for court reporters. Why? Because, the law states that they are responsible for having one there. Otherwise, if an attorney accuses the court [judge] of what happened, the court is not allowed to contradict what a counsel puts in a declaration under oath. That is what the COA doesn’t want you not to know.
While the article states that the onus is on the attorneys, to “create” a record, the law puts the onus on the courts, to have the “ability” of the parties to create the record, that includes providing court reporters. Judges have hated this rule.
Reviewing courts know this, and will do nothing to to correct this corruption, it runs adverse to their interests.
Judges, do I hear crickets???
Thought so.
Stephen R. Diamond
March 14, 2013
For more information about the Philip Kay case, i have a series at http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/search/label/Philip%20E.%20Kay
JusticeCalifornia
March 14, 2013
Ever so interesting.
Is a documented pattern of behavior emerging? To wit– team players willing to tow the party line — no matter how unethical and conflicted and harmful to the public– get rewarded and protected, while those who challenge unethical party lines get punished?
Lord help the branch if targeted judges and targeted court employees and targeted lawyers ever put their facts and records together.
Because I think that targeting those who report illegal behavior and crimes, in an effort to shut them up, is illegal. Like even RICO. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
October 14, 2012
The Union News link on Emily Gallup’s case-history/outcomes below: A well-done piece!
Isolated and insulated Shasta County has endured the same criminal misconduct as Nevada County for many years… The difference is that (I, and SCORES of other victims “allege” and prove) our Mediator/ED and judges are CRC-evading sadists whom enjoy selecting their own facts, with “misconduct” enabled and protected by our PJs, AOC, clerks, JC, CJ, and impotent media. Our judicial branch is functioning under a diseased ilk, and the GOOD workers are likely fearful prisoners.
Justice delayed is justice denied. The Family Court criminals that protracted and wrecked our brave Emily Gallup’s life are clearly protected sociopaths… probably on the road to promotions. Shasta’s own characterized shadow-syndicate of corrupt and collusive officers like Halpin and Van Schooten – and other parasitic court-appointees – seem to be willing partisans of a statewide institutionalized set of patterns that ignore the true “Best Interests of Children” and their protective families. Malice of forethought in the protraction of cases is a tool that beats down even the most genuinely protective parents. But not our hero, the Honorable Emily Gallup – she has a moral compass!
http://www.theunion.com/news/ticker/2826973-113/court-gallup-jury-county
Recall Tani, abolish the existing AOC and mediation asylum, and democratize the Judicial Council!
courtflea
October 14, 2012
Well the CJA prez got one thing right: “ensure that everyone gets a seat at the table”. until that happens Judge Hardcastle, many are going to go hungry while the AOC, the CJ and the kool aid drinkers are all going to be dining at the trough.
courtflea
October 14, 2012
If the jury got it right with Emily Gallup then OJ is still looking for the real killer.
Wendy Darling
October 14, 2012
“Capitol Accounts” from today’s Tweets at The Recorder:
Chief Justice says she may host reception with swag bags for new lawmakers. I’m not above any kind of manipulation.
ChiefJustice: Gov asked why I feared pension changes, said could make judge system better. “not been my exp. that good things happen in Leg”
Cantil-Sakauye asked if judiciary cut deeper because of strained relationships w/ other branches. No. Sign of $ strain in California.
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye: Lawmakers told me cuts could have been worse.” I don’t like to be placated by that argument.”
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
October 14, 2012
Swag bags?! that is a riot. Oo! Oo! She should do one with a gambling theme!! 😉
wearyant
October 14, 2012
What an unmitigated ass Tani is. “judge system” Really? I don’t care if one must shorten words within tweets. Some things aren’t shortened, especially if you’re the chief. Gawd. And “swag bags”? Gawd. Tani, it is not cute, even though you are cutesy-poo. God help us all.
Recall Tani. Democratize the judicial council. Abolish the AOC. And long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
October 14, 2012
“Chief Justice says she may host reception with swag bags for new lawmakers. I’m not above any kind of manipulation”
Doesn’t this just say it all? And doesn’t this just sum up our current top leadership?
Sad, sad, sad. And so embarrassing. Ron George’s handpicked gambling barmaid is the “leader” of our best and brightest.
JusticeCalifornia
October 14, 2012
our cj is so damn elegant, isn’t she?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Swag%20Bag
Judicial Council Watcher
October 15, 2012
Lobbying last year included tablet computers with a special message loaded onto them. Behold! You too can have your own judicial council reusable shopping tote filled with judicial council goodies from the rockstars on the council, empty it and go to Neiman Marcus and use it to shoplift!
JusticeCalifornia
October 15, 2012
If I were really brave, I would post the link to Actup’s Money Bag Swag video.
But it’s a little trashy to post here.
