Below is a judicial branch synopsis from a legislative analysis of infrastructure needs for the state.
I think it is prudent to point out that the judicial council only feigns adhesion to fraud, waste and abuse laws and actually worked aggressively to weaken the laws pertaining to judicial branch whistleblowers. They did this by creating an unnavigable process within ill-equipped entities and assigned those entities tasks that they must conduct in order for any claim to move forward, creating multiple opportunities for claims to die on the vine.
During the period known as the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009, The Judicial Council did not seek out even one dollar of the money available for shovel-ready projects because it would have required them to adhere to federal waste, fraud and abuse laws. There was lots of talk about available funds from the feds at the AOC and even gathering of lists of potential ARRA-funded projects. The bottom line is that the Judicial Council could have had billions of shovel ready projects paid for by the feds and they consciously chose not to lift a finger because a few very senior people in the organization did not want to be subject to the law. They wanted to benefit from their various kickback schemes and not be held accountable to anyone. And benefit they did.
Once it became apparent that fraud, waste, and abuse was unenforced guidance within judicial council offices and guidance to trial courts, things took off and people looked the other way as unlicensed contractors from the Oregon border to the Mexican border took over court facilities maintenance that came with shake the conscience price tags, like a grand to empty an ash tray in front of a building.
Frustrated with the AOC, only one courthouse in Hanford would have their county seek ARRA funds to get a project completed.
The reason we bring this up now is that the legislature has experienced a pretty large turnover since these problems, many illustrated in the pages of this blog and over at the original AOC watcher that were documented. We agree with the below synopsis with a few clarifications.
The last time the judicial council created an immediate and critical needs list for court facilities, it was re-ordered several times AFTER there was money made available, so projects that were not even on the list jumped to the immediate needs list and were built first. One of those facilities that cost millions is being rented out to a city after being shuttered by the Judicial council only a few years after it was built. Another has an issue with rain pouring into the structure when it rains. And it joins a long list of other buildings that need new roofs. The glorious white elephant known as the Long Beach Courthouse would jump the list and result in the cancellation of dozens of other immediate and critical needs projects, while the council tried to bamboozle new legislators that they were the ones who agreed to pay the million dollar plus per month rent – and that didn’t fly.
Recently, the legislature stated that they are seeking an additional immediate and critical needs list from the Judicial Council that will turn out to be as worthless as the paper it is printed on, less specific implementing language in the legislation bar a re-order of the list and re-allocation of funds by the council.
But if the legislature were really serious about building courthouses, they would move the entire portfolio over to the department of general services that maintain their portfolio with little deferred maintenance and can follow the court construction guide written by the councils’ staff.
By moving everything over to DGS and not being able to alter the list, quite a few courts would benefit. If the legislature does not take this action, we see another white elephant or two hammering on judicial branch budgets for years to come, all the while some fortunate people on the council and in their staff offices make out like bandits when the kickback schemes resume.
Judicial Branch
The California Constitution vests the state’s judicial power in the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, and the Trial Courts. The Supreme Court and the six Courts of Appeals are entirely state–supported. The Trial Court Funding program provides state funds (above a fixed county share) for support of the state’s 58 trial courts. The Judicial Council serves as the administrative body of the judicial system, with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) as its staff. In total, the Judicial Branch is responsible for approximately 19 million square feet of facility space. The vast majority of this space is dedicated to the trial courts, which consist of 532 facilities throughout the state.
State Assumes Responsibility For Trial Court Facilities
Historically, counties funded the operation, maintenance, and construction of trial court facilities. However, beginning in 1997, the Legislature adopted a series of statutory changes that shifted the responsibility for trial court funding, employees, and facilities from counties to the state. Below, we discuss the two major pieces of legislation that were enacted related to trial court facilities.
