AHEAD AND CALL THE JOINT
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT THE DRUG
HEARING BETWEEN THE JOINT
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE.
SENATE JUDICIARY ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO ORDER --
TODAY WILL BE DISCUSSING THE
FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS
IDENTIFIED BY THE STATE HONOR AN
AUDIT REPORT RELEASED IN APRIL
OF THIS YEAR -- TITLED
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE WEAKNESS IN ITS
OVERSIGHT.
HAVE CREATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT TO PERSIST.
AS MOST -- PRESENT HERE TODAY
ALREADY KNOW THE COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING
THE COMPLAINTS [inaudible]
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT THANK YOU THIS MORNING
WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
IDENTIFIED BY THE STATE AUDITOR.
IN AN AUDIT REPORT RELEASED IN
APRIL OF THIS YEAR TITLED
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE WEAKNESS IN ITS
OVERSIGHT HAVE CREATED
OPPORTUNITIES FOR JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT TO PERSIST.
AS MOST PRESENT HERE TODAY
ALREADY KNOW THE COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING
COMPLAINTS ABOUT MISCONDUCT BY
JUDGES.
AND THEN DECIDING TO WHAT EXTENT
TO DISCIPLINE IS APPROPRIATE I
WANT TO THANK SENATOR JACKSON'S
ASSEMBLY MEMBER STONE IN
ASSEMBLY WOMAN -- CRISTINA
GARCIA FOR REQUEST IN THE AUDIT
WE WILL DISCUSS.
THANK YOU ALSO FOR YOUR INTEREST
IN HAVING OVERSIGHT HEARING
TODAY.
I'D SAY WE WILL ALSO BE
DISCUSSING THE RESULTS OF THE
AUDIT THE AUDIT.
REPORT CLEARLY IDENTIFIED SOME
THINGS THAT NEED TO CHANGE AT
THE COMMISSION TO IMPROVE ITS
PROCESSES. FOR INVESTIGATING IN
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO
JUDGES.
THE STATE AUDITOR FOUND THAT THE
COMMISSION NEEDS -- TO ONE
INSURED ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATES
ALLEGATIONS OF JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT BY HAVING HE
INVESTIGATORS DOCUMENT THEIR
INVESTIGATIVE STRATEGIES.
HAVING MANAGERIAL REVIEW OF
INVESTIGATIONS AND HAVING
INVESTIGATORS REVIEWED CONSIDER
ALL PRIOR COMPLAINTS.
ON A JUDGE.
THE COMMISSION ALSO NEEDS TO BE
MORE TRANSPARENT AND ACCESSIBLE%
TO THE PUBLIC BY ACCEPTING
COMPLAINTS ON ITS WEBSITE.
AND HOLDING PUBLIC HEARINGS
WITHOUT THESE CHANGES THE
COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATOR
PROCESS COULD.
COULD ALLOW JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
TO GO UNDETECTED AND THEN
CORRECTED LOOK FORWARD TO A
PRODUCTIVE AND ROBUST DISCUSSION
TODAY REGARDING THE AUDIT
RESULTS.
AND WHAT THE COMMISSION IS DOING
TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OUTLINED IN THE AUDIT.
I TRUST AND HOPE THAT THE
COMMISSION IS COMMITTED TO
IMPLEMENTING THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS I BEFORE
PROCEEDING FURTHER A FEW
HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS TO ENSURE
THAT.
WE HEAR FROM EVERYONE ASK THAT
THE PANELS KEEP THEIR
PRESENTATIONS TO THE TIME
ALLOTTED AS EARLY FIFTEEN
MINUTES FOR THE STATE AUDITOR.
AT TEN MINUTES FOR THE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL REVIEW.
AND THE FINAL.
FINAL PANEL HAVE ABOUT TEN
MINUTES FOR THE CENTER FOR
PUBLIC INTEREST LONG CALIFORNIA
JUDGES ASSOCIATION WE'LL RESERVE
TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE
END.
AFTER THE LAST Q. AND A PERIOD.
AND WITH THAT I'D LIKE TO START
WITH AN OPENING FROM OUR CHAIRS.
SO SENATE JACKSON GEORGIA YES
THANK YOU VERY MUCH I HAVE BEEN
LOOKING FORWARD -- TO THIS
OPPORTUNITY FOR QUITE SOME TIME
WANT TO THANK YOU ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SALAS AND YOUR STAFF FOR
TAKING THE LEAD IN ORGANIZING.
OF THIS HEARING -- IDEA TOOK THE
LEAD IN REQUESTING THE AUDIT AND
TWENTY SIXTEEN ALONG WITH --
THOSE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD
INDICATED INCLUDING MY
COUNTERPART IN THE ASSEMBLY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER STONE -- I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A
BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND
APPRECIATION OF THE ROLE OF THE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE.
SO THAT WE HAVE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF THE COURT
SYSTEM I AM SOMEWHAT SURPRISED
AND CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT
THAT MOST PEOPLE TODAY REALLY
DON'T HAVE AN APPRECIATION FOR
THE ROLE OF THE COURTS THEY ARE.
BONTA ABILITIES TO ADD AS AN
INDEPENDENT CO EQUAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT SO.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE
RECOGNIZE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
INDEPENDENCE AND CO EQUAL.
STATUS ALONG WITH THE
LEGISLATURE IN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH WE CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN
HEARING -- TODAY ON A NATIONAL
LEVEL -- EFFORTS TO IMPUGN THE
INTEGRITY OF OUR COURT SYSTEM
WHICH DOES -- THEN THREATEN OUR
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.
HERE IN CALIFORNIA OF COURSE --
IT'S BEEN KIND OF A BUMPY ROAD
IN ACTUALLY HAVING THE AUDIT
CONDUCTED AND COMPLETED THERE
WAS A COURT CHALLENGE TO THE
AUDIT EVEN BEING.
ABLE TO PROCEED -- BUT I WANT.
TO PUT THAT IN THE PAST WE HAVE
A NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE
ORGANIZATION WHO I BELIEVE IS.
HIGHLY POSITION AND QUALIFIED TO
MOVE THE C. J. P. IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION AND I'M VERY PLEASED
ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THIS IS AN
ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF A SYSTEM
DESIGNED TO ENHANCE.
THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE IN THE
FAIR AND EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
WHICH REQUIRES POLITICAL
NEUTRALITY AND INDEPENDENCE WE
KNOW THERE ARE INHERENT
CONFLICTS THAT EXIST IN OUR
JUDICIAL SYSTEM IT IS BY NATURE
AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM.
SO THERE IS OFTEN A WINNER AND A
LOSER IN A COURT EXPERIENCE AND
THE LOSER IS NEVER HAPPY IN
OFTENTIMES WANTS TO PLACE THE
BLAME ON A JUDGE.