I know some would say if the shoe fits our gambling barmaid and maybe even our prior cj, so be it, but I prefer to err on the side of caution.
What EVERYONE –including (and perhaps most pointedly our governor who Tani is bragging calls her at all hours at home “He calls on the phone himself. He calls at home. And he calls at odd hours.”), and Steinberg, judiciary committee members, and judicial councilmembers, and AOC/judicial council committee members, and Corrigan and other Supremes, and new legislators, and state bar and cja prez’s and members– should remember is this:
Our gambling barmaid flat out admitted what we have all observed:
Tani Cantil Sakauye: ” I’m not above any kind of manipulation”.
And that, my dears, is apparently why she is where she is, although she is definitely NOT the best or the brightest or most qualified.
It would be interesting to know what her swag bag was filled with in years past.
JusticeCalifornia
October 15, 2012
Capital Accounts@CapitalAccounts
Cantil-Sakauye on gov: He calls on the phone himself. He calls at home. And he calls at odd hours.
9:51 AM – 14 Oct 12 · Details
Judicial Council Watcher
October 15, 2012
“I’m not above any kind of manipulation” That one line says it all.
If you aren’t above manipulation as the chief justice of the supreme court, then you should not occupy the office.
JusticeCalifornia
October 15, 2012
The gov better watch himself. Tani is bragging about his unusual contact with her.
LOL. Look what happened to Ron George (suddenly bounced!) and Arnold (bounced and humiliated for his womanizing!) who, along with Brown were instrumental to Sakauye’s sudden, unexpected and meteoric rise to her current position.
And she pretty near took down Steinberg’s credibility when she forced him to be her AB 1208 blockade.
She even made Noreen Evans look like an idiot when Evans voted one way and then changed her vote when she realized it wasn’t what Tani wanted. . .
Just sayin.
Never forget:
Tani Cantil Sakauye: “I’m not above any kind of manipulation”
Nuff said.
JusticeCalifornia
October 15, 2012
oh wait. One more thing, re manipulation:
Let nobody forget how our gambling barmaid (please tip me I’m so nice and pretty) Tani played Calderon’s “she’s nice and pretty. . . .” comment for her political benefit.
Everyone needs to stop thinking this experienced woman of the bartending/casino world who has experienced an amazing career trajectory thanks to many powerful men is a naive pawn of Ron George’s.
Really.
unionman575
October 14, 2012
http://www.caperb.com/2012/10/10/disrespectful-behavior-can-be-protected-activity/
Disrespectful behavior can be protected activity
October 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm
State of California (Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2282-S (Issued on 8/21/12)
unionman575
October 15, 2012
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202575046837
unionman575
October 15, 2012
Click to access workgroup_factsheet101512.pdf
Wendy Darling
October 15, 2012
Published today, Monday, October 15, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Committee to Put Trial Court Funding Act Under Microscope
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — Following through on a pledge made in his May budget proposal, Governor Jerry Brown has joined Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye in creating a 10-member committee charged with evaluating the state’s progress in complying with the landmark Trial Court Funding Act.
The panel, chaired by Justice Harry Hull Jr. of the Third District Court of Appeal and former Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg, has just six months to prepare a report analyzing what’s happened in the 15 years since lawmakers shifted primary court funding responsibility from counties to the state.
The committee’s specific charge may best be described as opaque. A one-page sheet distributed by the Administrative Office of the Courts suggests four areas the Trial Court Funding Workgroup “may” address: trial court workload metrics, staffing, efficiencies “and other relevant data”; courts’ cost drivers; methods to “enhance savings”; and funding transparency. The group’s findings are expected to go to the Judicial Council and the governor.
At the annual meetings of the State Bar and the California Judges Association in Monterey over the weekend, Cantil-Sakauye loosely compared the newly formed workgroup to the Strategic Evaluation Committee, the body whose harsh audit of the AOC resulted in dozens of proposals to downsize and reorganize the judiciary’s bureaucratic arm.
“You know what I expect? I expect to see data,” Cantil-Sakauye said after a speech that included the first public details of the group’s formation. “Data will give us an idea of how we should move forward intelligently. … This is an assessment. And we hope that the trial courts will contribute greatly toward helping us get the data that we need to make our case for additional funding, or restoration of funding.”
Cantil-Sakauye made six appointments to the group, all of them Judicial Council members: Hull; Los Angeles Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela Davis; L.A. County Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias; Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Mary Ann O’Malley; Yolo County Superior Court Judge David Rosenberg; and Santa Clara County Superior Court Executive Officer David Yamasaki.
Brown appointed Isenberg, for whom the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act is named. He also selected Diane Cummins, his special adviser and finance veteran; Martin Hoshino, undersecretary for administration and offender services at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and Eraina Ortega, a lobbyist for the California State Association of Counties who once worked at the AOC’s Office of Governmental Affairs.
