For every hour you spend toiling away in the trial courts doing your job working for the man, the man is spending $42,350.00 per hour on vaporware that is non-functional today and does not work in any court anywhere.
Judicial Council Watcher wishes to sincerely thank Maria Dinzeo & Courthouse News for distinguishing between the different releases of the CCMS application, thereby demonstrating that CCMS V4 1) Does not work anywhere and 2) Is still under development just like we’ve said (and proved) all along.
This holy grail of an application will have an obsolete application stack when the software vendors end-of life the underlying software in the near future, returning the Judicial Council and the AOC back to square one.
While Judicial Council Watcher has been pointing most of this out since our inception, what we grossly underestimated was what was being spent on this boondoggle – enough money to keep over a thousand people employed in the trial courts.
Ask Why.
Why would so many people mislead us about this application? What does Justice Bruniers get out of lying to all of us about this application? What does TC-S get for lying to us about this application? Where did all of the money for CCMS go if the AOC indicates it spent a few hundred million dollars less than was actually spent? Is this all part and parcel of the largest fraud in the history of California?
_______________________________________________________
This is the trial courts under AOC management…
Any Questions?
_________________________________________
Related articles
- “Finished” IT court project to cost hundreds of millions for years (Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News)
- Now What? Continued delusions or some meaningful action? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Tani’s Civics Lesson: The responsibility of the legislature (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Vaporware, Wired Magazine and CCMS (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Elmy Kader
February 17, 2012
Ask Why.
“Why would so many people mislead us about this application? What does Justice Bruniers get out of lying to all of us about this application? What does TC-S get for lying to us about this application? Where did all of the money for CCMS go if the AOC indicates it spent a few hundred million dollars less than was actually spent?”
Finally what makes these following Honorable names credible?
Hon. Andrew P. Banks (Orange)
Hon. E. Jeffrey Burke (San Luis Obispo)
Hon. Tia Fisher (Los Angeles)
Hon. Mark Forcum (San Mateo)
Hon. Maryanne Gilliard (Sacramento)
Hon. Daniel B. Goldstein (San Diego)
Hon. W. Kent Hamlin (Fresno)
Hon. W. Michael Hayes (Orange)
Hon. Thomas E. Hollenhorst (4th District Court of Appeal)
Hon. David R. Lampe (Kern)
Hon. Susan Lopez-Giss (Los Angeles)
Hon. Kevin McCormick (Sacramento)
Hon. John Somers (Kern)
Hon. Steve White (Sacramento)
We know whom they are , they choose to go with the second part of the late Kennedy famous words ,Ask what you can do for your country and I second that, if I say to these honorable Americans behind you all the way , they have the right to know who I’m and Elmy Kader is my real name.
Behind you all the way honorable members of Alliance of California Judges
Been There
February 17, 2012
Let ‘s cut to the chase, shall we. Why? Because a few at the very top of the organization decided that lying was a far better option than telling the truth. A large component of that decision was the belief that they could get away with it. Is there fraud? I do not know, but the actions of the top JC/AOC players offer few other logical answers.
Can they get away with it?
Wendy Darling
February 17, 2012
Well, Been There, they’ve gotten away with it so far. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, to this very day.
Been There
February 17, 2012
Yes, Wendy, they have gotten away with it. But they have made mistakes. They fired Michael Paul. It is Michael who is getting the story out to the media ( and to the readers on this site) distinguishing CCMS V4 from previous releases, and effectively proving that AOC/JC leaders have lied.
Then there is The Video. The video that the Supreme Court proudly released. Most commentators are aghast at what is disclosed on that video. That video also serves to document for all that the CJ herself, not just some AOC manager, is lying about CCMS.
Then there was that sudden resignation under circumstances that, if Unionman is correct, are devastating.
Add to that the report on this site that the AOC General Counsel has hired this week an attorney with expertise in defense of white collar crime. Purely a coincidence, I am sure.
Each of these mistakes, plus a very curious new hire, draws an almost inordinate amount of attention and increased level of inquiry to the Hindenburg. And the Hindenberg’s captain seems not to be up to the challenges ahead.
Each of these mistakes, and the clearly inexperienced hand at the controls, beings the house of cards ever closer to crash.