INSTEAD OF THE LAW OR SOMETIMES
ON COUNCIL AND HAVING PRACTICED
LAW FOR TWENTY TWO YEARS AS A
LITIGATOR.
I KNOW THAT PART OF THE WELL --
UNFORTUNATELY THAT -- WHEN
SOMEONE LOSES A CASE --
FREQUENTLY THEY LOOK TO SOMEONE
ELSE FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THAT LOSS.
AND FREQUENTLY THAT ISN'T THE
CASE AND ON OCCASION IT IS AND I
THINK THAT'S WHEN WE LOOK TO THE
COURTS TO MAKE SURE THAT -- THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS
BEING DONE FAIR FAIRLY AND
IMPARTIALLY.
SO -- AND AND DON'T WANT TO
DISCOUNT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE
IN FACT SOME BAD ACTORS WHO ARE
JUDGES AND THAT I SEE IS THE
ROLE OF THE C. JP BUT I ALSO
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT IN ORDER
TO HAVE A FUNCTIONING JUDICIAL
SYSTEM.
JUDGES NEED NOT BE AFRAID SHOULD
NOT BE AFRAID TO ADMINISTER
JUSTICE.
AND I THINK THAT THERE'S A
BALANCE THERE AND I LOOK FORWARD
TO HEARING SOME OF THE THOUGHTS
OF THE AUDITOR AND OTHERS WHO
TESTIFYING TODAY ON MAINTAINING
THAT BALANCE SO.
I HOPE WE KEEP THAT PERSPECTIVE
TODAY AS WE GO FORWARD AND WITH
THAT AGAIN THANK.
REMEMBER SALAS FOR HOLDING THIS
PROCEEDING.
THANK SENATOR LET'S GO TO MOVE.
TO MR STONE THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIR.
IN THE CULTURES CONSTRUCT THAT
WE OPERATE UNDER WITH THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS OUR RULES
THE LEGISLATURE IS VERY CLEAR
THAT WE HAVE OVERSIGHT
OBLIGATIONS OVER THERE THE TWO
BRANCHES.
PART OF THAT IS TO ENSURE THAT
JUSTICE IS DONE AND OUR
OVERSIGHT OF THE MORE
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH.
HAS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ALWAYS
BàN.
ADDRESS STORE LOOKED AT OVER THE
HISTORY THE LEGISLATURE IN THE
LAST NUMBER OF YEARS.
WORKING WITH THE SENATE
JUDICIARY MY COUNTERPART THERE
WE'VE TAKEN A HARD LOOK AT HOW
THE STATE BAR FUNCTIONS AND
THEIR OBLIGATION OF PUBLIC
PROTECTION.
AND AS WE WORK WITH THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH ONE OF THE ASPECTS THAT
CAME TO LIGHT IS THE COMMISSION
ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE AND
MODERNIZING THEIR APPROACH.
SO THAT THE PUBLIC HAS GREATER
CONFIDENCE IN THE FUNCTION OF
THE JUDICIARY YES MOST ALL OF
THE JUDGES.
TAKE THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO THE
PUBLIC OTHER OBLIGATIONS ON THE
CONSTITUTION VERY SERIOUSLY
HOWEVER WE HAVE HANDED JUDGES
LAWYERS AND OTHER SUCH
SIGNIFICANT POWER THAT WHEN
ABUSES HAPPEN.
THIS IS UNDERMINE THE PUBLIC'S
CONFIDENCE IN THE ABILITY OF THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH TO FUNCTION AND
THE ABILITY OF GOVERNMENT
HONESTLY TO FUNCTION.
SO THAT THE CHECKS AND BALANCES
THE WATCH DOGS IF YOU WILL OF
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
NEED TO BE.
CLEAR NEED TO BE STRONG NEED TO
HAVE APPROPRIATE PROCESSES SO
THAT THE PUBLIC CAN FEEL THAT
THEIR GRIEVANCES OR HEARD.
AND DEALT WITH APPROPRIATELY AS
IS POINTED OUT AND AS AS I THINK
WILL BE CLEAR AS WE GO THROUGH
THIS PROCESS.
JUDGES GET LOTS OF COMPLAINTS
LODGED AGAINST THEM AND MANY OF
THEM ARE.
BECAUSE OF THE DECISION THAT WAS
MADE -- BECAUSE OF THE THE
PROCESS THAT THAT THAT
INDIVIDUAL FELT WAS UNFAIR CG
PAY DOES NOT OVERSEE THE JUST
THE DECISIONS THAT'S WHY WE HAVE
APPEAL PROCESS IT DOES NOT
OVERSEE.
THE BY THE WAY OR THAT THE
ULTIMATE DECISION THAT A JUDGE
MAKES THE OUTCOMES OF THE COURT
BUT OVERSEAS THE JUDICIAL.
OFFICERS AS THEY DELIBERATE AS
THEY MANAGE THEIR COURTROOMS.
UNDER THE OBLIGATIONS OF ETHICS
AND ON THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE
JUDICIAL.
EXPECT OUR JUDICIAL OFFICERS TO
WHO THEY THEY ARE IN OUR
COMMUNITY.
SO.
INDIVIDUALS GREAT AUTHORITY WE
ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
AUTHORITIES BEING.
LEVIED APPROPRIATELY AND THE WAY
THAT WE WOULD EXPECT THAT'S THE
PROCESS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT
OBVIOUSLY WITH THE STATE
AUDITOR'S REPORT THAT PROCESS
HAS COME UP QUITE A BIT SHORT I
THINK THE LEGISLATURE.
STANDS READY TO DO WHAT WE NEED
TO DO.
IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE
STATUTES THE LAWS EVEN THE
CONSTITUTION ARE APPROPRIATELY
MODIFIED SO THAT CGP CAN
FUNCTION AND BUILD BACK THIS
TRUST WITH THE PUBLIC.
ACROSS CALIFORNIA SO I LOOK
FORWARD TO THE THE HEARING TODAY
GETTING A SENSE OF WHERE WE NEED
TO GO PRECIADO THE AUDITOR'S
HARD WORK ON THIS I KNOW IT WAS
A BIT OF A BUMPY ROAD AS WE WENT
THROUGH THIS.
BUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS I THINK
ARE FAIRLY CLEAR THEY GIVE US
ALL PLACES WHERE WE NEED TO
IMPROVE AND BE BETTER AND WE BY
WE I MEAN THE GOVERNMENT ALL
THREE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT.
AND I THINK THAT THIS HEARING
THAT SERVES AS A PUBLIC.
VETTING OF THOSE IDEAS OF THOSE
PROCESSES AND THEN WECAN MOVE
FORWARD ON MAKING SURE THAT WE
HAVE THE STRONGEST MOST
EFFECTIVE.
AND TRUSTED JUDICIAL BRANCH THAT
WE CAN HAVE FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA SO THANK YOU MISTER.
THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS IT FROM US SENATOR
JACKSON'S IN SO WITH MEMBER SO
THE CHAIR OF THE ASSEMBLY THE
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY
COMMITTEES -- OUR GOAL HERE IS
REALLY TRANSPARENCY
ACCOUNTABILITY AND MAKING SURE
THAT THE PUBLIC FEELS THAT.
THEY'RE GETTING THEIR FAIR SHAKE
IF WE CAN IF WE CAN SEE IF WE
CAN SAY THAT -- LET'S GO IN AND
JUST START LET'S BEGIN WITH --
ITEM NUMBER TWO THE EVERY OF THE
AUDIT FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS I'D LIKE TO
INVITE -- OUR STATE CALIFORNIA
STATE AUDITOR MISSILE EIGHT HOW --
BOB HARRIS OF PRINCIPAL AND
SENIOR EDITOR KATIE HAD TO THAT
HOUSE.
SO WHEN YOU'RE READY BY TOPIC.
MIKE IS ON THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIR ACTUALLY CHAIR SALAS
JACKSON AND STONE MEMBERS OF THE
RESPECTIVE COMMITTEES FOR THE
RECORD MY NAME IS ELAINE HOWELL
AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR.
TO MY RIGHT IS KATIE CARDINIA SO
SHE WAS THE AUDIT SUPERVISOR ON
THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AND BOB
PARIS IS TO HER RIGHT HE WAS THE
AUDIT MANAGER ON THIS PARTICULAR
PROJECT AS WELL -- WHAT I INTEND
TO DO IN MY PRESENTATION IS GO
THROUGH THE KEY ISSUES AT A VERY
HIGH LEVEL -- I BELIEVE THE
SERGEANT HAS HANDED OUT.
SOME GRAPHICS THAT.
MY OFFICE THERE PULLED FROM THE
AUDIT REPORT MS CARDENAS WILL
STEP USE.
THOSE GRAPHICS DOES WILL SERVE
AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER
ILLUSTRATE THE KEY ISSUES THAT
IDENTIFY AND MY AND MY REMARKS
BUT I WILL KEEP MINE AT A FAIRLY
HIGH LEVEL.
SO WE HAD THREE KEY AREAS IN THE
AUDIT REPORT THE FIRST WAS
RELATED TO THE INVESTIGATIVE
PROCESSES -- THAT CJ P. ENGAGES
IN A TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS
OF MISCONDUCT THE SECOND AREA IS
RELATED TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE.
AND THE THIRD IS ON THEIR
OPERATIONS THEIR EFFICIENCIES --
AND CERTAINLY ON TRANSPARENCY.
SO GOING BACK TO THE FIRST AREA
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES WE FOUND
WEAKNESSES ACTUALLY -- IN THEIR
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS WE FELT
THAT THEY WERE NOT TAKING THEIR
INVESTIGATORS WERE NOT TAKING
ALL REASONABLE STEPS.
A TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF
MISCONDUCT AND THAT INCLUDED NOT
NECESSARILY INTERVIEWING ALL OF
THE RELEVANT WITNESSES OBSERVING
JUDGES IN THE COURT ROOM.
OBTAINING ALL OF THE NECESSARY
EVIDENCE WE WE HAD CONCERNS --
AND LOOKING AT SOME OF THE CASES
THAT THAT WE SAMPLED ARE
SELECTED.
WE SAW THAT THE THE CJ PETERS
NOT LOOKING FOR PATTERNS OF
COMPLAINT TAKE A BIT AGAINST A
PARTICULAR JUDGE THAT MAY
FURTHER INFORM -- THE DECISION
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO OPEN UP
AN INVESTIGATION -- I TO
ACTUALLY CONDUCT AN
INVESTIGATION ONE OF THE REASONS
THAT WE IDENTIFIED IN THIS
SECTION OF THE REPORT IS THEIR
WRISTS REAL NO SUPERVISORY
REVIEW OF THE INVESTIGATORS THEY
HAVE A LOT OF DISCRETION.
IN DETERMINING WHAT THEIR
ACTIONS WILL BE TO INVESTIGATE
AN ALLEGATION THERE'S NO ONE
REALLY ADVISING THEM ARE
MONITORING WHAT THEY'RE DOING
FROM A SUPERVISORY PERSPECTIVE.
ON BEST PRACTICES OUT THERE THAT
WE'VE LOOKED AT WE LOOKED AT
WHAT THE FEDERAL AG'S THEY PUT
SOME BEST BEST PRACTICES OUT.
BAR ASSOCIATION HAS SOME BEST
PRACTICES RELATED TO CONDUCTING
INVESTIGATIONS MY OFFICE AS AS
I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE IS
RESPONSIBLE.
FOR OTHER WHISTLEBLOWER
PROTECTION ACT WE HAVE
INVESTIGATORS AND AND BEST
PRACTICES SUGGEST THAT YOU COME
UP WITH AN INVESTIGATIVE PLAN.
AND THAT PLAN SHOULD LAY OUT AT
LEAST THE THE INITIAL STEPS THAT
YOU'RE GONNA TAKE TO INVESTIGATE
THE ALLEGATIONS SOME TIME FRAMES --
SOME PARTICULAR APPROACHES AND
SUPERVISORY REVIEW ADVICE IS TO
OKAY WE'VE WE'VE RECEIVED THIS
TYPE OF EVIDENCE I THINK WE NEED
ADDITIONAL.
WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE TO BE
BEFORE WE DECIDE EITHER CLOSE
THIS CASE OR CONTINUE SO
CHECKING IN.
A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS THAT WE
IDENTIFIED IN THIS SECTION OF
THE REPORT THAT WE THINK WOULD
BE BENEFICIAL IS A PERIODIC
QUALITY REVIEW.
OF THE CASES ARE WHETHER OR NOT
THERE'S A DECISION TO CLOSE THE
CASE OR CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE
THERE NEEDS TO BE.
THAT EXTERNAL.
AS WE DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT
THERE IS A LEGAL ADVISER THAT IS
AVAILABLE TO SEE J. P. THAT
PERSON IS NOT.
INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATIVE
PROCESS THERE FOR HERE SHE COULD
SERVE AS THAT PERIODIC REVIEW
ARE LOOKING AT A HANDFUL OF
CASES. TO TO PROVIDE THAT
QUALITY CONTROL OVER AND ABOVE
WHAT A SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER MAY
BE PROVIDING TO INVESTIGATORS O
A VARIETY OF DITION IS DIFFERENT
ISSUES RELATED TO THEIR
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS WE THINK
THEY COULD DO.
A BETTER JOB A MORE THOROUGH JOB
OF LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE
ALLEGATIONS AND INVESTIGATING
THEM FULLY AND AS I SAID SOME OF
THE GRAPHICS THAT -- IS CARDENAS
WILL STEP YOU THROUGH WILL
ILLUSTRATE SOME OF THAT.