Chapter 1082, Statutes of 2002 (SB 1732, Escutia). In 2002, the Legislature adopted Chapter 1082 (commonly referred to as the “Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002”), which authorized the transfer of title and all management responsibility for most court facilities from the counties to the state on a building–by–building basis. (This transfer was completed in December 2009.) The legislation also requires counties to make payments to the state for the maintenance of trial court facilities based on the amounts counties historically spent for this purpose. The Judicial Council was given the responsibility for the maintenance and renovation of the transferred trial court facilities, as well as for the design and construction of new facilities. Additionally, the legislation increases various criminal and civil fines and fees to finance the construction of $1.5 billion in trial court facility projects.
Chapter 311, Statutes of 2008 (SB 1407, Perata). In 2008, the Legislature approved another significant increase in spending on trial court facilities with the passage of Chapter 311. This particular legislation authorizes lease–revenue bonds to finance 41 “immediate and critical” trial court projects totaling roughly $5 billion. Rather than being supported with the General Fund, however, the legislation authorizes additional increases in criminal and civil fines and fees to provide revenue for the debt service on the lease–revenue bonds. The legislation provides the Judicial Council with substantial discretion to choose the list of projects that would be classified as immediate and critical and constructed. Subsequently, Chapter 10, Statutes of 2009 (SBX2 12, Steinberg), gives the Judicial Council further discretion by authorizing the continuous appropriation of funds for acquiring land and developing preliminary plans for the 41 projects. As part of the 2011–12 budget package, however, the Legislature transferred $310 million in court construction funds to the General Fund, which most likely will delay most of the projects authorized in Chapter 311 by up to a year.
Projected Increase in Spending on Courts Infrastructure. As a result of the two pieces of legislation discussed above, state spending on infrastructure for the courts is projected to significantly increase in the coming years. Assuming projects resume after the one–year delay, nearly all of the projects supported by Chapters 1082 and 311 are projected to be in the design or construction process in 2013–14. This would result in expenditures on court facilities of more than $2 billion at that time and completion of all projects by 2017–18. The annual debt service for the lease–revenue bonds used to construct the total package of projects will reach about $390 million.
Major Drivers of Court Infrastructure Spending
In general, court infrastructure spending is largely driven by the following factors:
- Security and Size. In order to ensure sufficient safety and security, the AOC prefers that court buildings have separate circulation areas that allow court staff, the public, and in–custody individuals appearing in court to remain separate from each other. However, many of the existing court facilities lack these separate circulation areas. In addition, increased space for public areas of courthouses (such as jury rooms) and for the offices of judges and court employees can also drive court construction needs.
- Seismic Safety and Age. Roughly 80 percent of the state’s trial court facilities were built before the adoption of various seismic codes in 1988. As a result, some of these facilities do not meet current building standards and could prove to be a hazard in an earthquake. In addition, many court facilities are more than 30 years old and require significant repairs that go beyond routine maintenance work.
- Workload Changes and Program Improvements. Increases in the number of judgeships and related court staff resulting from additional workload can also drive court infrastructure needs. In addition, new programs sponsored by the courts can change the type of facilities courts need. For example, an increase in the number of self–represented litigants has increased the need for space for Self Help Centers in court facilities.
Issue for Legislative Consideration—Courts
Focus on Highest Priority Projects. The Judicial Council classifies projects as an “immediate need” (the highest ranking need–level) or “critical need” (the second highest ranking need–level). Based on the limited funds authorized in Chapter 311, the Judicial Council is planning to move forward on some of the immediate need projects and many critical need projects. In other words, the Judicial Council has chosen to hold off on a number of immediate need projects in order to proceed with lower–priority projects. Given the limited resources available for court construction, however, we believe it makes sense to prioritize the immediate need projects.
Consider Delaying Lower Priority Projects. Because some of the fine and fee revenue currently dedicated to court construction could be further redirected to help address the state’s budget shortfall, the Legislature may wish to consider holding off on the critical need projects at this time. We estimate that funding only immediate need projects—including those not currently being pursued by the Judicial Council—would free up tens of millions of dollars in annual debt–service payments that could be used to offset General Fund costs in other areas based on legislative priorities.
Judicial Council Watcher 
RCP Software
September 5, 2019
I hadn’t heard anything about the court problems for quite a while. Out of curiosity, what prompted the resurgence of interest in the shenanigans going on with the courts?