Peppermint Pattie
February 17, 2012
Michael Paul isn’t the only one that they fired that was a big mistake..
antonatrail
February 17, 2012
Unfortunately these quasi criminals are empowered and encouraged down their crooked path as they continually get away with their unethical antics …
Shamelessly borrowed phrases:
Get me a bucket
Long Live the ACJ
anna
February 19, 2012
They aren’t “quasi” they are criminals. The only reason there are not convictions against them is no one in govt. is willing to charge them.
Wendy Darling
February 17, 2012
To Elmy Kader: Why? Just follow the money, Elmy. Just follow the money. And there will lie the answer to the question of “Why?”
Follow the money.
Long live the ACJ.
Elmy Kader
February 17, 2012
Been There, Please say as it is criminal organization, that’s how it will look and sound.
“Because a few at the very top of the( criminal organization decided that lying was a far better option ….”
Elmy Kader
February 17, 2012
Wendy, you are right follow the money, but that’s not enough, we need to expose them as judges with no credibility’s, they just can’t be lying dishonorable judges here at JC & AOC and honorable when they go back and preside over cases. They are dishonorable where ever they go….
sharonkramer
February 17, 2012
Ha! I knew I liked you, Elmy. Without more info, not sure one can attribute their actions to ethnic descrimination. From what I have witnessed, they don’t descriminate. They will screw anyone who they see as a threat to the House that George built.
Elmy Kader
February 17, 2012
Sharon, One word to the members of this criminal organization, bring it on.
Elmy kader
AOC Tracker
February 17, 2012
Last fall, after the AOC whistle blower went to the press with allegations that facility modification funds (specifically appropriated for capital expenditures) were being used for routine maintenance, the chair of the AOC Facility Modification Working Group (Judge Power from Solano County) defended such use and further stated that his working group had approved all of the questionable expenditures. Impliedly, since he’s a judge, the expenditures shouldn’t have been questioned. Within a few months, the same working group asked Mary Roberts, AOC General Counsel for a legal opinion on whether such expenditures were legally sound. Let’s assume that the legal opinion is now complete and has circulated. Let’s further assume that the legal opinion has come to the only conclusion that is reasonable given the clear statutory prohibition on using such funds for maintenance, i.e. 1407 and 1732 funds are for capital projects only and specifically exclude routine maintenance. Finally, let’s assume that all the thousands of newly replaced light bulbs (both those that were burned out and not)throughout courthouses statewide that were cumulatively billed at over hundreds of thousands of dollars; money that the AOC wrongly appropriated from the facility modification funds, is now causing some serious AOC heartburn or perhaps complete panic. Afterall, it is a felony to knowingly misappropriate public funds. The misappropriation of public funds includes using funds specifically appropriated by the legislature for one purpose for a non-appropriated purpose. If they haven’t hired an expert in white collar crime yet, perhaps they should consider contracting out. Afterall, consultants are the AOC’s version of comfort food.
Been There
February 18, 2012
AOC Tracker, The new hire in the General Counsel’s Office may be needed to provide legal advice and counseling to the agency both proactively and, frankly, in damage control. Interesting that the circulation of Mary Roberts legal opinion coincides with the new hire in her division.
As for the level of heartburn if not outright panic within the AOC, I certainly hope so. The problem you have identified is but one tip of the iceberg.
Ben Siegfried
February 18, 2012
@antonatrail They are criminals, this is criminal behavior… over and over and over and over again.
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 18, 2012
For those of you who have been following JCW and even AOC Watcher, I am coming to a very sad realization. Those of us working within the Judicial Branch are now clearly without a “leader” in the sense of how we deal and relate to the other two Branches of State Government.
At first, it seemed obvious to many of us that Ronald George was simply legacy building by propping up Tani to replace him. No one would ever believe that he was being eclipsed by Justice Cantil-Sakauye on her best day. Unfortunately, given her intellectual, personal and political limitations, the Branch finds itself in dire straights.
Bill Vickrey and Ron Overholt have done her no favors. Now having abandoned her at the 11th hour, there are few in the ranking leadership positions that are capable of taking over the behemoth that is the AOC. There are few around that have a grasp of institutional memory, and the current CJ seems hell-bent on replacing or placing people into positions that have no such knowledge or understanding. Tani has repeatedly stated that “new” judges seemed to be easier to work with and more mailable. Probably because they only know what they were taught during the AOC indoctrination that took place during New Judge Orientation, which was taken over by the AOC around 1999-2000.