SECOND ISSUE IS RELATED TO SEE
BATES CJ PLEASE STRUCTURE.
AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY THEIR
STRUCTURE RIGHT NOW IS UNITARY
STRUCTURE SINGLE BODY SO THAT
BODY NOT ONLY CONDUCTS THE
INVESTIGATIONS BUT ALSO MAKES
THE DECISIONS AS TO WHETHER WHAT
TYPE OF DISCIPLINE SHOULD BE
CARRIED OUT -- IN THE EVENT THE
ALLEGATIONS ARE SUBSTANTIATED --
BEST PRACTICES OUT THERE ARE
SUGGESTING THERE NEEDS TO BE A
BI CAMERAL WHERE THERE'S AN
INVEST SEPARATE INVESTIGATIVE
FUNCTION AND THAT IN.
FOR BY THE TO A SEPARATE BODY
THAT MAKES A DECISION.
RELATED TO WHAT TYPE OF
DISCIPLINE AGAIN SHOULD BE.
SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT -- WE
LOOKED AT OTHER STATES WE SAW
THAT SEVENTEEN OTHER STATES HAVE
A BI CAMERAL -- STRUCTURE.
AS AS OPPOSED TO UNITARY
STRUCTURE SO WE WE CERTAINLY
HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO
THAT. ONE ISSUE THAT WE
IDENTIFIED THAT WHERE AT CJ P.
DOES NOT HAVE CLEAR AUTHORITY IS.
TO EXERCISE OR REQUIRE
CORRECTIVE ACTION.
SO FOR EXAMPLE THE STATE BAR MAY
REQUIRE AN ATTORNEY TO TAKE
TRAINING OR TO GO INTO A
SUBSTANCE ABUSE THERE'S A
LAWYER'S ASSISTANCE PROGRAM IF
SOMEONE HAS A SUBSTANCE ABUSE
ISSUE.
MEDICAL BOARD HAS SIMILAR
REQUIREMENTS THE COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE DOES NOT
HAVE CLEAR AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE
THAT TYPE OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
WHERE WHERE A JUDGE SHOULD BE
TAKING SOME ETHICS TRAINING
PERHAPS OR SOME OTHER TYPES OF
TRAINING. TO STRENGTHEN THEIR
ABILITY TO SERVE ON THE BENCH.
NOW WE DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT AND WE DO THIS IN THE
REPORT THAT CJ P. ACTUALLY
DEVELOPED A PILOT PROGRAM.
AND IT'S A MENTORING PROGRAM
WHERE IT'S REALLY MORE SEASON
JUDGES WHO ARE WELL RESPECTED
JUDGES SERVE AS MENTORS TO OTHER
JUDGES TO REALLY HELP THEM.
MODIFY THEIR BEHAVIOR OR YOU
KNOW CARRY OUT THEIR THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES AND IN THE MOST
PROFESSIONAL ETHICAL WAY AND
THAT MENTORING PROGRAM -- HAS
BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND NOW THEY
INTEND AS WE DESCRIBED IN THE
REPORT THEY MADE A DECISION TO
THEY STARTED IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA THEY DECIDED THEY
WANTED.
TO CARRY THAT OUT THROUGHOUT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR JUDGES TO BE
MENTORED SO WE THINK THAT'S IT
THAT'S A GOOD STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION -- AS AS THE CHAIRS OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
MENTIONED SOME OF THESE CHANGES
WILL REQUIRE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT -- AND WE DO HAVE A
RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THAT --
AND AND A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT
ISSUES AND AGAIN MISS CARDENAS
WILL STEP YOU THROUGH THOSE.
SO STRUCTURALLY THERE WE THINK
THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH A UNITARY
STRUCTURE THERE NEEDS TO BE A BI
CAMERAL.
OUR STRUCTURE IF WE'RE GONNA
FOLLOW BEST PRACTICES.
THE LAST AREA -- THAT I WILL
QUICKLY GO OVER IS TRANCE --
TRANSPARENCY AND MODERNIZATION.
SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE
MEMBERS WHO ASKED US TO COULD
CONDUCT THIS AUDIT IS HOW WELL
OUR OUR CALIFORNIANS BEING
INFORMED ABOUT CJ PEAS ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES.
AND AND OUR CONCLUSION WAS NOT
VERY WELL -- THEY DO CONDUCT
OUTREACH -- BUT THE PRIMARY
AUDIENCE FOR THEIR OUT REACH IS
LEGAL PROFESSIONALS IN COURT
EMPLOYEES.
SO YOU WITH THE JUDICIARY
PROCESS IN FACT WHEN WE LOOKED
AT A FISCAL YEAR SEVENTEEN
EIGHTEEN WE SAW NONE OF THE
EVENTS THAT HAD BEEN SCHEDULED
WERE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO
REALLY EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT
THEIR RIGHTS TO FILE A COMPLAINT.
HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT -- AND
HOW TO GO THROUGH THAT
PARTICULAR PROCESS SO WE MADE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY REALLY
NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF OUT
REACH WITH RESPECT TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC -- IN DEALING
WITH THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM A
COUPLE OF EXAMPLES SO MEDICAL
BOARD AND SOME OTHER REGULATORY
OUR BOARDS.
REQUIRE -- POSTING OF
INFORMATION ABOUT HOW TO FILE A
COMPLAINT AGAINST A PHYSICIAN C.
J. P. DOES NOT HAVE THE
AUTHORITY RIGHT NOW TO REQUIRE
COURTS TO POST THIS INFORMATION.
ABOUT HOW A PERSON IN THE
GENERAL PUBLIC COULD FILE A
COMPLAINT WITH C. J. P. IF THEY
FEEL LIKE THEY'RE THE JUDGE IN
THEIR PARTICULAR CASES IS.
I'M NOT CARRYING HIMSELF OR
HERSELF OUT PROFESSIONALLY OR IS
ENGAGING IN MISCONDUCT SO THERE
NEEDS TO BE -- SOME ADDITIONAL
GUIDANCE POSTED RIGHT THERE IN
THE COURT ROOM -- CURRENTLY CJ
PIECE CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
DOES NOT ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO
FILE A COMPLAINT ONLINE SO IF
YOU WANT TO FILE A COMPLAINT
WITH C. J. P. YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT
THAT COMPLAINT IN THE MAIL.
THAT'S ARCHAIC -- A LOT OF OTHER
STATES THAT HAVE THE ABILITY. TO
ALLOW FOLKS TO FILE A COMPLAINT
ONLINE SO WE HAVE --
RECOMMENDATION IN THE REPORT
THAT THE THE C. J. P. REALLY
NEEDS.
TO GET A BETTER CASE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A
SIGNIFICANT.
