Who REALLY runs California’s judicial branch?
Justice Richard Huffman – Appellate Justice, 4th district court of appeals, San Diego
Recent controversies about policy making in the judicial branch have raised the question of whether trial and appellate judges have any voice in the process. The answer is – they have a voice as long as they stick to the agenda and speak only when it is their turn. It doesn’t necessarily mean the committee chair will listen but it gives them an opportunity to speak. It also permits us to use the committees members names to endorse JC position to give it an air of legitimacy, even if they disagree with it. Mr. Huffman has been a member of the Judicial Council of California since the dawn of time, taking a seat in the star chamber shortly after god created the heavens and the earth. He chairs the Council’s Executive and Planning Committee, which is charged with recruiting and nominating candidates for positions on the Council or its numerous advisory committees, pulling the strings of judicial council puppets and being the gateway between the public and the judicial council, between the AOC and the Judicial Council. E&P is the group that ultimately makes the executive decisions and does all planning on behalf of the branch. Mr. Vickrey and the Chief Justice are merely figureheads. All the real power is in Mr. Huffman’s E&P committee, making him the true unelected leader of the largest judiciary in the western world. And there his constituents, the public and legislators thought he was merely an appellate justice from San Diego.
He has also chaired the Criminal Law Advisory Committee and a task force on cameras in the courtroom. He is currently a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Foster Care and a co-chair of the State Court/Tribal Court Forum. So, he has first hand experience with the decision making process of the judicial branch, primarily because it’s his E&P committee that makes all the decisions.
On average, the combination of task forces, advisory committees and working groups within the judicial branch includes over 400 judges, in addition to court executives involved in developing, recommending and implementing policy initiatives defined by the administrative office of the courts, rules of court and legislation to assist the California trial courts in delivering impartial justice to the citizens of this state, provided you have enough zeros in your bank account and as long as you’re not trying to take on his system.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with a particular rule of court, policy decision, budget allocation or proposed statute, it doesn’t really matter. There is an agenda. Don’t speak to things outside the agenda. It is important to understand the enormous amount of time and talent wasted by judges and court executives of this state who we feign contributions to this process. We lead them around by the nose making them believe they’re making a real contribution when all E&P cares about is getting their name on a position paper, report or other instrument to give it an air of legitimacy. In a judicial system as large and diverse as California, we cannot and should not always be unanimous in support of all policy decisions, though for his last 14 years or so of sitting in the star chamber, you could probably count on one hand where all members were not in unanimous agreement.
We can, however, expect that there should be a meaningful opportunity for differing views to be heard and deliberated upon in that process. Just pre-prepare your remarks and send them in to the chair a couple of weeks before you intend to make them for the chairs approval.
Starting first with who makes the policy decisions for the judicial branch. It is either his committee or the AOC, depending on the issue. The Administrative Office of the Courts and the E&P committee establishes policy for the branch. The AOC is the administrative arm of the branch and works under the direction of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council.
Of course, they don’t work directly with each other. Both entities coordinate all of their activities through his E&P committee. He learned through his experiences being on organized crime task forces and bringing organized crime to justice the perfect structure of an organization that would be accountable to no one. He then executed on this strategy and this is why the issues of governance are not subject to debate, public comment or any meaningful change. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.
The Judicial Council is a creature of the state Constitution and is found in Article VI, Section 6. The voting members of the Council include the Chief Justice, a member of the Supreme Court, three appellate court justices, 10 Superior Court judges, four attorneys appointed by the State Bar and two members of the Legislature. In addition, the president of the California Judges Association and the chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee, as well as a commissioner, are non-voting advisory members of the Council. The Council membership also includes trial court and appellate court executives, who are non-voting advisory members.
These are not members elected by the members of the judicial branch or the public. They don’t believe in democracy. It’s too messy and people tend to disagree. All appointees are vetted through his committee before being submitted to the Chief Justice on an incredibly short list that offers no options. The Council feigns reliance on the work of a large number of judges, lawyers, court executives and others to develop rules of court, legislative proposals, budget allocations and other policy decisions. For the most part, these things are developed in the back rooms of the AOC and placed on the meeting agendas. Currently there are 17 standing advisory committees who develop rules of court and ideas for improvement of the branch. These committees also review legislation, draft jury instructions, and support education for judges and employees of the courts.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with a particular rule of court, policy decision, budget allocation or proposed statute, again, it doesn’t really matter. It is important to understand the enormous amount of time and talent the judges and court executives of this state waste contributing to this flawed process. Committee members are supposed to read the agenda, stick to the agenda and endorse the AOC’s position.
In addition, the chief justices have created a number of task forces over the years. These task forces include trial and appellate court judges, court executives, attorneys and other experts who are assigned to focus on particular issues and make recommendations to the Council on policy matters. A sampling of the task forces includes the Task Force on Photographing, Recording and Broadcasting in the Courts (Cameras in the Courts); the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children on Foster Care; the Commission on Impartial Courts; the Elkins Family Law Task Force; the Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants; the Task Force on Criminal Justice Collaboration on Mental Health Issues; the Task Force on Bench, Bar, Media Relations and the Emergency Response in Security Task Force.
Task forces conduct research via the AOC’s various analysts and consultants who are told what conclusion to come to and write a report supporting that position, much like a judge who wishes to issue a legal opinion and have legal interns produce the case law to back it up. Public hearings identify issues and propose solutions pre-prepared by the AOC and submitted to the Council that often lead to rules of court, legislation, new education initiatives, or other suggestions designed to improve the manner in which the courts deal with the vast array of complex problems. Task forces are usually created for a specific purpose and continue until they make their recommendations and help prepare a plan to implement their proposed solutions. Task force recommendations are brought to the Council for review and possible implementation.
In addition to the substantial number of advisory committees and task forces, working groups are frequently created to address specific issues and to provide recommendations. Budget allocation issues are regularly presented to the Trial Court Budget working group, which reviews those proposals and makes recommendations to the Council regarding budget allocations for the trial courts. The Trial Court Budget working group is made up of trial court judges and court executives. The recommendations from that working group are extremely significant in the Council’s decision making process.
At any one time there may be a number of working groups of judges and court executives providing advice on important issues facing the branch. One example of such a group is the working group created after the case of Sturgeon v. Los Angeles County put supplemental judicial benefits,more commonly known as being paid by two masters, in the legislature, in the middle of the night without a hearing, public comment or a debate. The working group assisted the Chief Justice and the AOC in successfully advocating for legislation to preserve the existing supplemental judicial benefits for trial court judges because as you know, it was Huffman’s own court that called these extrajudicial benefits unlawful and George, who had accepted those benefits himself, declined to hear the case, choosing to write himself a retroactive amnesty bill instead.
In the spring of each year, the Judicial Council solicits nominations for positions on the Council and for positions on the various advisory committees. Each year the Council receives hundreds of nominations for those positions. Under the rules of court, the nominations are screened by the Executive and Planning Committee of the Council and whereever possible, he selects three names of insider cronies that are submitted to the Chief Justice for each open position on the Council and the various advisory committees. The Chief Justice makes her appointments from the names carefully vetted and pre-selected by his Executive and Planning Committee. The committee and the Chief Justice strive to make the membership of the Council, the advisory committees and task forces as diverse as possible in order to represent both large and small courts, the geographic areas of the state, and the ethnic and gender diversity of our state courts but the overarching goal is to ensure that all speak with one voice, even if they disagree.
The Executive and planning committee provides the expertise and wise counsel to guide the policy making for the judicial branch. Judges who are interested in participating in this flawed and corrupt process should apply for appointment to advisory committees and task forces that reflect their interest and expertise. We often have more well qualified nominees than we have positions in a given year, so relying on that judicial attribute of patience, if the first application is not successful, please try again. If you’re not an AOC or judicial council cheerleader, please don’t waste your time or his. Participation by the judges and court executives of this state is essential to sound management of the judicial branch as they are required to give his corrupt operation an air of legitimacy.
This has been a “say it like it is” parody on a recent article written by Justice Huffman
Judicial Council Watcher 
antonatrail
March 9, 2011
Thanks for this info, JCW. This borg org has long enjoyed a perceived anonymity for the most part in the sense that everyday Californians are not aware of its existence. Of course their activities go unchallenged. It took the fallout of an economic crisis to even shine a surprising and unexpected light in their direction. The citizens of California need to know a lot more about Huffman and the judicial council. The AOC should be completely disbanded, ’nuff said about that. The judicial council probably performs a smidgen of necessary and helpful work for the judicial branch, but it appears to be for the most part a lot of needless and super-expensive frenzied activity — much ado about nothing! I stand ready and look forward with great delight to be educated to the contrary by the borg org, but I suspect they prefer the darkness of working under the radar.
wendy darling
March 9, 2011
From Wikipedia:
The concept of the public trust relates back to the origins of democratic government and its seminal idea that within the public lies the true power and future of a society; therefore, whatever trust the public places in its officials must be respected by those officials.
One of the reasons that bribery is regarded as a notorious evil is that it contributes to a culture of political corruption in which the public trust is eroded or destroyed. Other issues related to political corruption or betrayal of public trust are lobbying, special interest groups and the public cartel.