Why are Courts like San Diego being rewarded for “going along”. Example, they are about to spend half a billion dollars or more on a new courthouse that was not designated as “critical need” and leapfrogged many other needy Counties when former Presiding Judge So was so responsive to the AOC/JC mantra. Justice Scotland is replaced by two judges with less than 11 years experience between them, both from small Counties that are completely beholding to the AOC for their annualized funding.
With what the Chief said in her recent diatribe to the TCPJAC, which she then decided to further publish to the members of the Legislature and the World at-large, the Judicial Branch is clearly going to be in the budgetary cross-hairs with respect to any future funding.
Between the “Fact Check” that is so riddled it looks like Swiss-Cheese, to the derogatory comments about the Speaker, CJ Cantil-Sakauye has zero credibility. As new “facts” come out regarding the spending on contract employees and information on how CCMS is not just a zero, but is a huge negative drain, the tenure of the CJ seems more and more in jeopardy.
Having started a career in public service when Richard Nixon was President, I have always been committed to public service. I have always put service above self. I am not the only one. Countless colleagues feel the same way I do and have lived their lives by the same belief system. That leads me to the question….where does this all end?
Perhaps the best thing that could happen at this point in time is for the CJ to gracefully get off the stage, allow Governor Brown to appoint a new CJ and start over…
Wendy Darling
February 18, 2012
Harsh, but all true, General Woodhull. All so very, very true.
Sadly, many employees within the AOC have witnessed the truth of what you say take place right before their very eyes. They also have watched in despair and disbelief as the lies and ethical misconduct unfolded, and continues to unfold, right in front of them, at work, in the AOC, over and over and over again, afraid to say anything, knowing they would be punished for telling the truth. They, too, have thought, and even now think, every single day “where does this all end”?
To a significant degree, the answer to that question begs another: When will someone, anyone, in any position of authority or responsibility do something about what is happening at 455 Golden Gate Avenue?
When, if ever?
Long live the ACJ.
lando
February 18, 2012
Well Woodhull in your usual insightful way, you have asked the million dollar question… ”where does this all end ? ” Those of us that care about the branch and the public we serve want to see balance restored . AB 1208 is a big step in that direction but we should also be able to resolve these issues within the branch. To do that the CJ needs to step up big time and if she really cares and I think she does, this is what she should consider doing: 1. Accept responsibility for recent miscues and reach out to the legislature and all Judge groups 2. Convene a branch wide retreat where representatives from all judicial branch groups can speak freely without retribution. 3. Invite J Scotland to come back and finish his work as head of the SEC as J Scotland has credibility within the branch and legislature.4 Pending J Scotland’s more specific recommendations, announce a restructuring of the AOC and put a Judge in charge as CEO and hire a well thought of finance expert as CFO so that excessive AOC spending can be controlled. 5. Cease all funding to CCMS as its not working and hasn’t been deployed. 6. Eliminate all non essential managerial positions in the AOC including Assistant Director and Regional Manager. 7. Eliminate from the AOC all “Scholars in Residence”, Mr Kelso’s position and other non essential consultants to further control spending 8. Develop a plan to democratize the JC after getting input from all Judges in California. Perhaps J Scotland’s committee can be asked to study this once their AOC report is complete. 9. Replace J McConnell and J Horn and allow for some new Judicial perspectives on the CJP.10. Announce that she seeks to rebalance the relationships between the trial courts and AOC so that the benefits of local authority and state wide uniformity where appropriate are mutually respected. 11. Announce that the existing culture of fear and retribution to judges , AOC staff and court employees who speak out is over.In essence this CJ needs to chart her own course. She needs to put an end to all the excesses of the CJ George ,JHuffman, Vickrey, Overholt and J McConnell regimes and move the branch to a more open, balanced,financially responsible and respectful place. When if ever should all this happen as Wendy asks? The time to begin is now .
AOC Tracker
February 18, 2012
A legislative fix is imperative.
Tani led off with the “Give Me a Chance” cheer and has now succumbed to counting backward (she can count as evidenced by her recent tirade before the TCPJAC) in a failed effort to distinguish herself from her predecessor who bailed by jumping into the first life raft, leaving Tani behind to rearrange deck chairs on the sinking mothership. Despite mounting AOC losses as her team fumbles and fouls, she appears increasingly disconnected from the score and disoriented. The momentum has shifted and rather than deal with it, she pouts.