INVESTMENT IN COST IT'S ABOUT A
HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
BASED ON OUR ESTIMATES AND OUR
ANALYSES OF SYSTEMS OUT THERE WE
THINK THEY COULD USE PURPOSE
PERHAPS AN OFF THE SHELF SYSTEM
WITH MINOR MODIFICATIONS.
SO THEY COULD HAVE A CASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT WOULD
THEN ALLOW THEM TO ACCEPT
COMPLAINTS ELECTRONICALLY.
AND THEN THE LAST AREA THAT I
WILL TALK ABOUT NINE AM IS
GUARDIANS WILL STEP YOU THROUGH
THE GRAPHICS THAT THAT HAVE BEEN
HANDED OUT IS LOOKING AT THEIR
RESOURCES IN THE EFFICIENCIES.
I WE THINK THEY COULD BE MUCH
MORE EFFICIENT AND DEVOTE MORE
OF THEIR RESOURCES TO THEIR
THEIR PRIMARY ROLE AND
RESPONSIBILITY WHAT WE SAW IS
ABOUT. 40% OF THEIR BUDGET IS
SPENT ON NON CORE FUNCTIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES OP SO
WE THINK THAT THEY NEED TO DO AN
OVERALL ANALYSIS AND REALLY
DETERMINE.
WHERE THEY SHOULD BE INVESTING
THEIR TIME AND THEIR RESOURCES
TO MAKE THEIR THEIR OPERATIONS
MUCH MORE EFFICIENT CERTAINLY AN
ONLINE SYSTEM?
A BETTER CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
IS GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO DO
THAT.
OUR TRACKING OF A COMPLAINTS
DETERMINING WHETHER THERE ARE
NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS SEVERAL
SIMILAR COMPLAINTS AGAINST A
PARTICULAR JUDGE -- SO WE THINK
THAT THERE THERE ARE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE EFFICIENT
OPERATIONS.
FOR THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE.
I WANT STEP THROUGH ALL OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS MISS CARDING US
AGAIN IT'S IN IT'S IN THE HAND
OUT BUT OF COURSE THERE IS THE
PRIMARY RECOMMENDATION RELATED
TO NEEDING A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT AND THAT'S NOT JUST
RELATED TO THE THE GOING FROM A
UNITARY STRUCTURE TO A BI
CAMERAL.
IT IT'S RELATED TO SOME OF THEIR
pCORRECTIVE ACTION SOME OF THE
OTHER AUTHORITY THAT WE BELIEVE
NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY STATED.
IN THE CONSTITUTION AS IT WITH
RESPECT TO SEE JP'S ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES AND THEIR
AUTHORITY.
IN THE MEANTIME WE THINK SEE JP
COULD TAKE SOME STEPS. TO
IMPROVE SOME OF THEIR PROCESSES
THEY CAN ALREADY DO SOME OF THE
OUT REACH WE BELIEVE EVEN IF
THEY DON'T WE SUGGEST AN
APPROPRIATION FOR THEIR CASE
MANAGEMENT WE STILL BELIEVE EVEN
IF THEY DON'T GET THAT
APPROPRIATION.
THEY CAN FIND A HUNDRED TWENTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS -- TO COME UP
WITH THE CASE MANAGEMENT SYTEM
WE ALSO THINK THEY NEED TO HIRE
AN INVESTIGATIVE MANAGER.
WHO CAN OVERSEE THE
INVESTIGATORS WHO ARE CONDUCTING --
THE INVESTIGATIONS AND GIVE THEM
GUIDANCE DID TO MAKE SURE IT'S
FULLY VETTING THE ALLEGATIONS
AND LOOKING AT ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE INTERVIEWING
APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUALS GOING
INTO THE COURTROOM OBSERVING
JUDGES.
THOSE SORTS OF THINGS SO WE HAVE
A VARIETY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT WE BELIEVE SEE JP CAN
IMPLEMENT IMMEDIATELY -- SO THAT
THEIR OPERATIONS ARE ARE MUCH
MORE EFFICIENT -- AND THEY
CERTAINLY CAN EDUCATE THE PUBLIC
AND A BETTER WAY THAN THEY HAVE
IN THE PAST SO WITH THAT MEMBERS
I WILL TURN IT OVER TO TO MISS
CARDEW EUNICE AND SHE WILL.
USING THE HAND OUTS WILL KIND OF
STEP YOU THROUGH THE SAME ISSUES
BUT IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL
AND I AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY
WILL FURTHER ILLUSTRATE THE
CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE IN THE
REPORT.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
MISTER CHAIR AND MEMBERS MY NAME
IS KATIE CORTINAS AND I WAS THE
SENIOR AUDITOR ON THIS PROJECT.
IF YOU COULD TURN TO PAGE TWO I
WILL GO OVER THE FIRST MAJOR
FINDING FROM THE FIRST CHAPTER
OF OUR REPORT.
OUR TEAM FOUND THAT CDP FAILED
TO THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE ONE
THIRD OF THE CASES THAT WE
REVIEWED.
OF THE THIRTY INVESTIGATIONS ARE
TEAM ASSESSED CJ P.
INVESTIGATORS DID NOT TAKE
REASONABLE STEPS TO DETERMINE
THE EXISTENCE OR THE EXTENT.
OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT IN ELEVEN
CASES.
THE EXAMPLE SHOW THE ALLEGATION.
INTO THE INADEQUATE
INVESTIGATIONS ARE TEAM
IDENTIFIED.
THEY RANGE FROM MORE MINOR
ALLEGATIONS SUCH AS IMPROPERLY
DELAYING A CASE.
UP TO MORE SEVERE ALLEGATIONS
SUCH AS HAVING A RELATIONSHIP
WITH A SUBORDINATE OR
THREATENING TO ASSAULT LITIGANTS.
THE STEP CGP INVESTIGATORS DO
NOT TAKE CAN AFFECT THE
DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS THAT THE
COMMISSION CAN MAKE.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS CAN HAVE A
DIRECT.
NEGATIVE AFFECT ON THE
COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO ISSUE
APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE.
IF YOU PLEASE TURN TO PAGE THREE
THERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF MISSTEPS
FOR CASE THAT OUR TEAM REVIEWED.
IN THIS CASE A LITIGANT ALLEGE
TO THE JUDGE AND A MEMBER OF THE
COURT STAFF DID NOT LET HIS
FRIENDS ACCOMPANY HIM INTO THE
COURT ROOM.
BY LAW THIS PROCEEDING MUST BE
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
CJ P. INVESTIGATORS INTERVIEWED
THE COMPLAIN INTERVIEWED ONE OF
THE FRIENDS AND TRIED TO
INTERVIEW THE SECOND FRIEND.
INVESTIGATORS ALSO REQUESTING
COMMENT FROM THE JUDGE.