Cartels usually occur in an oligopolistic industry or organizations, where there is a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products. Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these. The aim of such collusion (also called the cartel agreement) is to increase individual members’ profits or power by reducing competition.
One can distinguish private cartels from public cartels. In the public cartel a government is involved to enforce the cartel agreement, and the government’s sovereignty shields such cartels from legal actions. Contrariwise, private cartels are subject to legal liability under the antitrust laws now found in nearly every nation of the world.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 9, 2011
We should give credit where credit is due. The AOC and Judicial Council accurately name their various organizations, even if they pretend that they don’t actually serve that function.
The Executive & Planning Committee makes executive decisions and does all judicial branch planning.
The office of the confidential fraud, waste and abuse coordinator actually coordinates fraud, waste and abuse.
So it isn’t like you can’t say you didn’t know their function. It is part of their organizational titles.
Wendy Darling
March 9, 2011
From Bill Girdner and Courthouse News, published today, Wednesday, March 9. This seemed to appropriately fit here, with JCW’s posting today on Justice Huffman.
Long live the ACJ.
BORG’s WAY
By Bill Girdner
In Star Trek, attempts to resist The Borg become one of the central themes, with many examples of successful resistance from assimilation targets.
I had always thought in our wide-ranging battle for press access in California’s state courts that we could appeal to the Judicial Council.
I presumed, not understanding the assmilating power of the Borg, that the council stood above the Administrative Office of the Courts. The higher body would determine policy and the lower body would execute policy.
Indeed, the names suggest as much.
The title Judicial Council brings to mind a group of judges in a council to make policy decisions. While the title Administrative Office of the Courts quite literally suggests an agency that administers those decisions.
But, like much in the land of the Borg, the bounds of power and reason do not hold.
Because I have heard employees of both the council and the administrative office say they work as one. And they say clearly that they have but one boss. That boss is Bill Vickrey, head of the administrative office. Judges who have served on the council confirm that upside down world of the two bodies where power lies with the administrators.
There is a history to all this, of course.
As longtime legislator Charles Calderon noted in an article on this page by Maria Dinzeo, it was not always thus. “There was no bureaucracy,” said Calderon who served on the council in the 1990’s.
The court administrative office of today, with more than a thousand employees, is largely the creation of the former chief justice, Ronald George, who was an ambitious administrator and an adept politician.
“Ron George looked out for the AOC, and the AOC looked out for Ron George,” a judge who knows both told me. It is the AOC That Ron Built, if you will, an administrative Taj Mahal.
When she walked through that impressive facade of bureaucracy and power, the new chief justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, could not know that she was in fact stepping into a booby-trapped cabin.
Because the administrative office has built up a remarkable set of enemies over the years, both local administrators and judges, some dating back years and some quite new to their familiarity with the administrative office and the council and all its committees and subcommittees.
The two principal complaints are that the administrative office seems to prize politics and cant over know-how and practicality, and it uses under-handed tactics to enforce its will.
A former presiding judge in Los Angles, Stephen Czuleger, was an early voice on the Judicial Council urging caution in the vast expenditures on an IT project, called the California Case Management System or CCMS.
But his urging was met with a campaign of vilification.
“Judges around the state called to report to me that Vickrey was going around the state lying about me and my court, especially about CCMS. Bill was obviously uncomfortable with my raising questions about CCMS and I grew weary of his efforts to discredit those concerns,” said Czuleger in a letter to Justice Terence Bruiniers who has been a lead defender of the IT project.
The cost of that troubled project has ballooned to $1.9 billion. In the scramble to defend it, the administrative office hired a private consultant, the English accounting firm of Grant Thornton, which two weeks ago published a favorable cost benefit analysis relying, as we have reported, on a set of fantastic assumptions.
The state auditor answered last week with a critique of the cost benefit analysis, saying it understated costs, assumed benefits that are in doubt and makes unrealistic assumptions about installing the IT system.
In this week’s reply on behalf of the administrators, I was genuinely saddened to see a renewed use of the tactic of “sliming” a fair critic. The fair critic of today is the state’s auditor who, in my view, has been the only official voice of reason and clarity on the CCMS boondoggle.
In reply to the auditor’s criticism of the cost benefit analysis, Justice Bruiniers sent a long email this week to judges around the state attacking the state auditor and her bureau.
“Within days of the release of the Cost Benefit Analysis, the Bureau of State Audits chose to challenge at least some of the CBA findings. Unfortunately, this was done without any prior notice to or inquiry of the branch. [This critique was being eagerly disseminated by the most strident CCMS critics well before its existence was even disclosed to us.] It is difficult to understand why the BSA would summarily reject a report prepared over the course of several weeks by a recognized international expert,” says that email, including the brackets.
In my opinion, those words amount to a clear suggestion that that the state auditor is biased, that is she is rushing to judgment, has the temerity to challenge “an international expert” and that she leaked her findings to the “eager” and “strident” critics.
It is an attack by innuendo. It impugns the motives of the auditor. What disappointed me in that email was that it reminded me of the complaint from Czuleger whose fair criticism years ago about the very same project was met with the very same tactic, an attack on the messenger.
But that, as we are coming to know it, is the way of the Borg.
Wendy Darling
March 9, 2011
And here’s the article by Maria Dinzeo and Courthouse News Service regarding Justice Bruiniers attacking Elaine Howle and the Bureau of State Audits, also published today, Wednesday, March 9.
So, the State Auditor, acting at the directive of Joint Legislature Audit Committee, conducts the only independent, impartial, non-AOC controlled investigation – “audit” – in anyone’s recent or remote memory, which indicates massive AOC mismanagement and numerous other failures of sound or transparent administration, and the AOC’s response to is attack the State Auditor. Obviously, that’s the problem. So much for the value of truth at the California Judicial Branch.
Long live the ACJ.
Justice Takes On State Auditor Over Critique
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Justice Terence Bruiniers attacked the state auditor on Tuesday after the auditor criticized a recent private analysis supporting a $1.9 billion court IT project. The attack brought a quick response from a legislator who questioned why the justice would want to get into a credibility battle with the auditor.
Bruiniers sent an email to judges around California, saying the state auditor “chose to challenge” the analysis from accounting firm Grant Thornton, based on her “misunderstandings” and “without any prior notice to or inquiry of the branch or of Grant Thornton.”
“It is difficult to understand why the BSA would summarily reject a report prepared over the course of several weeks by a recognized international expert in the field recommended by the state Technology Agency,” Bruiniers wrote, adding that Howle’s critique was “being eagerly disseminated” by critics of the project that he referred to as “strident.”
State Auditor Elaine Howle had questioned Grant Thornton’s methodology in analyzing the costs and benefits of the controversial IT project, known as the Court Case Management System. She focused on “unrealistic assumptions” about the judicial bureaucracy’s ability to find funding for the project and install it in all 58 trial courts by 2016.
Howle’s technology expert Payson Hall had also found that the technology on which CCMS is built may even be outdated by 2016. The Administrative Office of the Courts began developing the project in 2007, and Howle wrote, “Barring any delays, the useful life of CCMS may be very short after it begins to achieve a positive return on investment in fiscal year 2019-20.”
The auditor could not be reached for comment.
For Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen Czuleger, the attack on auditor Howle was familiar. He had pushed for a business plan and cost benefit analysis years ago, and was then attacked by administrators for allegedly “trying to kill CCMS.”
Czuleger said he had seen both Grant Thornton’s analysis and the auditor’s critique, and agreed with Howle that the analysis “raises more questions than it answers. How do you establish a CBA when you don’t have a stable system and you don’t know how much is ultimately going to cost? I think that’s what the state auditor was trying to raise, that there were too many assumptions here.”
Czuleger said the auditor should not have had to seek permission from the AOC or Bruiniers before releasing her critique.
“This is the Bureau of State Audits. They are not beholden to anyone and I think it’s unwise for any tax payer agency to be criticizing the auditor in this fashion,” he said. “Rather than accepting good information and relying on it, they want to attack the messenger. I hope that was not what Bruiniers was trying to do. I believe Justice Bruiniers was acting in good faith, but the comments in that email sound a lot like attacking the messenger because they disagree with the message.”
The IT project has come under fire in the last year over ballooning costs and allegations of mismanagement.
Auditor Howle released an audit last month that found the AOC had not managed costs, which she predicted could reach $2 billion, not including the costs that will be incurred by trial courts in installing it. Trial judges from all over the state have expressed displeasure with the system’s alleged poor functionality, and have said that the money used for CCMS would be better spent keeping courts open.
The project has also faced opposition in the legislature. State legislators Ricardo Lara ( D-Bell Gardens)and Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Longbeach) have called for the firing of AOC Director Bill Vickrey for his leadership of the project. In a statement distributed to media through her spokesperson, Lowenthal said, “I can’t believe the AOC wants to get into a credibility contest with the state auditor.”
Last week, Assembly member Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville), called on the legislature to prohibit the AOC from using money for trial court operations to fund the project, calling it “a waste of taxpayer dollars.”
antonatrail
March 9, 2011
Poor Bruiniers. It’s culture shock, not bad faith, in attacking the state auditor for setting the record straight before asking permission to speak from him and/or the AOC. Culture shock, in that in the real world down here with we earthlings and common folk, we don’t realize that we should bow our heads and wait to speak until acknowledged by the Great Ones.