Meanwhile, trial court judges voice increasing fear not just of the Chief but the impending financial disaster. Tani’s leadership style in the “Our Dear Leader” vein of North Korea’s recently departed despot will only get worse. General Woodhull, Sir, who will come to the aid of the Judiciary? Wendy Darling, who will come to the aid of the decent AOC employees suffering a famine of despair, fearful of speaking the truth made all the worse by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court who boldly, recklessly and shamelessly has accused government leaders of lying and manipulating the political process?
The mainstream media continues to refer to the ACJ as dissidents, an unfortunate term as it implies that they are malcontents rather than courageous leaders with integrity. It is as if their editors are afraid to dig too deep. Perhaps it’s the Babe Ruth syndrome applied to Tani; the media can’t bring itself to rightly criticize her, afterall maybe she’ll deny them an interview? Even the LA Times sits idly by, as bloggers discover and disclose. With so much fodder for an investigative reporter, it’s shocking that we have to rely on each other to unearth the corruption.
The ACJ judges all appear to work for a living rather than roaming the state like Our Dear Leader, hard hat and ceremonial scissors in hand. But, they are our hope along with the legislators who increasingly understand their fiscal oversight role. 1208 is just the beginning.
Wendy Darling
February 20, 2012
AOC Tracker asked: “Wendy Darling, who will come to the aid of the decent AOC employees suffering a famine of despair, fearful of speaking the truth made all the worse by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court who boldly, recklessly and shamelessly has accused government leaders of lying and manipulating the political process?”
So many ask this question, AOC Tracker. It is a question that has haunted, and continues to haunt, so many AOC employees, especially in the HR Division. Who will come to the aid of the AOC employees?
Currently, the only available answer is: who will NOT come to the aid of the AOC employees? To that answer, here is what is known, as each and every one of the following has been contacted, and provided documentation, regarding the AOC, AOC employees, and the abusive and unethical, and likely illegal, conduct taking place by management and administration within the Agency: Not the SF District Attorney, not the SF Police Department, or the SF Sheriff’s Department, or the California Highway Patrol that is assigned to 455 Golden Gate Avenue, not the California Attorney General, or the California Department of Justice, or the Bureau of State Audits, or the State Contractors Licensing Board, or the EEOC, or the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or the State or Federal courts, or the State Legislature.
Sad, but true.
And AOC Tracker, you are absolutely correct – a legislative correction is imperative. AB 1208 would be a big step in that direction.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
February 20, 2012
Oh, I forgot to include the FBI.
Long live the ACJ.
CourtObserver
February 19, 2012
There are lots of comments about people lying. How sure are you that they’re lying? Just because what people say isn’t accurate, doesn’t mean they’re lying. To lie, you have to know the truth first. Vickrey, Overholt, Calabro, Moore and others have bailed. Maybe they figured out the truth about the computer project and had to either shift to actual lying (because they now saw the light) or had to do something to avoid remaining in a position where they would either have to lie or have to come out and say the project would never work. Maybe they didn’t want to actually lie. To avoid having to explain publicly they had been wrong, and then answer questions as to why they couldn’t have figured that out sooner, they bailed. Pretty soon the same situation is going to be squarely in front of the chief justice. She can’t avoid it. Her best route would be to explain she has now seen the light and will stop the project as well as stopping expensive courthouse construction and other wastes. But she’s running out of time.
Court clerks figured out a long time ago that the computer project wasn’t going to work.
One Who Knows
February 19, 2012
CourtHouse – Interesting observations. I think we are on the frontend of the abandonement of CCMS as a concession and in am effort to regain some level of credibility with the Legislature and to avoid other changes that the Legislature might want to adopt. Or a diversionary tactic from delving deeper in the problems at the AOC. Like an extramarital affair, CCMS is not the real or total problem, but a symptom of other larger problems. Abandoning CCMS would be a symbolic concession, but the underlying problem still must be addressed. And if I were Bill, Ron and Sheila I would be taking the position you lay-out about not lying but jumping ship instead. It’s the only stance to take to try and eek out some level of credibility albeit not very believable. And if what you suggest is true doesn’t that still infer some level of misfeasance and incompetence? Bill, Ron, Sheila and others were in charge of billions of dollars and they had an absolute duty to ensure that money was spent well and they had the competence or good sense to hire staff who knew what they were doing and then to listen to the wisdom of the staff. If not, as the leaders you are to blame for the waste of scarce tax dollars. Money that could be used in the trial courts or elsewhere like avoiding deeps cuts to schools and the social safety net. Imagine what could have been done with all that money that went down with the CCMS rat hole and to supplement Deloitte’a profits.