Richard Power RCP Software Shingle Springs, CA (530) 306-6370
Cheryl Van Vliet
September 6, 2019
I want to see names of the Judicial Council who are benefitting from this disaster otherwise this article is really useless.
Maxrebo5
September 20, 2019
Hey Cheryl,
Are you related to Russ Van Vliet? I used to work with him some when I was in Utah State Courts. He was a friend of Bill Vickrey and worked at the University of Utah on criminal justice issues.
Cheryl Van Vliet
September 21, 2019
Hi Max. Sorry but no relation unless Russ came from New Jersey. Also, that’s my husband’s last name and he would say the same thing. Van Vliet is a very popular Dutch last name I have found out.
SiteAdmin
September 6, 2019
To Richard’s question: The Council is seeking more funds to build more courthouses having essentially run out of funding to build more. That’s tantamount to the taxpayers doubling down on a really bad hand.
To Cheryl’s desire to see the names: At issue is the broad exemptions to fraud, waste and abuse law that even applies to the judicial branch, combined with useless self-policing by an actual coordinator of fraud, waste and abuse that virtually exempts people for paying a price for their unlawful behavior and whistleblower laws that were intentionally made un-navigable by council lobbying.
Many of those who received kickbacks, referral fees, free rounds of golf, free remodeling jobs and more either retired, were fired, died, were laid off or went to work in court systems in other states.
Wendy Darling
September 9, 2019
That’s all very well intended JCW, but pigs will fly and hell will freeze over – at the same time – before anyone in any position of authority will do anything about any of it, just the same as it has been for quite a long time now.
The name on the name plate outside a number of office doors may have changed, but nothing, absolutely nothing, has materially changed at 455 Golden Gate Avenue; it all continues unabated, and will be allowed to continue to do so.
Even so, welcome back.
Long live the ACJ.
Sharon Kramer
September 10, 2019
Good to see that you are still tracking this issue, JCW. You write, “the Judicial Council has chosen to hold off on a number of immediate need projects in order to proceed with lower–priority projects.” What are the lower-priority projects they are seeking funds to implement?
SiteAdmin
September 13, 2019
East Contra Costa County Courthouse was never on the immediate and critical needs courthouse list until after the bond money was made available, as were several other courthouses – like the Long Beach courthouse. It is the legislature and not the judicial council that represents the people. It is the legislature and not the judicial council that imposes the taxes and fees that pay for court construction. It is the legislature and not the judicial council that should determine what courthouses get built.
Tony
September 20, 2019
It is good to see that this site is not moribund.
The media, the Judicial Council, the Legislature, and members of the Executive Branch have been made aware of the numerous design and construction defects in courthouse design, construction, and maintenance. There are financial irregularities. The following is just a partial list of what has come to their attention.
The Long Beach Courthouse was constructed using a public-private partnership instead of traditional public financing. This means that for 35 years each courtroom in the Long Beach Courthouse is costing the taxpayer about 1.6 million per year. There were only three bidders for this project and each losing bidder was paid half a million by the winning bidder.
The San Joaquin County Courthouse was not on time. It did not meet fire code regulations and this caused a massive increase in costs.
The Morgan Hill Courthouse is a 60 million ghost building because of how and where it was built.
The Plumas County Courthouse was closed four years after it was built.
It has been reported that the Porterville courthouse was built with an excessive capacity.
Here in San Diego, the Judicial Council has built the Crown Jewel of courthouses. It cost over half a billion dollars. There are many problems. Windows have had to be replaced, sidewalks have been cordoned off because of the fear on windows falling on pedestrians, courtrooms and judges chambers have had to been closed because of water damage, the storage capacity for exhibits is only 1/3rd of what we had in our old courthouse, there are security defects in the design and construction and the sally port was so poorly designed and/or constructed that it had to be reconstructed two times in order for a custody bus to exit the courthouse.
As to the design tastes differ but to me this courthouse, built in the style of brutalism, has all of the human appeal of a medium security prison in Bulgaria.