Back to reality, I wondered how the state auditor would handle the audit with all the paper shredding that was no doubt occurring. She handled it in a professional and magnificent fashion in her report without even an allusion to shredded documents that I saw.
And why did the AOC have to go across the pond to Grant Thornton? That was a GIGO report with what they had to work with, of course. More taxpayer money wasted.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 9, 2011
What we found indefensible about Mr. Bruniers highly inappropriate pravda like letter is that by the time Elaine Howle had trashed the analysis, many other professionals and news organizations had reviewed the analysis and came to the GIGO conclusion and had already published their conclusions.
Mr. Bruniers owes Elaine Howle an apology for attempting to interfere with her responsibility to the people and frankly for a cowardly, chickenshit attempt to put all the blame for bad press on her when we all trashed it days before she said a word.
JusticeCalifornia
March 9, 2011
I smell fear and desperation. . . . .
The need to buy time no matter the cost, in order to cleanse files. . .
People getting in deeper and deeper, or jumping ship to get out. . . .
RG/top leadership/their buddies have painted themselves into a corner. Many are undoubtedly waiting to be personally served with a summons or worse. . .and many have probably already consulted with criminal counsel. I wonder who paid for that. . . .
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 9, 2011
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 9, 2011
Followers of themis tell us that the AOC is expecting yet another audit in the HR division. The followers tell us that many, many people in the AOC skipped criminal background checks and that notes to this effect had been placed in personnel files. These files we are told are now being combed for these notes and new shredders have been brought in to deal with other matters.
antonatrail
March 9, 2011
The shredders are going again? Oh, my God, I forgot to call my broker!
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 10, 2011
This is one of the finest articles I have ever had the pleasure of reading.
Mr. Huffman truly thinks of himself as the power behind the power. The analysis is correct, anyone attempting to get onto the Council is never going to get there unless they are a suck-buddy of those already there. CCMS is the Achilles Heal of the entire Pyramid Scheme.
The Presiding Judge Advisory group is further evidence of the control that they have over the entire branch. They count the votes for people seeking to be on these various committees and people are told, “you weren’t selected” for positions that were “elected.” Interesting turn of a phrase…don’t you think.
JCW and the Alliance are doing great things to turn a spotlight on the massive corruption going on within the walls of the Crystal Palace. Ultimately, those cast as being “shrill and uninformed” will prevail
Michael Paul
March 10, 2011
I am personally saddened and feel sorry for other employees throughout the judicial branch. I didn’t work in the courts. I don’t know a thing about “judge stuff”. What I do know is that this all rises to the level of criminal activity and that as a result, judges and court employees throughout this state are muffled as this could all be the subject of pending or impending litigation and as a result, they cannot speak directly to corruption. They have to point at it all in a benign manner and speak of things being too expensive because being too expensive does not rise to a level of criminal activity.
An example of this is while judges across this state from northern california to southern california have brought up the issues of building maintenance overcharges and they have gotten lots of press, not a single news story has pointed out, neither have the judges, that these people doing the overcharging were unlicensed contractors.
They can’t speak to it because it is the subject of current litigation. The AOC’s initial lawsuit and the AOC themselves discount being gouged and never sued for being overcharged. Had they sued for being overcharged the judges across this state would be muffled on that issue as well but they only sued them for being unlicensed contractors.
My understanding is that the people in Sacramento read this blog. For the sake of the people of California, please confirm my observation here with others.
JusticeCalifornia
March 10, 2011
Top leadership is realizing that people who are interested in what the Judicial Council/AOC are doing are no longer buying what the RG leftovers are selling.
Many are surprised that the new CJ appears to be so incredibly unclear on the concept. How many ways does she need to be told that she needs to clean up the branch?
But perhaps she was selected by RG as his successor precisely because there is no way in heck she can or will take on this fight. Perhaps we are not talking about top leadership acting like spoiled children, or even juvenile delinquents. Perhaps certain of those in top leadership have graduated to the hardened criminal stage, and we are watching branch thugs try desperately to maintain their stranglehold while they bury bodies. After all, we are talking about a $4 billion enterprise that has had no oversight at all, and that is facing all kinds of very public investigations at this point.
RICO.
You play the game, you get the name.
Indeed, it is way past time for those with integrity to step out of the game, and for law enforcement to step in.
wendy darling
March 10, 2011
From Maria Dinzeo and Courthouse News service, published today, Thursday, March 10, 2011.
Long live the ACJ.
VERBAL WARFARE BREAKS OUT WITHIN JUDICIARY
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California’s court leadership is taking the offensive against its critics, bringing a reaction equally as powerful from judges and legislators. The most recent clash has been played out partly on the editorial page of the San Diego Union Tribune where a trial judge first said the judiciary’s system of governance is broken, followed by an answer from an appellate justice who said trial judges are trying to establish separate fiefdoms, which in turn brought a rebuke from a powerful legislator who said judiciary leaders are displaying “arrogance.”
In an opinion piece published a week ago titled “A Judicial Hierarchy out of Control,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charles Horan said the judiciary’s leadership has lost the confidence of California’s public as exemplified in its continuing campaign to push a botched IT system on local courts.
“Under the mantra of statewide administration, we have allowed an unaccountable bureaucracy to hold sway over our judges,” said the opinion piece published in the San Diego Union Tribune.
That opinion was answered this week by a blast of a letter from Appellate Justice Richard Huffman, also published in the Tribune and aimed at a group of trial judges who are challenging the top brass of the courts. He said those trial judges are trying to take California’s courts backwards and undo a set of reforms unspecified in the letter.
“Horan and a few others are capitalizing on legitimate concerns about local control,” said Huffman’s letter, adding that Horan and other “disaffected judges” are seeking to “return to the days of separate judicial fiefdoms.”
That letter brought criticism from longtime legislator Charles Calderon (D-Montebello) who is sponsoring a bill to return power to individual local courts and their head judges. That transfer of power would reduce the influence of the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judicial Council, the two bodies that currently determine statewide policy for the courts.
“I think Judge Horan has very legitimate concerns,” said Calderon in an interview.
As a member of the Judicial Council years ago and the longest-serving member of both the state Assembly and Senate, Calderon says he has watched the bureaucratic takeover of the courts. Last month, Calderon introduced AB 1208, the “Trial Court Rights Act,” that intends to decentralize judicial power and hand more responsibility to head judges in individual courts.
Under AB 1208, judges will be in charge major funding decisions for their own courts.
“I don’t see how the courts could be more bureaucratized than they are now,” said Calderon. “1,100 bureaucrats comprise the AOC. It has become so bureaucratic that the AOC officials make decisions right down to the light bulbs and what clock should be replaced.”
“And so it can’t get anymore bureaucratic,” Calderon continued, “and the only thing that can happen with my legislation is there will be less bureaucracy and more self-determination in terms of representing the communities that elect them.”
Clashes within the judicial branch have been galvanized by a $1.9 billion IT system, which trial judges and legislators have criticized as unwieldy and exorbitantly expensive.
State Auditor Elaine Howle released a report last month revealing mismanagement and waste on the part of the AOC in developing the computer system. The AOC in its turn unveiled a cost-benefit analysis of the system conducted by accounting firm Grant Thornton, which Howle then critiqued, saying it was based on unrealistic assumptions.
In his letter to the Tribune, Justice Huffman said some trial court judges, such as Horan, are taking advantage of the problems with the computer system. “Horan and a few others are capitalizing on legitimate concerns about local control and the management of a statewide case-management system to undo these reforms.”
While Huffman does not define those reforms, he is likely referring to changes over the years that centralized control and finances through a central body of administrators, changes that its proponents say bring consistency within court rules and a rationalization of finances.
“Without these reforms,” said Huffman’s letter, “we would not be planning a critically needed courthouse for downtown San Diego to replace a seismically unsafe structure.”
He then aimed a direct blow at Horan and a group of judges called the Alliance of California Judges who have been objecting to the vast expenditures on by the state’s judicial leaders on an IT system while courts are being closed on some days and employees are being furloughed, a group which claims a membership of roughly 300.
“Horan, along with a handful of others, claim they represent hundreds of judges, whose names are kept secret from the public and the rest of the judicial branch,” said Huffman who then claimed the mantle of legitimacy for himself and others in the Judicial Council. “Those of us on the Judicial Council – the policymaking body of the judicial branch – and the California Judges Association truly represent judges.”
Huffman, who had a reputation as a champion for the previous chief justice, Ronald George, said that the trial judges who are challenging the leadership refuse to join committees, as urged by the new chief of California’s courts. “Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has asked disaffected judges to join hundreds of other volunteer judges to participate in the many committees the Judicial Council relies on to make its decisions.”
Taking a second shot at the Alliance of California Judges, Huffman added, “They have declined to participate because their membership is secret.”