I think we may, I emphasize, may begin to see what many had hoped for under the new CJ – an admission of past practices that were not working and failed priorities and that under her administration there would be significant change. I wish that would have happened from the outset and not after many losses and political blunders so severe that one has to finally do something. But let’s be clear abandoning CCMS is a good move for them and not just because it is right but because in the political and power dance it is a good tactical move. But let’s also be clear, if they do it, it is a last Hail Mary move to maintain power and credibility. I say the momentum has already shifted, there’s blood in the water regardless of CCMS. The shrewd will up the pressure and other will try to give the CJ a soft landing. We’ll see what happens. But I hope everyone remembers this problem has been going on for well over a decade, the amounts of wasted money is beyond vulgar and change must be made to ensure repeats. This whole thing is not about the CJ but an entire branch of government that operates outside of the norm of government and ensuring the public’s money is used with the utmost thought and integrity.
Some say long live the ACJ. I would like to add long live the court clerks, reporters and other frontline court employees who have long ago embarked on this path for change many years ago and who had steadfastly kept the course.
One Who Knows
February 19, 2012
Sorry. I meant to address my post to Court Observer. Also, sorry for all of the grammatical errors – posting from a phone.
anna
February 19, 2012
One who knows, it could be said that they had a fiduciary duty to make sure the abuses, and corruption did not occur.
Incompetence. Does is make any difference if it was intentional or not? Negligence requires no intent. Does it make any difference if the state, justice or the taxpayers where harmed by theirs? No. We all suffered the injury of these cretins.
And we all deserve to be made whole.
The law does not distinguish as to who is responsible when a harm is done, as to only those who do it intentionally.
However, the law does recognize that when a pattern exists, and the continued activity creates a “pattern and practice” intent is to be considered, and can, in and of itself, show intent.
We are there.
The Current CJ was, for lack of a better term, a managing agent of the JC long before she was elevated to CJ and cannot, as a matter of law, claim lack of knowledge. Under the theory of respondeat surperior she is strictly liable for all this crap.
This woman is not worthy of anyone’s pity.
She wanted to keep the game afloat as it had been.
There is no evidence to the contrary.
Speculating that she didn’t know about this, is just that. Speculating.
We all want to rationalize that she couldn’t have been this mendacious. There is no evidence to assert that.
It’s long overdue, and time, Judgment should be rendered and levied against these criminals.
Wendy Darling
February 19, 2012
“I think we are on the frontend of the abandonement of CCMS as a concession and in an effort to regain some level of credibility with the Legislature and to avoid other changes that the Legislature might want to adopt.”
Such a conclusion is not supported by the AOC documents that JCW posted today in the new thread “The AOC’s Priorities For the New Year” which puts going forward with CCMS as the number 1 priority. Nothing like putting in writing the fact that CJ, the Judicial Council, and the AOC truly are blind, deaf, and dumb.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 20, 2012
Calabro, Vickrey and Overholt were taken to task for mismanagement. Moore should have been tossed under the bus for relabeling the pause which is only a ploy to buy more time for more development. You have to wonder how many JC members were asking themselves what was the point of the vote if you were going to push through full speed ahead anyways.
Judges tend to take things at face value. Bureaucrats are trained to ask for twice as much as they need and be willing to settle for half that amount – or less.
As you alluded to One Who Knows, I agree we might be on the front end of CCMS abandonment for when you look at TCS’s last speech, there seemed to be some wiggle room that said if not CCMS, then another case management system. (although Wendy is correct when you look at the next posting regarding priorities….)
I don’t buy that all courts would be investing a hundred million dollars a year into development of a different case management system. However, the eye on the prize is to engender continued participation, claw backs and contributions into a system that is the solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
This is a fascinating and enlightening thread – the kind we wish to see more of. Lots of good points from a variety of angles.
anna
February 19, 2012
One of the definitions of lie is : a false statement.