The reality of all of this is that none of the above entities or their members care about courthouse financing, design, construction, or maintenance.
That being said we owe it to the taxpayers to do what we can to see that as the Judicial Council builds courthouses throughout California that they at least try to be a better job than they have done up to this time.
T. Maino
Delilah
September 10, 2019
Welcome back!! It’s still groundhog day.
https://greenfieldnews.com/article/seaside-courthouse-ranked-higher-than-greenfields
Wendy Darling
October 1, 2019
Published Monday, September 30, from Metropolitan News Enterprise.
The by-line says it all: Revised report by the Judicial Council does not heed insistence that the Mosk Courthouse, built in 1959 and identified as one of the most dangerous courthouses in the State, must be placed in the “Immediate Need of Replacement” category.
Which is Queen Feckless’ and the Judicial Council’s polite way of saying “F**k you” to Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Kevin Brazile.
Yes,Delilah, it most certainly is still groundhog day.
Two L.A. Courthouses Said to Be in ‘Immediate Need’ of Replacement
Revised Report, to Be Considered by Judicial Council Committee, Does Not Heed Insistence by Superior Court Presiding Judge Brazile That Mosk Courthouse Must Be Placed in That Category
By a MetNews Staff Writer
September 30, 2019
The Judicial Council’s Court Facilities Advisory Committee tomorrow will consider a report, released Friday, that reassesses counties’ needs for courthouse construction, with two projects in Los Angeles upped to the highest priority category of “Immediate Need”—but with the county’s major courthouse not included in that classification.
In August, a draft was issued that placed only four counties—Lake, San Bernardino, Kern and San Joaquin—in the “Immediate Need” category. Under the revised version, an immediate need is recognized for a new 32-courtroom facility in West Los Angeles, to cost $464.9 million, and one in Santa Clarita with 24 courtrooms, to cost $345 million.
Not heeded was the insistence by Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Kevin Brazile that a replacement for the Civic Center’s Stanley Mosk Courthouse, opened on Jan. 5, 1959, must be placed in the “Immediate Need” category. He has pointed out that a 2017 report listed it as the fourth most dangerous courthouse in the state, with the one in Glendale being No. Eight.
Letter to Hill
Brazile said in an Aug. 23 letter to Fifth District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Brad Hill, chair of the committee:
“My understanding is that a report was compiled several years ago stating that the Mosk courthouse is extraordinarily unstable and subject to very serious damage in an earthquake. Nevertheless, many judges and a large number of support staff individuals are working here in what has been identified as an exceedingly dangerous locale. Talk about ‘premises liability!’…In terms of “priority,” it seems to me that issues of danger to life and limb ought to take precedence over all other matters.”
The presiding judge told Los Angeles County Bar Association trustees at their monthly meeting Wednesday night if an immediate need is not recognized, efforts will be launched to lobby members of the Judicial Council. If the committee adopts the current draft tomorrow, it is expected to come before the full Judicial Council at its November meeting, and be submitted to the Legislature by the end of the year.
‘Critical Need’
The Mosk Courthouse is in the category of “Critical Need” or replacement with a 47-courtroom structure, with the cost set at $731.1 million.
A critical need is seen for replacing the East Courthouse in Van Nuys and renovating the West Courthouse there, at a combined cost of $922.4 million.
Also in the “Critical Need” category are new courthouses for Inglewood, $432.1 million; North Central Los Angeles, $196.3; West Covina, $215.5 million; and Eastlake, $119.1 million.
Renovations are termed “critical” for the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, the Metropolitan Courthouse, and the Chatsworth facility.
In the “High Need” category is a new Pasadena Courthouse, to cost $256.9 million.
A medium need is recognized for a new Mental Health Courthouse, Lancaster Dependency Court, Torrance Dependency Court and Traffic Annex, and renovations of the Children’s Courthouse and Compton Courthouse.
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
October 10, 2019
As has been previously observed, nothing – absolutely nothing – has materially changed at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Rest assured the fraud, corruption, and complete absence of any moral or ethical compass continues unabated . . .