Instead, said Huffman, they are directly lobbying our legislators to undo the reforms that took many years of hard work and careful thought, he concluded. “If the reforms are undone, we will return to the days of separate judicial fiefdoms and less judicial accountability, and the very real possibility that residents and attorneys will experience very different rules, procedures and access from one jurisdiction to the next.”
In his opinion piece, Horan had addressed the barriers to membership in the leadership’s committees which he said are made up of “a small, insular minority of favored judges.”
Calderon agreed, saying, “I served on the Judicial Council in 1995-96, so I agree with the characterization that the Judicial Council is comprised of a small insular group of favored judges.”
Jumping into the fray, a San Diego trial court judge also returned Huffman’s cannonade.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Dan Goldstein said, “Justice Huffman, a long standing appointee and advocate of the Judicial Council of California, personally attacks Judge Charles Horan and his view that the bureaucracy Justice Huffman has led for nearly 14 years is in need of reform. Nowhere does Justice Huffman account for the waste and mismanagement that the Bureau of State Audits, Legislators, Court employees and hundreds of Judges across the State have rallied against.”
Goldstein continued, “At the Judicial Council’s direction the branch is scheduled to engage in the expenditure of at least $1.9 billion, for a flawed computer system that the Judicial Council never obtained any independent funding to create. The money for this system has come from trial court operations partially causing closures, layoffs and furloughs.
He added, “While I have been a judge going on nine years, I have also been a Management Professor over two decades. I know what would happen to a board of directors at any corporation if they engaged in conduct similar to this. This money belongs to the taxpayers and, as pointed out by Judge Horan, should only be spent carefully and responsibly.”
Speaking from the state legislature, Calderon said Justice Huffman’s letter signals the judicial bureaucracy’s fear of survival amidst intense criticism from judges and legislators. “Talk about circling the wagons,” he said. “They’ve been acting a lot like a bureaucracy that has been threatened and think their survival is on the line. And they’re doing it with such arrogance.”
Calderon was referring to Huffman’s letter, combined with Appellate Justice Terence Bruiniers’ recent reaction to the state auditor’s critique of Grant Thornton’s cost-benefit analysis of the IT project.
Said Calderon, “This justice attacking the trial court judge’s stance, another justice who then comes out and attacks the auditor and is literally saying that an international firm, who we’re paying by the way, is much more credible than the auditor — this statement in this context sounds so out of touch.”
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 10, 2011
Our parody couldn’t have been better timed, no? About 3000 people have read this true to life parody. We want to sincerely thank Mr. Huffman for the opportunity he presented us as we were perplexed on how to bring this all to the surface.
Mr. Paul indicated via email that he touched base with a few legislative aides in Sacramento today and pointed them to our site. These aides weren’t aware of its existence. Legislative aides are the engine of the legislature. If they don’t know the issues then this whole matter goes nowhere. We’re happy to report a tremendous increase in traffc coming from Sacramento today so maybe the word is getting out.
If you’ve not spoken to a legslative aide, the engines of the state legislature, reach out and touch someone.
wendy darling
March 10, 2011
Perhaps it’s just me, but doesn’t Huffman’s letter seem just a wee bit “shrill and uninformed”?
JusticeCalifornia
March 10, 2011
Wendy ,thank you for your updates on articles. From the latest article you posted:
“I don’t see how the courts could be more bureaucratized than they are now,” said Calderon. “1,100 bureaucrats comprise the AOC. It has become so bureaucratic that the AOC officials make decisions right down to the light bulbs and what clock should be replaced.”
I swear, there are so many stories and references to light bulbs being changed in the judicial branch.
Light bulbs, light bulbs, light bulbs. Even the new CJ assured the Marin County Bar Association that the AOC was responsible for changing light bulbs.
Changing light bulbs appears to be a VERY lucrative and VERY important job in the judicial branch. I think I read something about that somewhere here. . . .has anyone figured out the profit margin for those changing light bulbs for the AOC? And exactly who is making the profit? And if anyone has followed the money?
I think we have all missed the boat, and should all be going to judicial light-bulb, clock-battery checking, and creative money-laundering school.
Michael Paul
March 10, 2011
It’s certainly cheaper than law school.
I’ve highlighted the issue of light bulbs personally because they are something everyone can look up and see. If you’re sitting in any government office and look up, chances are there is a flourescent light with four bulbs and a ballast somewhere in the roof above your head.
That whole fixture mounted in a recessed “hung” ceiling is likely worth somewhere between a hundred dollars and two hundred and fifty dollars depending on how fancy it might be. It is something everyone can relate to and use every day. The AOC pays staggering costs for lighting alone. This falls in the category of facilities maintenance for the most part. Jobs under or around two grand. Facilities modifications can run into the millions. The AOC buries some of its facilites maintenence costs (what it represents it maintains buildings per square feet for) into facilities modification projects. Facilities modification projects can cost millions and are also steered to the service providers at costs that are off the charts.
It is much more difficult to explain why over 7 million dollars was spent on Larson Justice Center’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning system when it should have been a two and a half million dollar project because the average reader has no construction or engineering background.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 13, 2011
Lightbulbs appear to have a modest 100,000% markup. Clock batteries seem to have about a 400,000% markup if I’m doing the math correctly.
I am so in the wrong business.
I could live like a rock star for half that kind of mark-up. I could go from courthouse to courthouse in a pimped-out hummer limo with all of my tools, bulbs and clock batteries in the back, have my limo driver double as my assistant and still pull down several million dollars a year.
I would meet Jon Wintermeyer’s goal of having tools and a truck to boot.
wendy darling
March 10, 2011
Too bad none of the lightbulbs are actually on at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Lando
March 10, 2011
Judge Horan wrote an editorial piece about two weeks ago that hits the nail on the head. CCMS and all that it represents is only a symptom of a greater problem, a broken Judicial governance structure. The trial court realignment legislation of 1998 never intended to put total control and power of an entire branch of government within the hands of one person the Chief Justice. No one could envision in 1998 what was to occur- the creation of a state wide bureaucracy that now numbers over 1,000 employees, the development of a 2-3 billion dollar state wide computer system that has not been deployed and will likely be dead on arrival and continual efforts big and small to take away local court discretion. While Justices Huffman and Bruiniers are bright thoughtful Judges, no democratic structure ever elected them to run the Judicial Council or to oversee CCMS. The solution to all this is very basic. The Judicial Council needs to be democratized. Then and only then will all voices be heard for the benefit of all Californians. Thanks to the many who have opened this door and hopefully Assemblyperson Calderon’s efforts will succeed to restore balance and democratic values to the branch as a whole.
wendy darling
March 10, 2011
And long live the ACJ.
versal-versal
March 10, 2011
The sad thing is that any one who stands in opposition to the JC AOC or its relentless efforts to control everything is subject to criticism and attack. Why should Justice Bruiniers attack the State Auditor who is only doing her job? Why does Justice Huffman attack Judge Horan and the Alliance by claiming without basis that trial Judges seek to re-establish fiefdoms ? Those that choose to speak for the benefit of the taxpayers are not “shrill and uninformed” as the former CJ claimed. As fellow blogger Woodhull recognizes the voices of the “shrill and uninformed ” are growing and that CCMS is the key to seeing why change is necessary.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 11, 2011
Excuse me, but could someone please explain to me why Mr. Huffman gets to be “in charge” of things and made some of the statements he does about my colleagues like Judge Horan? This is exactly why someone needs to clean house. I don’t recall electing the Chief Justice to “run” the Judicial Branch. I certainly didn’t vote for Mr. Bruiniers to run a $1.9 billion dollar computer system. What exactly are his qualifications? Oh, he’s been on the AOC IT committees since he was appointed to the bench. Positions he was appointed to by HRH Ronald George.
Time for some of these clowns to get off the stage. Wasn’t clown the word Mr. Huffman used to describe some judges???
wendy darling
March 11, 2011
Clowns are actually funny, and are a time honored profession, dating back to the days of Court Jesters.
There is nothing funny about what is going on in the California Judicial Branch.
These people aren’t “clowns” – they’re crooks.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 11, 2011
Less than zero?
In his closing remarks, Feudal lord Huffman opined this thought;
“If those reforms are undone, we will return to the days of separate judicial fiefdoms and less judicial accountability, and the very real possibility that residents and attorneys will experience very different rules, procedures and access from one jurisdiction to the next.”
Point one: There is no larger fiefdom in the judicial branch (or in all of California Government for that matter) than the judicial council and the AOC as currently comprised. It is the talk of government statewide.
Point two: It would be difficult to achieve less than zero with respect to the utter lack of judicial accountability exhibited by the current judicial council and their executive and planning committee over their own operations.
Point three: If the Council focused on its core mission instead of all the peripheral B.S. like construction programs, software programs or trying to educate our children, then the “very real possibility” of different rules, procedures and access wouldn’t be an issue.
wendy darling
March 11, 2011
From Cheryl Miller and Legal Pad, the on-line publication of CalLaw, published today, Friday, March 11, 2011.
Have a nice weekand and long live the ACJ.
CJA to Ask Members About Opinion on Trial Court Rights Act
[Cheryl Miller]
The proposed Trial Court Rights Act has been criticized by at least one Judicial Council member as the work of an unhappy “few.” But maybe the few aren’t so few.