We even teach children when we want them to lie “politely”, when we say “Aunt Tina looks pretty” [and she actually doesn’t] that’s a white lie. If intent was required we wouldn’t struggle so hard with “white lies” and real lies with children.
The courts often use the word “intentionally” before lie, to distinguish malice. They now even use intentional before malice, which is an oxymoron, since malice requires intent.
Are we really that scared of attaching wrongdoing to what these people have done?
How much face saving do they deserve?
These cretins have destroyed peoples lives. Do you honestly think they didn’t know it?
How much benefit of the doubt do they get? Isn’t the saying “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. They have used up all of their strikes. We put away criminals for close to life, for less on a third strike. Each one of these cretins have used up all nine in one inning and some still want them to be at bat? Black robes do not come with integrity sewn in. Perhaps some should read Vincent Bugliosi’s “None Dare Call it Treason” and his intro regarding the placing of a black robe on a lawyer/politician. [judge]
Lando, Woodhull, only judges don’t deserve to be retaliated against?
What about the advocates that told these cretins they were violating the law, and lost their license to practice law, or make a living? Fine and Kay are two examples. The courts[judges] required extraordinary measures from the legislature [retroactive immunity] for Fine, and the courts just flat out lied about whether Kay had verdicts overturned based on attorney misconduct. He didn’t. Read the published opinion Gober v. Ralphs.
How about the threatening of legislatures by implying that when they have to retire, and go into private practice the Bar will come after them if they vote for AB 1208?
You two have remained silent about these crimes?
Where is your courage.
Michael Paul put his money where his mouth is.
Where is your voice?
Thurgood Marshall worked from the inside, however, he never stayed silent about the injustice he saw. He worked tirelessly for change from the inside, and not just for his fellow judges.
Not one of you has commented about the abuse of the judiciary, against litigants, lawyers, or employees. You only comment on the fear you face.
These people needed your voice. They are the ones who believed that the system would follow the law. You are part of that body that is required to dispense, and ensure justice. Under Sullivan v. New Your Times you are suppose to be men of stout character, and thick skins.
Where are you?
anna
February 19, 2012
All three of the cases I mentioned happened at the hands of the AOC,[conveying exparte communications], the JC, [Huffman leading the charge against Kay, and telling the disqualified judge, that while he couldn’t legally write that Kay did anything wrong, report him to the state Bar and they will “take him out”], and Mc Connell covering up for her fellow San Diego judges, who were all having illegal exparte communications. Huffman also, kept tabs on all of the cases as “Chair” of committee on litigation in the JC regarding all of these cases, Paul, Fine and Kay. He’s still not done covering up for the corruption, He’s writing the orders and directing the legal staff[ clerks] the AOC now provides for the trial courts in every one of these cases.
And some of us wonder why these cases cannot get past a demurrer.
CourtObserver
February 19, 2012
Interesting observations by Anna and One Who Knows. If you are in a courtroom day after day, you see lots of witnesses testify. And get things wrong. Even police officers and sheriff’s deputies get things wrong. But that doesn’t mean they’re lying. Maybe they fudge the truth here and there or even outright lie on occasion but usually when they have something wrong, they’re just wrong. Our judges regularly instruct juries in all kinds of cases that witnesses may see things from different viewpoints. They may not remember everything the same. Maybe they couldn’t hear well. Maybe they couldn’t see well. Lawyers argue this stuff all the time. And when a witness is wrong, they may not know they’re wrong, and may not accept the truth even when questioned about accurate facts that are suggested to them on cross-examination. This stuff happens all the time. So the first question to ask, if you’re concerned about lying, is what do the administrators believe? If they have something wrong, then ask will they look at the accurate facts and then change their opinion? Expert witnesses get questioned like this all the time. Sometimes it turns out that “experts” aren’t so expert after all.
anna
February 19, 2012
I agree, CourtObserver, however, if it was a mistake most people, acknowledge it and then it’s chalked up to a mistake. Not a lie.
Sometimes people see things from a different point of view, so their observations reflect that.
However, some things are not open to different pts. of view.
Those jury instructions also, ask the jurors to observe their demeanor, and add all the evidence up.