Published Wednesday, October 9, from Courthouse News Service by Maria Dinzeo:
Courthouse Lighting Project Spurs Suit Against Judicial Council
Maria Dinzeo
October 9. 2019
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – A business owner has sued the Judicial Council of California and one of its former staff supervisors for $1 million, claiming the ex-employee’s unscrupulous dealings in a project to replace courthouse lighting with energy-saving lightbulbs left her financially ruined.
“The ramifications to her were enormous,” her lawyer Glenn Peterson said in an interview.
The Judicial Council declined to answer questions about the details of the lawsuit, saying through a spokesperson that it does not comment on pending litigation.
Barbara Waldron owned One Source LED Lighting. She says her business shuttered in 2018 because she could not afford to cover the cost of $5.8 million in pre-ordered custom materials she purchased on the assurance that she would be paid.
She also claims the council suddenly terminated her contract after she blew the whistle on the employee, who tried to extort quid pro quo payments from her to enrich himself.
Waldron’s lawsuit, filed last week in Sacramento, stems from a project to revamp courthouses throughout California with custom-made, energy-efficient lighting.
According to the lawsuit, Waldron was recommended for the project in 2017 by Bill McNamara with the California Conservation Corps, an agency she had worked with before.
On May 31, 2017, Judicial Council project lead Mark Johnson, who at the time was a supervisor with the council’s “sustainability unit,” emailed Waldron to congratulate her on the council’s approval of her company for a noncompetitive bid contract. Waldron claims he then began ordering a large quantity of materials for the project, saying the council had funds for the orders now.
Waldron says that when she asked for a copy of the written contract first, Johnson demurred, explaining that the council “didn’t have time to issue the written contract until the next fiscal year and that the department had funds for the orders now, but it was on a ‘spend it or lose it’ basis,” according to the complaint.
Despite her concern about making large purchases without a written contract, Waldron says Johnson assured her that she was an approved Judicial Council vendor, and that he had the authority to approve her invoices for payment.
“He recognized early on that the financial magnitude of the project presented abundant opportunities to enrich himself,” Waldron says in her complaint. “To capitalize on these opportunities, he planned to manipulate plaintiff to become financially dependent upon his good graces. In this way, he assured that plaintiff’s precarious financial dependency could be exploited to his advantage.”
Waldron says Johnson began withholding payment on invoices. Then in March 2018, Johnson informed her that she would need to submit a competitive bid proposal to continue with the project, which she says “came as a surprise.” Waldron did submit a bid, but in the meantime “Johnson’s corruption began to present itself,” she says.
Here’s where things veer into the incredible. Waldron’s lawsuit says Johnson began making unusual demands. Waldron says Johnson had already been receiving quid pro quo payments from one of Waldron’s vendors, an LED lighting manufacturer, and began asking the same of her.
According to Waldron, Johnson told the vendor that the cash payments would ensure that One Source would be awarded the competitive contract. Waldron says a employee of the lighting manufacturer gave Johnson several bank cards to “protect their investment in the project” and urged Waldron to do likewise, but she refused. The manufacturer is not a party to Waldron’s complaint.
On May 20, 2018, Johnson called Waldron requesting a personal meeting. In her complaint, Waldron says Johnson told her “I need to secure my future. My wife is driving on bald tires,” and “It’s not a want, it’s a need.” She says he then demanded $3,000 cash per month, $160,000 per year salary and a 24.5% ownership or equity in her company.
Waldon says Johnson was furious when she refused, claiming he “flipped out, slammed his laptop closed and said, ‘Fuck it. I’m done.’”
Waldron says she reported Johnson to the Judicial Council eight days later. After what she characterizes as a hostile reception from one council staff director, she was forwarded to director Aurora Rezapore, who said the council would cooperate in an investigation of Johnson. Waldron says Rezapore encouraged Waldron to contact the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office, which Waldron did. The sheriff’s office put her in touch with Department of Justice Special Agent Brian Fitchner, who advised her to record a meeting with Johnson.