The California Judges Association has decided to poll its members about their views on Assembly Bill 1208, which would shift more decision-making authority to local courts. The bill is sponsored by the Alliance of California Judges, but it apparently became the subject of some robust discussion at the March 4 CJA executive board meeting.
Now CJA President Judge Keith D. Davis of San Bernardino County, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Jim Herman, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Tim McCoy and Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Steve White are compiling a survey about AB 1208, CCMS and general branch governance for all CJA members to complete, according to a recent CJA email. The results are expected to be reviewed by CJA leaders on April 8.
CJA has long been seen as an ally of the Judicial Council; its president serves as an advisory council member. But if the CJA decides to back AB 1208, or at least decides not to oppose it, it could be a signal of support for significant change in the way the branch administration operates.
Michael Paul
March 11, 2011
It sounds like Justice Huffman might be concerned that the winds of democracy are blowing his way.
wendy darling
March 11, 2011
The article states: “The California Judges Association has decided to poll its members about their views on Assembly Bill 1208, which would shift more decision-making authority to local courts.”
The majority of the “members” of The California Judges Association aren’t Supreme Court or appellate justices; the majority members of CJA are the trial court judges. Elected trial court judges.
Perhaps the various constituents in the various counties around California should write, e-mail, Facebook, twitter, or otherwise communicate to their respective local elected trial court judges requesting that those elected local judges support AB 1208, and to begin by stating their support of AB 1208 when responding to their CJA survey “about AB 1208, CCMS and general branch governance for all CJA members to complete.”
A little something to think about over the weekend …
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
March 11, 2011
Judges — whether elected or appointed — are bound to abide by the Code of Judicial Ethics and serve the public. The members of the CJA must be aware that court-users and others in the taxpaying public have been financially and otherwise misled and raped, and the branch has been so very disgraced, by top leadership’s increasingly documented, patently unethical, many-say-illegal, cronyistic, wasteful, self-serving-at-taxpayer-expense, document-shredding, mismanagement/disinformation/brutal shoot-the-messenger tactics.
I daresay it is the perfect time for CJA members t0 be called upon to jump off the fence and take a stance.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 12, 2011
Many do not realize that the CJA at one time performed many of the functions now “taken over” by the Judicial Council & AOC. Judicial education, the founding of Judicial College, was initiated by the CJA, however reading CJER literature would not lead you to that fact. Most recently, judicial ethics was the topic area “taken over” by the AOC at the behest of the JC. When this was questioned, one of the most insulting comments made was by Mr. Huffman who questioned whether or not judges from the CJA were properly equipped to oversee judicial ethics. Huh…CJA members like David Rothman who wrote the Bible on judicial ethics.
Unfortunately, for all the great things that the CJA has done over the decades, many lost faith in them when they were taken over by the AOC (Vickery) under the leadership (or lack of same) of Mr. Jim Mize and Mr. Terry B. Friedman. These two former CJA Presidents invited Vickery and Overholt to attend not only the entirety of the CJA Executive Board Meetings, but also attend the annual planning sessions at which the year’s focus was set.
Between the outright efforts by Mize and Friedman to have the CJA fall in lock-step with the AOC agenda, the “chilling effect” of Vickery and Overholt being present caused many Board members to simply keep their mouths shut. It was during this era that Board members were told how important it was to “speak with one voice”, the Chief Justice HRH Ronald George. Anyone expressing a contrary view was immediately marginalized.
Friedman mysteriously resigned from the bench in LA (questions swirling regarding his failure to disclose certain relationships with entities whose cases he was presiding over) yet he stayed on the Judicial Council after no longer being a judge.
Hopefully, the vote count of the CJA members will be objective and the results will show the true support for Assembly Member Calderon’s Bill. When the AOC counts “votes” people are told they either were or were not “selected” for a particular position. “Selection” is a strange word to use in an “election”…
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 12, 2011
An outside observational concern of mine is a little place called CalBar which is an administrative office of the California Supreme Court. Similar issues of assimilation have created a disjointed institution with similar governance issues that has it wrought with conflict. It too could use a whole lot of democratization to stay at arms length from the borg. They too have been sucked into this “speak with one voice” argument.
Maybe the solution is to spin off CJP and calbar disciplinary functions off to an independent office of the judicial branch, combined with a real whistleblower investigative function independent of any judicial branch chain of command with its own independent appropriations. This would all reduce the conflicts of interests alleged by many.
SF Whistle
March 12, 2011
JCW–
Ostensibly the CJP is already an “independent agency”—see item from the Governor’s proposed budget…
Proposed Budget Detail
Legislative, Judicial, and Executive >> Commission on Judicial Performance >> Mission Statement
All Funds: 2011-12*
Total Dollars $4,181
Total Personnel
Years 27
Programs
3-Yr Expenditures & Personnel Years
Printable Budget Documents
Additional Information
0280 Commission on Judicial Performance
Mission Statement
The California Commission on Judicial Performance is the independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity, and for disciplining judges pursuant to Article VI, Section 18 of the California Constitution. It is the only body with such authority in the state. Its jurisdiction includes all active judges and justices of California’s superior courts, Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court, and former judges for conduct prior to retirement or resignation. The Commission also shares authority with the local courts for the oversight of court commissioners and referees. In addition to its disciplinary functions, the Commission is responsible for handling judges’ applications for disability retirement.
The Commission’s authority is limited to investigating alleged judicial misconduct and, if warranted, imposing discipline. Judicial misconduct usually involves conduct in conflict with the standards set forth in the Code of Judicial Ethics. After investigation and, in some cases a public hearing, the Commission may impose sanctions ranging from confidential discipline to removal from office.
The Commission is composed of 11 members: 3 judges appointed by the Supreme Court, 2 attorneys appointed by the Governor, and 6 lay citizens, of which 2 are appointed by the Governor, 2 are appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules, and 2 are appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly. Members are appointed to four-year terms and may serve two terms. Commission members do not receive a salary.
THIS SOUNDS GREAT—RIGHT—??? The reality is far from the “mission statement”…The CJP is a total joke…It receives and average of 1,200 complaints a year and somehow finds —on average—cause for admonishment of less than 10 judges annually—-????
I suppose this is because all complaints come from the “shrill and uninformed”….along with unwashed and toothless hoardes of disgruntled litigants…..
JusticeCalifornia
March 12, 2011
I remember being asked to complete a questionnaire by the AOC/Judicial Council, in order to respond to a poll/survey. I was asked the most amazingly personal and irrelevant questions. I did not complete the survey, as I did not want to give such information to what I knew were the very corrupt powers that be. In other words, the way the poll/survey was being conducted provided a disincentive to participate. Requiring lawyers to answer these questions before moving on to the questions about the issues was a good way to get rid of them.
I know so many lawyers who support and understand what I do and why, but if they had to say that publicly, they would not/could not, for political reasons. For years our Marin County Bar Association was led by those whose first allegiance was not to bar members, but rather to the Marin bench, and those with close ties to the bench. Everyone understood that the job of top members of the MCBA was to defend the bench and the status quo, no matter how problematic that might be. (I am happy to say that as far as I can tell so far, 2011 top MCBA leadership is not comprised of “the usual suspects”. Watching and listening to Otis Bruce’s refreshing and infectious enthusiasm at the MCBA general meeting last month was truly a pleasure.)
Back to the subject at hand. . . .I am personally aware that the Judicial Council and AOC have insinuated themselves into everyday trial court and even law enforcement activity. I asked for information from Marin Court Executive Officer Kim Turner about how much money had been paid to certain individuals, and was told by her assistant that “the Judicial Council said not to do your research for you”. I accompanied one individual to the Marin County Sheriff’s office to make a criminal report about judicial branch members—two big officers came out, with their hands on their guns, and informed us that they would NOT take a report, because this was a “judicial council” matter. (I do believe that refusing to take a report is itself a crime, but hey—this was a “judicial council” matter. . .). We all watched the AOC block state auditor access to Marin family court records, thereby buying time to allow Judicial Council member Kim Turner and the famously problematic Marin Family Court to destroy damning family court custody mediation files. And we have all watched the AOC and Judicial Council (and the Marin Court) boldly misrepresent what the JLAC audits mean.
As far as I can tell, the Judicial Council/AOC have taken on the “Big Brother” role/persona/methodology/goals.
Check this out, on this lazy Saturday morning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
And consider what we are all talking about. It is a sobering thought.
Wendy is right. Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
March 12, 2011
JusticeCalifornia
March 12, 2011
We all have our allegiances and functions. Including on this blog. Unplanned, unintended, and sometimes at odds. But sometimes they do so seem to work well together.
As I was this morning trying to find a good music video to post, I found a great movie!!!!
go to Google. Then click on videos. Then type in:
1984-1954 with Peter Cushing part 1
And then watch all 15 parts. Great and classic book we were all required to read in high school or college. Great message to think about now.
Gotta love — and protect– due process, truth and freedom, checks and balances. . .
wendy darling
March 12, 2011
From the Associated Press, published in The New York Times, today, Saturday, March 12, 2011.
Long live the ACJ.