Really good trial lawyers give witnesses a great deal of latitude to correct their answers, and offer the witness every opportunity to make sure they are right. [especially on cross] why? Because contrary to CW[conventional wisdom] jurors hate it when a witness is caught in a lie. They feel sorry for the person on the stand at first. Then, if the person after given all the leeway in the world to explain their “misguided” or “mistaken” testimony and they don’t acknowledge that green is green they get angry.
You see, contrary to what most losing trial attorneys do [taking a meat cleaver on cross examination to the witness] really successful attorneys treat lying witnesses with kid gloves. Only when the jury gives a trial attorney permission to attack a lying witness does it work in that attorney’s favor. Even then, really great trial attorneys, don’t blame the witness, or attack them, they allow the witness to show through their actions that they were put up to lie by the other side. They let the evidence speak for itself.
We are not talking about the Current CJ or anyone else with the idea of something being mistaken.
Their is no “different point of view” for hiring an unlicensed contractor. Either the contractor has a license or not.
Their is no is CCMS up and running in all court rooms. Their is only one correct answer.
Unfortunately, anything else is a lie.
If Justice Chin wants to admit that he was misinformed or the CJ wants to admit she was, they were required to tell us so.
They have not.
Testimony also comes with presumptions. If you don’t correct your misstatements, or mistakes, it means that you stand by your answers.
Judges also have presumptions, they are required to know the subjects before them. If they don’t, it means they have not done their due diligence, and have no right or standing to entertain argument, until they do.
Attorney’s are not allowed to presume judges haven’t read papers or are “ignorant” of the subject matter before them. If they do, it shows a disrespect for the system.Why? Because, those who appoint judges would never appoint a person who showed such lack of diligence in his work.[that is the law, to do otherwise, the public would lose confidence in our system] So, the only assumption an advocate can make is that a judge “knows” what he is doing, and is deliberate in his actions. Unless, the judge admits that “he hasn’t read the case”, or didn’t see your point of view, judges are charge with full knowledge..
That leaves very little wiggle room for advocates, and judges. If a judge after being briefed refuses to follow the law, it’s intentional. there is no other presumption allowed. That’s why reversible error is frowned upon.
All of these cretins know this. They are charged with constructive knowledge. They are not lay witnesses, which the jury instructions you cite, are intended for . Also, expert witnesses have special instructions just for them. Those instructions for the experts, you allude to are for hypotheticals.
Nothing in the matters re: unlicensed contractors, CCMS, the illegal exparte communications, lying about the facts, are hypothetical.
One Who Knows
February 19, 2012
Whether they lied, were mislead, incompetent or just didn’t really care – they were still responsible as the top administrators. They had a duty to make sure the experts were, in fact, experts. And when things began to look questionable they also had a duty to question and get to the bottom of what was happening. It is called leadership. Again, whether the top administrators were lied to, mislead or uninformed the same is still try – CCMS has been a failure and vulgar amounts of money have been wasted. And that doesn’t even open the maintenance can of worms.
As for Wendy’s comments – it wouldn’t be the first time the AOC leadership engaged in contradictory behavior. How many times have they said something and then did something completely different.
AOC Tracker
February 19, 2012
Easy Now Anna, Lando and The General have voiced their perspectives right here on this blog and we want more voices like theirs to join. There’s no need for harsh recrimination, though we all share the frustration. Better to stay focused on the Judicial Council and the AOC.
You speak of “retaliation” which is understandable as we, the public, have been victimized by the AOC high-end bureaucrats and Judicial Council complicity and/or apathy and/or stupidity and/or laziness. And, while it may feel good for a moment to see “them” suffer, we have bigger issues to address.
“Them” includes legislators who cower and/or kneel when the Chief and her entourage come to town.
“Them” includes trial court judges who know of AOC incompetence and/or wrongdoing and stay silent or don’t care enough to pay attention when even their own staff may be on the lay-off chopping block.
“Them” includes individuals within and now outside the AOC like Mark Moore who must know something but would rather live in Minnesota than San Francisco.
“Them” includes the AOC communication specialists who spin, like Theresa Ruano who told the Lake County public at a May, 2011 Board of Supervisor meeting that the “design process is just getting started” while knowing that the AOC had hired an architectural firm in 2009, paid that firm over $300,000 then changed to another firm in early 2011, contracting for duplicative services for unknown reasons. Ruano noted at the meeting that it would be unlikely that the AOC would make public the reason for the change. By the way, these costs do not go into the AOC square foot cost estimates.