Waldron says she met Johnson but when she brought up the bank cards, he tried to explain the scheme was legal.
Peterson, Waldron’s attorney, said as far as he knows, nothing came of Waldron’s report to the Department of Justice “at least not yet.”
Johnson was taken off the lighting project on June 4 and resigned from the council. On June 8, Waldron’s contract was terminated “for convenience,” leaving her indebted to her suppliers for $5.8 million in custom materials Johnson had instructed her to preorder from the lighting manufacturer.
“As a result, One Source was financially ruined,” Waldron says in her lawsuit. “All of its employees were laid off, and its leasehold office space was lost. It was left burdened with debt that was all incurred in reliance upon defendants’ representations and for the benefit of the project.”
The lightbulb project has been shelved for now, according to a Judicial Council spokesperson. “At present we’re not moving forward with the project,” he said in an email.
Waldron claims the council still owes her more than $45,000 in unpaid invoices, and she also wants $1 million in compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages.
Peterson said the council should answer for not treating Waldron as a victim of Johnson’s scheme.
“The Judicial Council should have said this woman is blowing the whistle on corruption. She should have been evaluated as a victim, not a sacrifice,” he said.
He added that through discovery, he may be able to uncover the reason behind Waldron’s contract termination.
“I hope to find out a lot more,” he said. “The way I see it, there are questions that cry out for answers.”
https://www.courthousenews.com/courthouse-lighting-project-spurs-suit-against-judicial-council/
Long live the ACJ.
MICHAEL A PAUL
October 10, 2019
Nope, nothing has changed. Johnson walks free yet unemployed and the underlying schemes like this (similar to what I myself witnessed) continue without legal consequences to the shakedown artists. The council does not want to know when and if they’re getting ripped off, they really don’t care. Shoot the messenger is their motto.
Wendy Darling
October 10, 2019
Waldron reported Johnson to the Judicial Council; after a hostile reception from one council staff director, Johnson was forwarded to director Aurora Rezapore, who said the council would cooperate in an investigation of Johnson and encouraged Waldron to contact the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office, which Waldron did. The sheriff’s office put Waldron in touch with Department of Justice Special Agent Brian Fitchner, who advised Waldron to record a meeting with Johnson. Waldron met with Johnson but when she brought up the bank cards, he tried to explain the scheme was legal. Johnson was taken off the lighting project on June 4 and resigned from the council.
So far, “nothing” has come of Waldron’s report to the Department of Justice.
And nothing likely ever will.
As is typical of 455 Golden Gate Avenue and Judicial Branch administration: Person reports fraud and corruption in branch administration. Branch administration responds to person reporting the fraud and corruption with hostility, blowing the person off by telling them to go somewhere else (the sheriff’s office), making false promises (the council would cooperate in an investigation), and then mercilessly punishing the person for telling the truth. Meanwhile, the person(s) in branch administration committing the fraud and corruption either “resign”, usually with a sizeable check in return for their signature on a waiver and release with a draconian muzzle clause, and magically disappear, never to be prosecuted, or are given promotions and raises in return for their silence and protection from those above them, all the way up to and including the Office of the Chief Justice.
So yes, Michael Paul, nothing has materially changed. And the problem is not that the council does not want to know; they are fully aware of the problem and have been for quite some time. As well as the both houses of the State Legislature, the Governor’s Office, the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and numerous other enforcement agencies – all have been, and are, fully informed. All have turned away and walked, if not run, as fast as they can in the opposite direction. All have done nothing about any of it.
Fraud and corruption in the administration of the California Judicial Branch is being allowed to happen. Get used to it.
Long live the ACJ.
Sharon Kramer
October 10, 2019
Nothing is going to change until those who enable the fraud, waste, and abuse while serving in leadership roles of the Judicial Council are held PERSONALLY accountable. They don’t give a damn about tax dollars being wasted b/c of their (at best) blind eyes to corruption. Nor do they care about this law suit, even if it has merit and wins. OUR tax dollars are going to be spent to defend it — and NOT ONE of those (at best) enablers have a concern at all of it hurting them personally. No concern of personal accountability is what causes the beat to go on.