JUDGES RESIST PLAN TO UNIFY COURT SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 12, 2011
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The crowning achievement in the career of former Chief Justice Ron George of California was expected to be the result of his crusade to drag the nation’s largest state court system into the 21st century: a computer system linking every courthouse in the state’s 58 counties.
As envisioned a decade ago, the system would allow anyone in any courthouse to get real-time information on just about any case in the state.
Instead, the state auditor has concluded that court officials have managed the project so poorly that it has been installed in just seven counties since 2004, and to mixed reviews.
The troubles plaguing the project, which is formally known as the California Court Management System, are also threatening to undo the considerable political gains that Chief Justice George won for the courts before he retired in January.
Court unification was the centerpiece of his 14 years as chief justice; he pushed legislation that centralized court financing with the Administrative Office of the Courts and largely eliminated county control over local court budgets. Those moves ensured steady financing statewide.
But many trial judges and court workers throughout the state are now in open revolt over the management system.
“The idea of having all of the courts connected through a case-management system is appealing in the abstract — all of us favor the concept,” said Steve White, presiding judge of Sacramento County Superior Court, which uses the new computer system. “But that has turned into an ill-conceived, mismanaged and failed experiment. It simply has not worked.”
On Feb. 8, the state auditor, Elaine Howle, issued a report concluding that mismanagement had drastically increased the computer project’s cost and severely delayed deployment of the system, which may now have to be significantly scaled back.
In 2004, administrators predicted that the project would cost $260 million to complete. To date, however, more $330 million has been spent, and statewide deployment is now estimated at $1.3 billion. The state auditor puts that figure closer to $1.9 billion.
Officials at the Administrative Office of the Courts said rising costs had always been anticipated. But a growing number of critics say the administrative office has surpassed its mandate and exercised nearly complete authority over every courthouse.
They point to the troubled computer system as one of the biggest problems, complaining that the office continued to pay for a failing project while furloughing court employees and closing courts during business hours to save money.
Judge White of Sacramento County is also the leader of the Alliance of California Judges, an organization that is dissatisfied with the Administrative Office of the Courts in general and the computer project in particular. The group has urged that the project be halted, and Judge White said the alliance had signed up more than 400 of the state’s 1,600 judges since it was created two years ago.
Ricardo Lara and Bonnie Lowenthal of the State Assembly also sent a letter last month to the new chief justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, demanding that the chief of the administrative office, Bill Vickrey, be dismissed.
The lawmakers said that Mr. Vickrey had ignored a legislative analysis in 2004 that warned of the project’s lack of planning and oversight. “Mr. Vickrey’s bewildering dismissal of sound advice has resulted in the kind of debacle that, in any other setting, already would have resulted in termination,” the letter said.
Justice Cantil-Sakauye, who was sworn in on Jan. 3, said that she stood by Mr. Vickrey and the computer project, and she criticized the lawmakers’ recent letter.
“I consider this letter a serious attempt to interfere with judicial branch governance,” the new chief justice said. “Moreover, this letter is a profound diversion from the difficult issues that our branch is trying to resolve.”
wendy darling
March 12, 2011
Apparently, it’s not a good news day for the AOC. Also from the Associated Press, by Paul Elias, published today, Saturday, March 12, 2011, in The Kansas City Star.
These two AP articles have also been published in numerous other newspapers nationwide today.
Long live the ACJ.
COMPUTER MESS JEOPORDIZES COURT’S POLITICAL CLOUT
By PAUL ELIAS
Associated Press
Former California Chief Justice Ron George’s crowning achievement was expected to be his crusade to drag the nation’s largest court system into the 21st century: a computer system linking every courthouse in the state’s 58 counties.
As initially envisioned a decade ago, anyone in any courthouse today should be able to get real-time information on just about any case anywhere in the state.
Instead, the state auditor has concluded that court officials have so badly mismanaged the massive information technology project formally launched in 2004 that it has been installed to mixed reviews in just seven counties. And more than what may become a $2 billion computer project is at stake.
The troubles plaguing the California Court Management System are threatening to undo the considerable political gains George made for the courts in Sacramento before his January retirement. George made court unification a centerpiece of his 14-year tenure as chief justice, pushing through legislation that centralized court funding with the Administrative Office of the Courts and largely eliminating the control county officials had over local court budgets.
His accomplishments eliminated the feudal governance of the courts and ensured steady, reliable annual funding statewide. But many trial judges and court workers throughout the state are now in open revolt.
“The idea of having all of the courts connected through a case management system is appealing in the abstract. All of us favor the concept,” said Steve White, presiding judge of Sacramento County Superior Court, which uses the new computer system. “But that has turned into an ill-conceived, mismanaged and failed experiment. It simply has not worked.”
On Feb. 8, State Auditor Elaine Howle issued a blistering report concluding that the AOC’s mismanagement of the computer project has dramatically increased the cost and severely delayed deployment of a system that may have to be significantly scaled back.
In 2004, the AOC predicted the project would cost $260 million to complete. Today, it has already spent $332 million and says state-wide deployment will cost $1.3 billion. The state auditor puts that figure closer to $1.9 billion while recommending the courts do a better job of reporting their spending to the Legislature.
Administrative Office leaders insist the rising costs have always been anticipated because the project was intentionally designed and expected to accept add-ons during development.
But a growing number of critics inside and outside the state’s court system allege the AOC surpassed its mandate and amassed near-total authority over every courthouse. They point to the troubled computer system as Exhibit A, complaining that AOC leaders continue to pay for a failing project, while ordering court workers furloughed and courts closed during business hours to save money.
Sacramento County’s White is also head of the Alliance of California Judges, a breakaway organization of jurists dissatisfied with the AOC generally and the computer project specifically. The group has called for halting the project.
White said the alliance has signed up more than 400 of the state’s 1,600 judges since its 2009 creation, which he said is a sign of growing discontent with the courts’ centralized management. Influential outsiders are also starting to take notice.
Assembly members Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, sent new Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye a letter on Feb. 24 demanding the dismissal of AOC chief Bill Vickrey.
In their letter to the chief justice, the lawmakers said the AOC led by Vickrey ignored a Legislative Analyst warning in 2004 about a lack of planning and oversight of the project.
“Mr. Vickrey’s bewildering dismissal of sound advice has resulted in the kind of debacle that, in any other setting, already would have resulted in termination,” the letter stated. The lawmakers also question whether to clip the courts contracting authority.
Cantil-Sakauye, who was sworn in Jan. 3, said last month that she stands by Vickrey and the computer project and criticized the lawmakers’ letter.
I consider this letter a serious attempt to interfere with judicial branch governance and my ability to evaluate the AOC management team,” the new chief justice said. “Moreover, this letter is a profound diversion from the difficult issues that our branch is trying to resolve.”
The chief justice said the court will adopt the auditor’s recommendations, including better oversight of the project and soliciting the input of trial court judges.
“I’m aware and I thank the bureau of state audits for its intensive historical review of CCMS and I take its report and its findings seriously,” Cantil-Sakauye said at a Feb. 25 meeting discussing the project.
The AOC directed inquiries about the system and the audit to Appellate Court Justice Terence Bruiniers, who chairs a committee overseeing the project and serves as the court’s primary spokesman on the issue.
Bruiniers concedes mistakes were made, especially in failing to provide realistic cost expectations at the outset, and that a review of whether the courts paid a fair price for the system should be required upon completion.
“There is no question that inside and outside the judicial branch this has been damaging and it has damaged our credibility with the Legislature,” Bruiniers said.
Still, he insists the system is worthwhile to connect and streamline the courts, which use 70 mostly incompatible computer programs statewide.
“It’s a necessary corollary of court unification. It allows us to operate as a unified branch,” Bruiniers said. “Right now, we operate as a tower of Babel.”
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 12, 2011
About the only thing I can relate to is Bruniers admitting to operating as the tower of babble.
JusticeCalifornia
March 12, 2011
Ummm….the all-powerful CA top leadership is invoking the Tower of Babel?
excuse me, but didn’t that story refer to those who aspired to become God?
antonatrail
March 12, 2011
The top leadership may want to attend church tomorrow. They need divine help. Their way of intimidation and obfuscation isn’t working anymore.
I know I’ll sleep well tonight with an easy conscience.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 12, 2011
One does have to wonder how paranoid certain people must be…..
wendy darling
March 12, 2011
It’s not like it’s a secret at this point that some of those controlling the judicial branch have been acting like they aspire to become God. A few of them appear to believe that they already are.
A more appropriate biblical reference might be the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Some of those folks at 455 Golden Gate Avenue might want to think twice about looking back over their shoulders lest they turn into pillars of salt.
JusticeCalifornia
March 13, 2011
Perhaps some of those in the branch that have engaged in nasty intellectual and financial reacharounds are playing those events over in their minds. So very many people have been harmed. . . .is it too much to hope that those who inflicted the harm are worrying about the blood on their hands? How about a little Sunday morning Shakespeare:
William Shakespeare (1564–1616). The Oxford Shakespeare. 1914.
Macbeth
Act V. Scene I.
Dunsinane. A Room in the Castle.
Enter a Doctor of Physic and a Waiting-Gentle-woman.