HOWEVER CDP INVESTIGATORS DID
NOT INTERVIEW THE COURTS STAFF.
WHO ALLEGEDLY BARRED ENTRY?
DID NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE
EVENT WAS CAPTURED ON SECURITY
CAMERAS.
AND DID NOT OBSERVE THE JUDGE
AND SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS.
HE DID CONDUCT COURTROOM
OBSERVATION.
BUT ONE IT ALREADY INFORMED THE
JUDGE IT WAS CONDUCTING AN
INVESTIGATION.
INTO AND OBSERVED A DIFFERENT
KIND OF CASE.
WE THEREFORE DETERMINED THAT
THIS WAS A QUESTIONABLE
INVESTIGATIVE APPROACH.
OUR TEAM DETERMINE THAT CJ PEAS
INVESTIGATIVE SHORTCOMINGS ARE
DUE TO A LACK OF KEY SAFEGUARDS
THAT WOULD ENSURE QUALITY
INVESTIGATIONS.
CJ P. SIX INVESTIGATORS REPORT
DIRECTLY TO THE DIRECTOR CHIEF
COUNSEL.
WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE
ORGANIZATION IS NOT DEEPLY
INVOLVED IN EVERY CASE?
AND IS THEREFORE NOT LIKELY TO
CATCH GAPS IN INVESTIGATIVE
APPROACHES IN A TIMELY MANNER.
AS A STATE AUDITOR MENTION BEST
PRACTICES ALSO RECOMMEND THAT
BEFORE COMMENCING INVESTIGATIONS
INVESTIGATORS TO PREPARE A
STRATEGY FOR EACH CASE.
CJ PEAS INTERNAL MANUAL ALSO
ECHOES THESE BEST PRACTICES.
YES YOU J. P. INVESTIGATORS
CANNOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY
PREPARED STRATEGIES FOR ANY.
OF THE THIRTY CASES THAT WE
REVIEW IN.
PRIOR TO THIS AUDIT THERE HAD
BEEN NO INDEPENDENT REVIEW.
OF CJ PEAS INVESTIGATIONS SINCE
ITS INCEPTION FIFTY NINE YEARS
AGO.
THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE RECOMMENDS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE MAKE A ONE TIME
APPROPRIATE. TO SEE JP CAN HIRE
A LIMITED TERM INVESTIGATIONS
MANAGER.
OUR OFFICE ALSO RECOMMENDS AS HE
J. P. DEFINE THE ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THAT
POSITION.
AND RETURN TO THE LEGISLATURE
WITH A MORE PRECISE REQUEST.
AFTER DETERMINES FOR EXAMPLE IF
THAT POSITION NEEDS TO BE FULL
TIME.
FINALLY THE STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE RECOMMENDS THAT CJ P.
REQUIRE INVESTIGATORS TO
FOLLOWING DEVELOP STRATEGIES.
AND THAT THE INDEPENDENT LEGAL
ADVISER PERFORM QUALITY REVIEWS
OF COMPLETED INVESTIGATIONS.
IF YOU TURN TO PAGE FOUR YOU'LL
SEE OUR OTHER SIGNIFICANT
FINDING RELATED TO CJ PEAS
INVESTIGATIONS.
OUR TEAM FOUND THAT CDP FAILED
TO DETECT WARNING SIGNS OF ON
GOING STE STE ONGOING MISCONDUCT.
THE GRAPHIC SHOWS THE COMPLAIN
HISTORY FOR ONE JUDGE FOR
SIMILAR AND SERIOUS ON THE BENCH
MISCONDUCT.
THIS JUDGE RECEIVED EIGHT
COMPLAINTS OVER A FIVE YEAR
HISTORY. FOR THIS TYPE OF
MISCONDUCT ALONE.
COMPLAIN TO FROM YOUR ONE
BECAUSE OUR TEAM CONCERNED.
CJ P. OPENED AN INVESTIGATION.
THE JUDGE ADMITTED FAULTS AND
PROMISED NOT TO ALLOW THE
CONDUCT TO RECUR.
THE COMMISSION CLOSE THE CASE
WITHOUT.
CJ P. RECEIVE FOR ADDITIONAL
COMPLAINTS IN YEARS. TWO THREE
AND FOUR THAT IT DID NOT
INVESTIGATE AND IT DID NOT TAKE
ACTION ON FOR COMPLAINTS SEVEN
IN YOUR FOR C. J. P. FINALLY
OPENED A SECOND INVESTIGATION.
HOWEVER IT IS COMPLAIN A THAT IS
OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE.
THIS COMPLAINING ATTACHED
TRANSCRIPTS THAT WERE
INSTRUMENTAL IMPROVING THE
MISCONDUCT OCCURRED.
DO THE EVIDENCE THE COMPLAINANT
PROVIDED CJ P. DID NOT HAVE TO
PERFORM AN EXTENSIVE
INVESTIGATION INTO THIS
COMPLAINT.
FOLLOWING THE INVESTIGATION OF
THESE COMPLAINTS THE JUDGE
AGREED ON A CONFIDENTIAL
SETTLEMENT. TO RESIGN AND NEVER
SEE JUDICIAL OFFICE AGAIN.
THE FINAL INVESTIGATION.
ENDED WITH THE JUDGE LEAVING THE
BENCH.
BUT THE FACT THAT SEE JP DID NOT
DETECT A PATTERN OF
INAPPROPRIATE ACTIVITY.
IN YEARS TWO THREE OR FOUR
RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS OVER HOW
IT APPROACHES ITS OVERSIGHT OF
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.
THE FACTS SHOW THAT CJ PETERS
NOT TAKE STEPS TO IDENTIFY
PATTERNS OF COMPLAINTS AND
INITIATE INVESTIGATIONS WHEN
NUMEROUS COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE
SIMILAR PROBLEMS.
AS A STATE AUDITOR MENTION CDP'S
OUTDATED AND AT CASE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM WILL HINDER ITS ABILITY.
TO DETERMINE IF A PATTERN OF
ALLEGATIONS EXIST.
THIS IS A SERIOUS DEFICIENCY.
WE RECOMMENDED THAT THE RIGHT
LEGISLATURE MAKE A ONE TIME
APPROPRIATIONS SOCI JP CAN
UPDATE ITS CASE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM.
AND OUR FIGURES ARE BASED ON
EXTENSIVE RESEARCH OF OFF THE
SHELF PRODUCTS THAT WE BELIEVE
IN MEET CJ PEAS NEEDS WITH MINOR
MODIFICATIONS.
WHETHER OR NOT IT'S INCLUDED IN
THE BUDGET CGP SHOULD BEGIN
WORKING TO FIND ANY POSSIBLE
AVENUES TO IDENTIFY FUNDING SO
WE CAN IMPLEMENT THIS IMPORTANT
RECOMMENDATION.
THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT CJ
P. DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT
PROCEDURES.