Delilah
October 13, 2019
What happened to the ACJ? Did they throw in the towel too?
sharon kramer
November 12, 2019
Courthouse News 11/10/19 “California Supreme Court to Decide if Judges Can Speak Out on Their Decisions
https://www.courthousenews.com/california-supreme-court-to-decide-if-judges-can-speak-out-on-their-decisions/
“The California Supreme Court is seeking public comment on a recently-proposed exception to the judicial ethics rules to allow judges to speak out if they are criticized about their decision in a case and are facing re-election or a recall campaign…Judge Maryanne Gilliard…said the Alliance will be submitting a formal public comment. The comment period closes on Dec. 2.”
As someone who uses social media to critique CA judges and justices for the sake of public health and safety to the point that we were able to cause an audit of the CJP via public outcry; I think this is an excellent idea!
You all would be free to say what you really think about the publicly made complaints of ethics problems in the CA judicial branch. I am in favor of anything which helps to add transparency as to how judicial decisions are made.
I think it needs some tweaking so it is not able to be used to further the politics in the branch. (meaning it needs to be clear that judicial non-profits, etc., couldn’t issue a press release saying “We represent many judges and we agree with the public. Get rid of the bum!”, etc.)
Plus, I think a judge who faces losing his or her career based on an outcry on social media, should have the First Amendment right to publicly defend themselves just like anyone else.
sharonkramer
November 27, 2019
50 San Diego military families are sitting in cramped hotel rooms this Thanksgiving. They’ve been displaced by long term lack of gov’t oversight of military housing landlords, their contractors — and those who have caused the Big Lie to continue that the housing can’t make their families sick. Nice job, San Diego judges and justices. These families and thousands of others are NOT going to get the help they really need without YOUR help to stop ALL of the fraud in the mold issue. Y’all need to stop framing me for libel and terrorizing me with a void judgment/falsified electronic case records — for my exposing how this scam works, 15 years ago. https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/military-families-displaced-by-mold-as-lincoln-housing-says-its-fixing-the-issue/509-3811ba1b-628f-4520-a635-220d7571f164/
MaxRebo5
January 15, 2020
Hi All,
This was news from California Courts today: https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/justice-ming-chin-to-retire-from-california-supreme-court
I never met the man but I am glad to see him go. It is interesting to me that there is no mention of the failure of CCMS at all as if it did not happen. Just accolades from all the commentors in the story. Some balance is very much needed as the boondoogle of CCMS was a HUGE failure for California Courts on his watch as chair of the Judicial Council’s technology committee. Reading this you would never know CCMS failed horribly and had to be shut down by the legislature or that the legislature demanded that Bill Vickrey, who was Director of CA Courts at the time, be fired. Just had to post as this story from CA Courts is pretty biased and shameful.
sharonkramer
January 17, 2020
Well here’s a goody! This one’s for YOU Judge Earl Maas III! Does this mean that judges who are bullied and intimidated to conceal case-fixing by justices in an appellate court, should be protected from having to continue to case-fix to conceal their superiors’ case fixing? I will believe it when I see it! https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7976126&GUID=16E0F4B6-39FB-42E2-93E1-CB8ED5151C1E
sharonkramer
March 16, 2020
Question: According to Cal Matters, Governor Newsom has issued a lockdown for those 65 and over.
3/15/20 “What you need to know about California’s lockdown of seniors and the chronically ill”
https://calmatters.org/health/2020/03/california-coronavirus-gavin-newsom-senior-citizens-chronic-illness/
“California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday called for seniors and people with chronic conditions to isolate themselves during the coronavirus pandemic…The governor’s advisory does not carry the force of law, but Newsom said he would not hesitate to sign an executive order making it mandatory if the directive is not followed…Newsom said his self-isolation guidance would apply to the approximate 5.3 million seniors age 65 or older who live in the state.”
Several California judges, justices and practicing attorneys are 65 and over.
So….does this mean they will be staying home and away from courthouses for the time being?