Doct. I have two nights watched with you, but can perceive no truth in your report. When was it she last walked?
Gen. Since his majesty went into the field, I have seen her rise from her bed, throw her night-gown upon her, unlock her closet, take forth paper, fold it, write upon ’t, read it, afterwards seal it, and again return to bed; yet all this while in a most fast sleep.
Doct. A great perturbation in nature, to receive at once the benefit of sleep and do the effects of watching! In this slumbery agitation, besides her walking and other actual performances, what, at any time, have you heard her say?
Gen. That, sir, which I will not report after her.
Doct. You may to me, and ’tis most meet you should.
Gen. Neither to you nor any one, having no witness to confirm my speech.
Enter LADY MACBETH, with a taper.
Lo you! here she comes. This is her very guise; and, upon my life, fast asleep. Observe her; stand close.
Doct. How came she by that light?
Gen. Why, it stood by her: she has light by her continually; ’tis her command.
Doct. You see, her eyes are open.
Gen. Ay, but their sense is shut.
Doct. What is it she does now? Look, how she rubs her hands.
Gen. It is an accustomed action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I have known her to continue in this a quarter of an hour.
Lady M. Yet here’s a spot.
Doct. Hark! she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my remembrance the more strongly.
Lady M. Out, damned spot! out, I say! One; two: why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky! Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?
Doct. Do you mark that?
Lady M. The Thane of Fife had a wife: where is she now? What! will these hands ne’er be clean? No more o’ that, my lord, no more o’ that: you mar all with this starting.
Doct. Go to, go to; you have known what you should not.
Gen. She has spoke what she should not, I am sure of that: Heaven knows what she has known.
Lady M. Here’s the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh! oh! oh!
Doct. What a sigh is there! The heart is sorely charged.
Gen. I would not have such a heart in my bosom for the dignity of the whole body.
Doct. Well, well, well.
Gen. Pray God it be, sir.
Doct. This disease is beyond my practice: yet I have known those which have walked in their sleep who have died holily in their beds.
Lady M. Wash your hands, put on your night-gown; look not so pale. I tell you yet again, Banquo’s buried; he cannot come out on ’s grave.
Doct. Even so?
Lady M. To bed, to bed: there’s knocking at the gate. Come, come, come, come, give me your hand. What’s done cannot be undone. To bed, to bed, to bed. [Exit.
Doct. Will she go now to bed?
Gen. Directly.
Doct. Foul whisperings are abroad. Unnatural deeds
Do breed unnatural troubles; infected minds
To their deaf pillows will discharge their secrets;
More needs she the divine than the physician.
God, God forgive us all! Look after her;
Remove from her the means of all annoyance,
And still keep eyes upon her. So, good-night:
My mind she has mated, and amaz’d my sight.
I think, but dare not speak.
Gen. Good-night, good doctor. [Exeunt.
Kicking the hornets nest
March 13, 2011
Judicial council watcher : their not burying bodies, their dumping them in Rollins Lake
Mrs. Kramer
April 5, 2011
Dear California Judicial Council Watcher,
My name is Sharon Kramer and I am a whistle blower of how it became US and California health policy that it was purportedly scientifically proven that water damaged, moldy buildings do not harm people.
I first wrote of this in March of 2005 while I named the names of those involved in mass marketing the novel concept, i.e., the US Chamber of Commerce, the Manhattan Institute think-tank; US Congressman Gary Miller (R-CA); a corporation called GlobalTox, Inc., (now known as VeriTox); the corp’s president, Bruce Kelman, Phd; and the occupational physician trade organization that writes the workers’ comp guidelines for the state of California under SB 899 – the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). http://freepdfhosting.com/4051da7b08.pdf
I went on to help with a 2007 front page, above the fold, Wall Street Journal article on the subject titled “Court of Opinion Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation”. This article named the same people and organization that I did in 2005, and even a few more. http://www.drcraner.com/images/suits_over_mold_WSJ.pdf
As noted in a new book by Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker, “Surviving Mold”, I also was the catalyst who caused a Federal Government Accountability Office audit of the current scientific understanding of the health effects of mold. http://freepdfhosting.com/e5aa09c851.pdf
This report came out in September of 2008. It has federally established that contrary to what the US Chamber, ACOEM et.al., have mass marketed to physicians and to the courts which helps to sell doubt of causation, which helps to stave off liability for the insurance industry and others; severe illness from the microbes found in water damaged buildings are indeed plausible to be occurring. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-980
In May of 2005, Bruce Kelman, PhD and GlobalTox sued me for libel for the first public writing to expose the conflicts of interest and who all was involved in mass marketing the information, i.e., my March 2005 Internet writing that I linked above.
Their sole claim of the case was that my use of the phrase “altered his under oath statements” within the writing was a maliciously false accusation that Bruce Kelman, author of the US Chamber’s and ACOEM’s position statements on mold, committed perjury when testifying in a trial in Oregon, the subject trial of my writing. http://freepdfhosting.com/f41c7bcb72.pdf
Although you will never see it mentioned in any opinion or ruling from the six year long libel case, (which means you will also never see any evidence of it being impeached) for six years I evidenced for the courts why I used the phrase “altered his under oath statements” to describe Kelman’s testimony of which I was writing in March of 2005.
Just one example from the gazillions of times found in the court records file that I evidenced my logic while citing to the exact words of Kelman’s testimony that I considered altered under oath statements and why I consider them this as he was trying to hide that the Chamber paper was so closely connected to purportedly unbiased science of ACOEM. From my Petition for Rehearing, September 30, 2010, pdf pages 10 & 11 (huge pdf, takes a minute to open):
Click to access a3e651283d.pdf
“Declaration of Kramer submitted to the courts, July 2005: ‘Within the prior sentences, Kelman testified ‘We were not paid for that…’, not clarifying which version he was discussing. There was no question asked of him at that time. He went on to say GlobalTox was paid for the ‘lay translation’ of the ACOEM Statement. He then altered to say ‘They’re two different papers, two different activities.’ He then flipped back again by saying, ‘We would have never been contacted to do a translation of a document that had already been prepared, if it hadn’t already been prepared.’ By this statement he verified they were not two different papers, merely two versions of the same paper. And that is what this lawsuit is really all about.
The rambling attempted explanation of the two papers’ relationship coupled with the filing of this lawsuit intended to silence me, have merely spotlighted Kelman’s strong desire to have the ACOEM Statement and the Manhattan Institute Version [sic, the US Chamber’s mold statement] portrayed as two separate works by esteemed scientists. In reality, they are authored by Kelman and Hardin, the principals of a corporation called GlobalTox, Inc. – a corporation that generates much income denouncing the illnesses of families, office workers, teachers and children with the purpose of limiting the financial liability of others.
One paper is an edit of the other and both are used together to propagate biased thought based on a scant scientific foundation. Together, these papers are the core of an elaborate sham that has been perpetrated on our courts, our medical community and the American public. Together, they are the vehicle used to give financial interests of some indecent precedence over the lives of others.’(Appellant Appendix Vol.1 Ex.8:157-158)”
The sole claim of the libel case is that I maliciously accused US Chamber/ACOEM mold statements author, Bruce Kelman, of committing perjury when on the witness stand in Oregon in February of 2005 via the phrase “altered his under oath statements”. Although one will never see it in any opinion or ruling, for six years I provided the courts with uncontroverted evidence that Kelman committed perjury in this libel litigation to establish needed reason for my purported malice, (aka, using perjury to “legally” prove he was falsely accused by me of being one who would commit perjury).
Kelman and his California licensed attorney, Keith Scheuer, claimed that I “lauched into an obsessive campaign to destroy the reputation of Dr. Kelman and GlobalTox” to get revenge because he purportedly gave the following testimony in my own mold litigation of long ago in which the “science conflicted with my dreams of a remodeled home”. Kelman’s declarations submitted to the courts three times under penalty of perjury as noted in my Petition for Rehearing September 30, 2010, pdf page 22 http://freepdfhosting.com/a3e651283d.pdf
“I first learned of Defendant Sharon Kramer in mid-2003, when I was retained as an expert in a lawsuit between her, her homeowner’s insurer [Mercury Casualty] and other parties regarding alleged mold contamination in her house. She apparently felt that the remediation work had been inadequately done, and that she and her daughter had suffered life-threatening diseases as a result. I testified that the type and amount of mold in the Kramer house could not have caused the life-threatening illnesses that she claimed. I never met Ms. Kramer.” (App.Opn.Brf.Erta,pp.7)
One example in which Kelman’s attorney suborned the above perjury and inflamed the courts to falsely believe I would have reason for personal malice for Kelman, as noted in my Petition for Rehearing September 30, 2010, pdf pages 22 & 23.