A Brown spokesman confirmed the names of the governor’s appointments but declined to comment further.
“I really don’t know where this is going to go,” Hull said Monday of the working group and its future report. “It’s a process of discovery.”
The justice said he and Isenberg recently met for the first time with staff to lay early ground work for the committee, which has not yet released a schedule of meetings. Isenberg was unavailable to comment on the working group Monday, his office said.
The 58-page Trial Court Funding Act may be best known for giving the state control of the judiciary’s purse strings, a move that was designed to equalize and stabilize court funding, which could vary wildly from county to county. But in the 15 years since the law was enacted, judges, lawmakers and interest groups have seized on its many different provisions to bolster their points of view.
Supporters of a strong, centralized judiciary cite the law when calling for uniform standards among the courts. Those who want more decision making power in the hands of individual trial courts point to a section that notes “a strong preference to the need for local flexibility in the management of court financial affairs.”
“We trust that this group will consider all points of view and that it will address the need to re-establish a balance between the goals of the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act for statewide efficiency and also local control and flexibility,” Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe, a director of the Alliance of California Judges, said in an email. “Any discussion of branch funding should not take place in a vacuum, but rather should be tied to a discussion of branch governance, and the need for a full and fair hearing on Judicial Council democratization.”
The group’s charge to consider so-called workload metrics is also sure to make some judges antsy. Past attempts to quantitatively measure judges’ productivity have been criticized as unfair and inaccurate. Cantil-Sakauye said she understands those concerns but added that judges shouldn’t worry.
“I can assure you that this committee is not out to show anyone up or in some way embarrass the branch,” the chief justice said.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202575046837&Committee_to_Put_Trial_Court_Funding_Act_Under_Microscope&slreturn=20120915203154
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
October 15, 2012
And this one goes out to you Justice Hull:
Judicial Council Watcher
October 15, 2012
Six appointed by the chief justice, four appointed by the gov. The ones appointed by the chief justice many of us consider some of the most controversial in the branch. All of them are suck-up insiders and former politicians who at least on the judicial branch side of the bench will highlight the virtues and benefits of a centralized justice system that closed down courtrooms and courthouses all over the state and fired thousands of people. Icing on the cake is David Yamasaki. At over 300 grand he is better paid than anyone on the guv’s staff. He’s an ideal candidate to explain why he gets paid about 60% better than the gov and how he might be able to save some money by firing some more court reporters and clerks.
{{{rolls eyes}}}}
Guest
October 15, 2012
If the cj really meant it when she said she didn’t want this committee to “embarrass the branch” then she wouldn’t have a fool like Yamasaki on it. No wonder the Gov and his staff have absolutely no respect for our branch.
Wendy Darling
October 15, 2012
Swag bags, manipulating the State Legislature, picking the usual suspects for yet another committee . . . this is what currently passes for “leadership” of the California Judicial Branch.
Has anyone yet seen even one, just one, administrative example of honesty, integrity, ethics, or commendable behavior from this “leadership” in the last 22 months that is worthy of following?
[Crickets chirping]
Long live the ACJ.
Robert Turner
October 16, 2012
Only one token gesture comes to mind Wendy. They cut the number of committee members on the Judicial Council subcommittees by 10%. Lol. What a joke!!! That’s the true impact of the SEC Report. That’s why the other branches are hopefully stepping in. The Chief does not have the will to do the people’s business in reforming the CA Courts administration from within. If Prop 30 fails the other branches will see reforms get made for they will have a great financial need to see it done quickly.
The CA Courts budget has grown and grown since unification over a decade ago. That’s not what was promised with the consolidation of muni and superior courts. Admin was supposed to shrink! Instead it just moved from the trial court level to the AOC. All that admin is very very expensive especially since the bulk of them work in San Francisco which is not a cheap place to live at all. The other branches are no longer fooled by the “Access to justice” excuse for all these admin costs.
Court exec salaries at the trial court level are a disgrace too as so many have noted here on JCW. Yamasaki makes more than the Governor! I have the exact same education as Yamasaki which is an MPA from USC’s Judicial Administration program and have 18 years of experience in the courts but I make $52,000 (before taxes) in the Excecutive Branch. There is little difference between us academically and I would argue the only diffence is is I am not a yes man. I like to challenge those in command and raise issues rather than playing along to get along. There is no culture of respecting dissenting views in CA courts as I have found and the AJC has experienced this as well when they have to beg for 5 minutes of the time in the public comment section of JC meetings. That all needs to change.
I suggest the Legislature and Governor do four things:
1. Democratize the JC so the trial courts and the courts of appeal have a voice through their elected reps.
2. End the trial courts being their own employers – With the JC being democratic there is no need for this protection to remain. (pretty sure many of you will disagree with me on this idea).