THAT REQUIRE ATTORNEYS TO LOOK
FOR PATTERNS AND OPEN OR EXPAND
INVESTIGATIONS WHEN WARRANTED.
THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM IS
BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT AN
INDEPENDENT FAIR AND COMPETENT
JUDICIARY WILL INTERPRET AND
APPLY THE LAW.
CJ PEAS ROLE AS THE SOLE AGENCY
RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE ETHICS
CODE.
IS ESSENTIAL TO UPHOLDING THE
INTEGRITY OF THE CALIFORNIA
JUDICIARY AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
IN CALIFORNIA'S JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
WHEN IT DOES NOT CONDUCT
ADEQUATE INVESTIGATIONS CJ P.
FALL SHORT OF THIS FUNDAMENTAL
CHARGE?
IF YOU PLEASE TURN TO PAGE FIVE
THIS OUTLINES.
IN THE SECOND CHAPTER OF OUR
REPORT REGARDING CONCERNS WITH
CJ P. STRUCTURE.
OUR TEAM FOUND AS HE DEBUTS
UNITARY STRUCTURE DOES NOT ALIGN
WITH BEST PRACTICES FROM THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.
THAT AIM TO ADDRESS THE
PERCEIVED UNFAIRNESS OF A SYSTEM
THAT COMBINES INVESTIGATION
PROSECUTION HEARING AND DECISION
MAKING INTO A SINGLE PROCESS.
AS THE TOP PART OF THE GRAPHIC
SHOWS THE UNITARY STRUCTURE
ALLOWS COMMISSIONERS WHO MAKE
DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS. TO BE
EXPOSED TO INFORMATION ABOUT
ALLEGED MISCONDUCT THAT SHOULD
NOT FACTOR INTO THEIR FINAL
DECISIONS.
THEREFORE THERE IS HEIGHTENED
RISK AND AN OVERALL PERCEPTION
THAT COMMISSIONERS MAY
INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY.
USE UNPROVEN INFORMATION TO
REACH CONCLUSIONS ABOUT
APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE.
THE STRUCTURE RECOMMENDED BY
BEST PRACTICES DIVIDES THE
COMMISSION INTO TWO BODIES AND
INVESTIGATIVE BODY AND A
DISCIPLINARY BODY.
THE INVESTIGATIVE BODY WOULD
ASSESS EVIDENCE AND FORWARD
PROVEN ALLEGATIONS TO THE
DISCIPLINARY BODY.
UNDER THIS COMPOSITION NO MEMBER
OF THE COMMISSION IS INVOLVED IN
BOTH DECIDING WHETHER TO FILE
FORM FORMAL CHARGES.
AND IN HEARING THE CASE
RESULTING FROM THOSE CHARGES.
AS A STATE AUDITOR MENTION
SEVENTEEN OTHER STATES.
KNOWING HAVE ALSO IMPLEMENTED
THESE BEST PRACTICES.
PLEASE TURN TO PAGE SIX FOR
ANOTHER CONCERN OUR OFFICE HAS
RECEIVED A PIECE CURRENT
STRUCTURE.
CGP CURRENTLY RELIES ON A PANEL
OF THREE JUDGES CALLED SPECIAL
MASTERS. TO HEAR CASES DURING
FORMAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH INVOLVE
A PUBLIC TRIAL AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING.
OUR REVIEW FOUND THAT THE
SPECIAL MASTERS TEND TO BE MORE
LENIENT WHEN JUDGING THEIR PEERS.
CJ PEAS RELIANCE ON JUDGES TO
HEAR CASES INVOLVING THEIR PEERS
ALSO FALL SHORT OF THE INTENT.
OF PROPOSITION ONE NINETY PASSED
BY CALIFORNIA VOTERS TWENTY FIVE
YEARS AGO IN.
NINETEEN NINETY FOUR SUPPORTERS
OF PROPOSITION ONE NINETY ARGUED
THAT IT WOULD ENSURE PUBLIC
CONTROL OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE.
I WOULD ELIMINATE JUDICIAL
DOMINATION OF C. JP IN FAVOR OF
THE PUBLIC MAJORITY.
SINCE THE VOTERS PASSED
PROPOSITION.
ONE NINETY C. J. P. HAS NEVER
HEARD ITS OWN CASES.
THIS LEAVES JUDGES WITH A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE
OVER JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE.
WHICH MAY IMPACT THE CONTROL
THAT CALIFORNIA VOTERS WANTED TO
PLACE IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC.
LASTLY THE COMMISSION DOES NOT
HAVE EXPRESS AUTHORITY TO
REQUIRE JUDGES ENGAGING
CORRECTIVE ACTION.
ALLOWING THE COMMISSION TO ISSUE
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WOULD
STRENGTHEN CJ PEAS ABILITY TO
PREVENT YOU DISH -- MISCONDUCT
FROM REOCCURRING.
PAGE SEVEN OUTLINES THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS
CHAPTER.
CJ PIECE FOUNDATIONAL CRITERIA
RESTS IN THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION.
THEREFORE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WILL REQUIRE
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
THE LEGISLATURE REFERRED AND THE
CALIFORNIA VOTERS PASSED THE
LAST MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT IN.
NINETEEN NINETY FOUR OUR REVIEW
THE FIRST OF ITS KIND AND
CONDUCTED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
SINCE THAT AMENDMENT.
FOUND THAT CDP STRUCTURE AND
PROCESS REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT
REFORMS FOR CJ PITA MENE ITS
MISSION.
THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE RECOMMENDS THAT
CALIFORNIA ADOPT A COMMISSION
STRUCTURE.
THAT WOULD BE BOTH FAIR TO
JUDGES AND INCREASE THE PUBLIC'S
INVOLVEMENT.
THIS STRUCTURE WOULD ESTABLISH A
TWO BODY COMMISSION WITH THE
PUBLIC MAJORITY IN BOTH THE
INVESTIGATIVE AND DISCIPLINARY
BODIES.
IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE
DISCIPLINARY BODY TO HEAR ITS
OWN CASES ELIMINATING THE NEED
FOR THE SPECIAL MASTERS.
FINALLY IT WOULD ALSO AUTHORIZE
THE COMMISSION TO USE CORRECT.
OUR OFFICE RECOMMENDS RECOGNIZES
THAT THESE CHANGES ARE OF
SUBSTANTIAL.
HOWEVER WE BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE
NECESSARY TO ENSURE CJ P. IS
POSITION TO EFFECTIVELY PROTECT.
BOTH THE JUDGES RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
IF YOU TURN TO PAGE EIGHT WE
SUMMARIZE OUR LAST FINDING.
WHICH CONCLUDES THAT CJ P.
SHOULD INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCESSIBILITY TO THE LEGISLATURE
AND TO THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA.