Perjury!!! Kelman gave no such testimony in my lawsuit with my homeowner’s insurer. From Scheuer’s Briefs:
“Dr. Kelman testified in a deposition that the type and amount of mold in the Kramer house could nothave caused the life threatening illnesses that Kramer claimed. Apparently furious that the science conflicted with her dreams of a remodeled house, Kramer launched an obsessive campaign to destroy the reputation of Dr. Kelman and GlobalTox.” (App.Opn.Brf.Erta,pp.8)
Although one will never see it mentioned in any opinion or ruling, for six years I evidenced for the courts that Kelman never even gave the above purported malice causing testimony in my own mold litigation of long ago that supposedly caused me to “launch into an obsessive campaign to destroy” his reputation. For six years, I evidenced that Kelman and his “legal” counsel just kept repeating the lie, but never once provided any corroborating documentation to support it. The courts just ignored my uncontroverted evidence. They accepted Kelman’s and Scheuer’s false statements that were made under oath at face value. Just a sampling of how many times by how many people, including my attorneys, the courts were informed and evidenced of Kelman was using criminal perjury to establish malice, may be read in the bate stamped documents at: http://freepdfhosting.com/c35afb9c81.pdf
I repeatedly evidenced that my family received a half a million dollar settlement in that case with my insurer – hardly a malice causing amount based on a testimony that Kelman was clearly evidenced to have never even given. For six years, courts just pretended like the irrefutable evidence of a plaintiff using perjury to establish reason for defendant’s malice does not exist. And then in double speak to CYA for each other, they just kept repeating the lie in their opinions. From the 2010 unpublished opinion by Justices Benke, Huffman and Irion, pdf page 13:
Click to access 783bea4bf1.pdf
“We recognize that with respect to malice ‘courts are required to independently examine the record to determine whether it provides clear and convincing proof thereof.”(McCoy v. Hearst Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1657, 1664.) However, in Kelman v. Kramer I we expressly rejected Kramer’s argument that such independent review entitled her to judgment. Rather, we found that such review had taken place in the trial court and, following our own detailed analysis of the evidence of Kramer’s hostility towards Kelman, we left the trial court’s determination undisturbed. Given that disposition, we can only conclude that panel which decided Kelman v. Kramer I conducted the required independent review of the record and agreed with the trial court that, as the record stood at that point, there was clear and convincing evidence of malice. Because, as we have indicated the record of malice presented at trial was just as fulsome as the one considered in Kelman v. Kramer I, we cannot depart from our prior decision without also departing from the doctrine of law of the case.”
See VIDEO, http://www.blip.tv/file/2063366, of Kelman’s deposition, July 22, 2008, in which he is being asked under oath why in deposition he cannot remember what he testified to in my case with my insurer, yet kept submitting declarations claiming he “testified the types and amounts of mold in the Kramer house could not have caused the life threatening illnesses she claimed”. This video also shows they tried to coerce me into endorsing the science of the US Chamber and ACOEM before they would stop with the litigation. (Justice Judith McConnell has a copy of this video evidencing perjury on the issue of malice, as does the CJP and the State Bar. These deposition testimonies are evidenced extensively in my Appellate motions in 2010)
Regardless of the undeniable evidence proving otherwise, I have now been legally deemed a “malicious liar” by the California courts with a.) no evidence required to have been presented in the case that I did not believe the truth of my words; and b.) irrefutable evidence in the case that the plaintiff/US Chamber/ACOEM policy author, Kelman, committed criminal perjury to establish false (yet libel law required) reason for my purported malice – in a litigation over the first public writing of how the US Chamber of Commerce got their fingers into the mold issue and public health policy.
Now, there is a new litigation in which Kelman is seeking I be permanently gagged by injunctive relief from “stating, repeating, publishing or paraphrasing, by any means whatsoever, any statement that was determined to be libelous in the action titled Kelman v Kramer, San Diego Superior Court Case No. Gin 044539”. See my March 4, 2011 Opposition to Temporary Injunctive Relief, pdf page 12: http://freepdfhosting.com/6f0fa49f4f.pdf
Besides gagging me from publicly writing of how it became a fraud in health policy that moldy buildings do not harm and who all was involved in marketing the concept; this would also stop me from publicly writing of a brand new California Code of Civil Procedure, CCP 425.19(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) that governs certain Anti-SLAPP cases in the state of California.
Athough I am personally aware of this code’s existance, I have not seen any public announcement of CCP 425.19 anywhere. But I thought that the readers of Judicial Council Watcher should know of the new law, just like I do. And since I anticipate that soon, I will not be able to legally write of it, I thought I should help the courts out and announce its existance on their behalf, Now.
So….on behalf of the following California justices and the California judicial committees of which they chair, I make the following public announcement in introduction of CCP 425.19(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g):
HEAR YE! HEAR YE! The Chair of California Commission, Judicial Performance (CJP) Justice Judith McConnell & the Chair Of Executive Committee, Judicial Council (JC) Justice Richard Huffman, Jointly Establish The Enactment Of New California Anti-SLAPP Law Provision CCP 425.19(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g), Approved By California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George, January 2007 and ratified by him, December 2010.
Code of Civil Procedures, CCP. 425.19 finds that too many California citizens are using the Internet to glean and share information of corruption, waste, abuse, fraud and ineptitude of the governing bodies of the California judicial system that are advantageous to the financial interests of affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce and adverse to the public’s best interest. As such, to stop truth that stops injustice in the courts, the inner circle of said governing bodies finds and enacts,
(a.) should the need arise to strategically litigate against the public’s best interest and if one writes medico-legal policy for the US Chamber of Commerce and/or the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) that aids intrastate and interstate unfair advantage in insurer claims handling practices and of which the Regents of the University of California profit when their employees testify as expert witnesses for the insurance industry in toxic torts, primarily claims of worker, tenant and homeowner injury from exposure to microbes found in poorly constructed and/or poorly maintained buildings; these US Chamber/ACOEM policy authors and their (illegal) legal counsel shall be permitted by the courts to use criminal perjury and suborning of criminal perjury to establish false reason for a defendant’s malice while strategically litigating; and
(b.) if a California citizen writes of the fraud of science and marketing behind the policy established by the US Chamber and/or ACOEM and of which the Regents of the University of California profit, the courts shall be permitted to deem the citizen to be a “malicious liar” with no evidence required to substantiate their words are a lie and/or malicious; and
(c.) the courts may use state funded web sites such as the appellate courts’, to maliciously character assassinate the citizen by deeming them to be a “cyberstalker” while knowing this fallacy was established by false hearsay documents that somehow, got in a jury room and caused a verdict for the US Chamber/ACOEM authors;
(side note to CCP 425.19, see:
1.) Fourth District Division One Appellate Court website, October 14, 2010, amendment to opinion putting the “cyberstalker” slur on the government funded website: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1385769&doc_no=D054496
2.) See Amended Opinion; Declaration of Juror #5, Attorney Shelby Stuntz; Dec of Trial Attorney, Lincoln Bandlow, etc. stating somehow docs not in trial mysteriously went to the jury at: http://freepdfhosting.com/e025ff30d3.pdf
3.) See CA Supreme Court, Ron George, being informed that Huffman, Benke and Irion added new and false argument in their Amended Opinion so they could get that “cyberstalker” slur on the Fourth District’s website, pdf page 18: http://freepdfhosting.com/b8365e1ddb.pdf)
Back to CCP 425.19
(d.) if the citizen attempts to bring it to the attention of the legislature or to public light that the Chairs of the CJP & JC have jointly established CCP 425.19 with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court’s approval, then upon motion by the criminal perjury committing US Chamber/ACOEM policy authors, lower courts are encouraged to be used to issue injunctive relief motions to gag the citizen from writing of the existence of CCP 425.19, how it came to be, who was involved and how it aids with the continuance of interstate and intrastate insurer fraud in the billions on behalf of US Chamber affiliates, while the Regents of the University of California continue to profit off the backs of the sick, injured and deceased; and
(e.) CCP 425.19 is only to be used in unpublished opinions and only by affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce and/or affiliates of Justices McConnell, Huffman and now retired Chief Justice George; and
(f.) this amendment to the California Anti-SLAPP laws shall be known as the “SLAPP EACH OTHER ON THE BACK WHILE WE SCREW THE PUBLIC AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT” addendum or in short title, the “JUDICIAL CORRUPTION WHISTLEBLOWER RETRIBUTION” act.
(g) CCP 425.19 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) are never to be applied in conjunction with Judicial Ethics Canon 3.(D)(1)which states, “Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority”
For a VIDEO history of the origin and reason of CCP 425.19 please view: “The Fight
Against Fraud & Corruption at ACOEM, The US Chamber of Commerce &
The Collusion of CA Justices” from the 100th Anniversary of the Triangle Factory Fire Conference, March 25th and 26th, San Francisco. http://www.blip.tv/file/4975029
For documentation of the origin, history and reason for CCP 425.19, as told thru
legal documents, please see: “TRUTHOUT Sharon Kramer Letter To Andrew Saxon”
http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/truth-out-sharon-kramer-letter-to-andrew-saxon-mold-issue/
So thank you, Judicial Council Watcher. I am certain that Justices Huffman (JC), McConnell (CJP) and Chief Justice George (CSC) would want me to get it out before I am gagged from writing of it, that the trio have established new law in California, i.e.,
“If one writes policy for the US Chamber/ACOEM they are permitted to use
C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L perjury in the California courts; and California citizens can now be legally deemed to be “malicious liars” with ZERO evidence required to support this.