“Them” includes AOC OCCM project managers like Anne Ording who advised the public at the same meeting referenced above, that the Judicial Council does not have the ability to pursue eminent domain; therefore an alternative site would not be considered. While technically true relative to the Judicial Council, Ording certainly must be aware that her very own AOC OCCM division has utilized local governmental entities to pursue eminent domain on behalf of the AOC when the AOC wants to build at a particular site and eminent domain provides the key. (Redding Redevelopment Agency launched eminent domain proceedings against a Redding property owner so as to obtain needed property for the AOC planned Shasta County Courthouse, with AOC agreeing to reimburse the Redevelopment Agency for property acquisition expenses.)
“Them” includes Kim Davis, another AOC OCCM project manager who in April, at a community meeting in Los Banos, promised the gathering a follow-up opportunity for public input regarding site selection. When the AOC bailed on the promised future meeting, Ruano advised that the AOC had no obligation to hold additional community meetings and that none were scheduled.
“Them” includes all members of the Judicial Council who, at the December meeting, directed the AOC to pursue legislative measures that would give the Judicial Council greater flexibility in allocating funds among various facility needs. Implicit in this is a recognition that the AOC’s historic practice of using facility modification (capital) money for maintenance is just plain wrong. Ironically, it is apparently okay for the Judicial Council to ask the Legislature for statutory change that expands AOC flexibility in spending facility modification funds for repairs. After all, the AOC has done such a fabulous job of spending money that they deserve more spending authority, not less. And, apparently the separation of powers argument used against 1208, only applies to critics. Go figure.
“Them” includes all hypocrites within the branch, whether justices or judges or bureaucrats or employees who push the pencils, buy the donuts, cheese, wine, and Greg Goose martinis, all for what; a chance to touch the Chief’s robe? Emperor George lost his years ago, and Tani’s has gone missing.
No job is worth sacrificing your soul.
Wendy Darling
February 19, 2012
Well said, AOC Tracker. Very well said.
And not only is no job worth sacrificing your soul, no job is worth sacrificing your values, your integrity, or your ethics.
Long live the ACJ.
anna
February 19, 2012
I don’t disagree with anything you said AOC tracker.
However, all the attorneys, administrators, and employees do not carry the weight that these judges could have brought to bear.
These judges were allowed the privilege of being nominated and confirmed as judges, comes with it a great deal of responsibility.
I have read with great respect and curiosity, what these judges have written. What I take exception to is the omissions of their voices for those who needed it most.
The three cases of which I have recently commented on, those people do not have the power these judges had, yet they put their liberty, job and livelihood on the line.
Only judges have the power to incarcerate someone with out a trial.
No one else here has that power.
Only one judge was needed to help Michael Paul. They could have gone to the press, the legislature, the AG or the CJP and Michael Paul would have had a ”full public Hearing”. Believe me, George or Tani wouldn’t have been able to shut that down.
Keeping “quiet” so as not to air dirty laundry, or bring shame on the judiciary, allows this type of behavior to exist.
Nobody at the AOC has the raw power of a trial judge. No reviewing justice can do what a trial judge does. Incarcerate someone.
The more I think about this the angrier I get.
Black robes should not be used as skirts.
Blaming the corrupt underlings at the AOC, or the disgraced resigned administrators, does not address the dereliction of duty of a judge.
Judges run and rule the judiciary. Are they held hostage? Not one person at the AOC can issue a judicial decree. These judges can. They have first hand knowledge of the judicial misconduct George and Tani, Huffman, Baxter, and Mcconell engaged in. Their judical cannon of ethics required them to report them to the CJP, along with the AG’s office, and the Justice Dept.
Not one person at the AOC can refer something to the AG’s office or district attorney. These judges can.
The Judge who ruled on Michael Paul’s complaint [even if they had civil immunity] could have referred the illegal use of unlicensed contractor to the District Attorneys’ office, and or the AG’s office.
No, the raw power of judges and what they actually could do/or have done and did nothing breaks my heart.
They had, and have the power, yet they refused to help.
In other words they refused to ensure the very things they were charged to uphold.
Please explain to me how I have this wrong. I am not being sarcastic, facetious, or belligerent when I ask this question.
unionman575
February 19, 2012
The buck stops with those at the top. They have mismanaged public funds and they will be held accountable one way or another.