This will allow the consolidation folks to get the uniformity they want between the counties. The CA public wants this too. We don’t need 58 unions making negotiations with Court Execs for raises/healther care, and benefits or 58 HR departments. CA is broke and these changes would be more efficient.
3. Create standards for court managers/executives in terms of education and experience. It is not a job for judges and it is not a position to be filled by yes men/women clerks (respectfully said to clerks) who have excellent experience but may not college educations. It should be a unique background like Yamaski has but these salaries are outrageous. No trial court exec should make more than a commissioner. The one exception should be the State Court Administrator who should make the same as a judge.
4. Close the AOC in San Francisco. It is too expensive to have all of those admin folks in such a high cost of living place. Keep the Supreme Court on SF for historical reasons but shut down the AOC to change the culture so court employees don’t get arrogant and above the benefits/salaries of the other two branches.
The OBT
October 15, 2012
The arrogant and out of touch J Hull to chair a committee of this importance ? Sounds like the Chief Justice is attempting to insure a result that will call for the continued virtues of centralized control of the branch. The appointment of this committee is just another exhibit in the long list of arguments for democratizing the Judicial Council so that an open and unbiased debate can be conducted regarding the future of the trial courts. Hmm, I wonder if J Hull will in the course of his work on this committee, accept e-mail communications or insist that all of the committee membership only communicate with him through the US Postal Service to insure the integrity of their comments? You can’t make this stuff up . Really.
Lando
October 16, 2012
OBT it is even worse than that. Everyone now knows of Justice Hull’s bias and antipathy to the critics of the insular rule of those in charge of 455 Golden Gate. By appointing Hull as chair, many will reasonably question the credibility of this committee from the start. This decision is just another blunder in the long list that this CJ has committed in the last two years. I have asked before and ask again who would ever think that one person should run the largest judiciary in the world without employing the democratic principles that protect the rights of all of us. This CJ needs to be recalled and the last two years consigned to the scrap heap of failed anti democratic judicial leadership.
unionman575
October 16, 2012
http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=3956588&srchIndex=4
ATTORNEY OR SENIOR ATTORNEY
Judicial Council of California- Sacramento CA (Sacramento, California Area)
PAYMENT & BENEFITS
ATTORNEY SALARY RANGE: $7,516 – $10,031
SENIOR ATTORNEY SALARY RANGE: $8,508 – $11,355
Lando
October 16, 2012
What an outrage. The trial courts continue to layoff dedicated long term employees and the OGC continues to hire lawyers ? Lawyers that must be so great they never appear in a courtroom but still make over 11,000 per month ? Will this one also get to telecommute from London ? All the stuff the CJ and J Miller spin about change and transparency is all a fabricated myth. Hello is anyone , anyone in the legislature listening and seeing all this ?
Wendy Darling
October 16, 2012
“Hello is anyone , anyone in the legislature listening and seeing all this ?”
When it comes to the judicial branch administration, the State Legislature’s indifference can best be described as see nothing, hear nothing, do nothing.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
October 16, 2012
Oh my gawd. And just what the hell is this committee supposed to acomplish? Increased funding for the judicial branch? yeah, right. If the committee digs any deeper than the top soil, an honest review of the implementation of the Act would be embarrassing to the AOC/JC and be an argument for de-centralization of power. Anything good that came from this Act occurred at the local level by utlizing the smarts of court staff and judges who figured out ways to get things done and make it work. Of course, the AOC knew this legislation was coming, but did they anticipate how it would impact the courts and create plans of action on how to deal with the changes? Nooooooo, of course not! They just sat around with their thumbs up their arses and then later took credit for the positive changes and methods developed by the trial courts, and used that as an excuse for why central control is needed. i.e. to help/provide services to the courts. Bullshit. that is what makes the creation of this commmittee even a bigger joke. Believe me, the local trial courts were doing their own payroll and A/R A/P well before CARS or Phoniex or whatever they call the central payroll and accounting system now, was around. And that is a piece of crap. most locally developed or procured systems were better, less cumbersome, required fewer staff, and cheaper. And that is just one example.
My prediction here is that this “committee” of kool-aid drinkers and lickspittles will “find” that individual trial courts need to give up any remaining local control to strengthen and make centralized control work. It is the “clowns” and “know nothing judges” that are keeping the AOC and the JC and therefore the branch, from success.
Lando, I wonder why they keep hiring lawyers too. I mean anything that smells like potenital litigation gets farmed out to private law firms. so what gives? I wonder what exactly do these people do?
PS and who died and made Yamasaki CEO god of the month?
anna
October 16, 2012
When they are questioned under oath they can claim “attorney client ” privilege, that is why they are hiring lawyers.