WE FOUND CJ P. HAS NOT PURSUE
CHANGES TO ITS OPERATIONS THAT
WILL BOLSTER TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCESSIBILITY DESPITE THIRTY
YEARS OF PUBLIC DISTRUST.
CGP DOES NOT CONDUCT PUBLIC
OUTREACH CAMPAIGNS HOLD PUBLIC
MEETINGS OR ACCEPT ELECTRONIC
COMPLAINTS.
MOREOVER CGP DOES NOT PROVIDE
ADEQUATE GUIDANCE TO COMPLAINTS
ABOUT HOW TO SUBMIT A COMPLAINT
THAT WOULD INCLUDE SUFFICIENT
INFORMATION.
THAT WOULD IMPROVE ITS ODDS OF
MOVING FORWARD TO AN
INVESTIGATION.
THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE RECOMMENDS THAT CGP
IMPROVE ITS EFFORTS IN ALL OF
THESE AREAS.
CJ P. ALSO DEPENDS ON THE COURTS
COOPERATION IF IT WANTS TO
PUBLICIZE ITS EXISTENCE IN
COURTHOUSES.
AB NEEDS TO ADVERTISE THAT
INVESTIGATES COMPLAINTS OF
JUDICIALMISCONDUCT AND
COURTHOUSES ACROSS CAL.
COUNTIES.
THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE RECOMMENDS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE REQUIRE ALL
COURTHOUSES PUBLICLY DISPLAY
INFORMATION ABOUT SEE JP AND
PROMINENT LOCATIONS.
CJ BE IS AGREED TO IMPLEMENT ALL
OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE MAIN.
IN C. JB'S RESPONSE IT ALSO
STATED THAT IT BELIEVES ITS
UNITARY STRUCTURE COMPORTS WITH
DUEPROCESS.
AND HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.
WE DISAGREE WITH CJ PIECE
PERSPECTIVE.
ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT HAS
ISSUE DECISIONS CONCLUDING THAT
CJ PEAS INVESTIGATIVE ENERGY TO
CONSORTIUM SURE.
DOES NOT VIOLATE JUDGES DUE
PROCESS RIGHTS.
THESE COURT DECISIONS ARE
DECADES OLD AND RELY IN PART ON
OBSERVATIONS ABOUT CJ P.
STRUCTURE THAT HAVE SINCE
CHANGED.
WHEN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT MADE THESE DECISIONS IT
WAS ALSO THE FINAL DECISION
MAKER FOR THE MOST SEVERE FORMS
OF DISCIPLINE SUCH AS REMOVAL?
TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO IN.
NINETEEN NINETY FOUR PROP ONE
NINETY GAVE CJ P. ALL
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY.
SINCE PROP ONE NINETY MADE
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO SEE J. P.
STRUCTURE.
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS
NOT RULED ON WHETHER CJ PEAS
CURRENT UNITARY STRUCTURE
CREATES DUE PROCESS CONCERNS FOR
JUDGES.
REVIEW INDICATES THAT
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ARE
NECESSARY TO IMPROVE CJ PEACE
PROCESS SEES FOR INVEST
INVESTIGATING AND DISAPPOINTING
JUDGES.
WE BELIEVE CJ PEOPLE NEED TO
WORK CLOSELY WITH THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE COMING YEARS
TO ADDRESS THESE DEFICIENCIES.
THANK YOU AND WE'LL BE HAPPY TO
TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
HI THANK YOU -- WHAT THAT LOOKS
GOOD?
BUT HE'S HE'S MISTER HARRIS IS
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
THANK YOU ALL RIGHT THANK YOU
WITHOUT WILLIS JUMP STRAIGHT
INTO QUESTIONS I KNOW WE ARE TO
HAVE -- SOME QUESTIONS BY
SENATOR JOHN.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR ACTION
NOT QUESTION JUST A COUPLE
COMMENTS -- THIS IS VERY WELL
DONE THANK YOU.
FOR MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION
EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND FOLLOW
ALONG FOR THOSE OF US WITH SHORT
ATTENTION SPANS.
I APPRECIATE THAT -- AND I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU'RE IS THIS A NEW
THING YOU'RE DOING FOR THE J.
LIKE COMMITTEE -- TO MISTER
JONES I CAN'T TAKE CREDIT IT'S
STAFF I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT
YOU KNOW I'M JUST THE THE FACE
OF THE OFFICE.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF.
BROUGHT.
TO AS AN IDEA AS FAR AS A BETTER
PRESENTATIONS FOR NOT ONLY J.
LACK BUT CERTAINLY FOR HEARINGS
LIKE THIS SO I I GIVE ALL THE
CREDIT TO MY STAFF AND CERTAINLY
MIKE.
CREATED MY GRAPHIC ARTISTS IN
THE OFFICE SO I THINK IT'S VERY
WELL DONE SO. FOR THAT AND IT
JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS.
YOU KNOW I THINK YOUR
PRESENTATION IS VERY BALANCED --
YOU KNOW YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS I
BELIEVE YOU KNOW FOR MY
PERSPECTIVE VERY FAIR -- TO THE
JUDGES -- BUT AS YOU RIGHTLY
POINTED OUT WE NEED TO TUNE A
LOT OF THIS UP SO -- THANKS FOR
STAYING IN THERE THANKS FOR
BEING IN A DELIBERATE ON THIS
AND I'M I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN
INITIATE.
ALL OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS WITH
WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION STUFF
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SENATORLET ME -- OR
GO TO ASK A QUESTION REAL QUICK
BECAUSE WHAT YOU FOCUSED A LOT
ON THE BICAMERAL STRUCTURE OF
THE COMMISSION AND AND THE
RESPONSE LETTER TO SEEM TO BE --
ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WAS.
I GUESS THEY WERE OPPOSED.
TO AND SO I WANTED TO JUST CAN
GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK
A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT AND
AND WHY YOU THINK.
THEY'RE SO OPPOSED TO THIS WHEN
WE DO IT WITH I BELIEVE.
MISS HOW IT TALKED ABOUT THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION OR HOW
WE DO THIS WITH LAWYERS.
AND SO CAN YOU JUST GIVE US A
LITTLE MORE INSIGHT ON WISER
THAT TUG OF WAR WHITE WHY IS
THIS POINT OF CONFLICT IN A WE'D
HAVE.
TO SEE A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT TO DO THAT FROM JUST
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE
BIT MORE WHY THAT IS A WHAT.
QUESTION WHEN THEY GET UP HERE.
AS WELL.
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE MY NAME'S BOB PARIS AS
STATE AUDITOR INDICATED BEFORE I
WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER ON THE
SIDE -- I THINK THE MAIN.
CONTENTION FROM THE C. J. P. AS
TO WHY A UNITARY STRUCTURE IS
NOT A PROBLEM HAS BANNED THE
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT
HAVE.
BASICALLY SPOKEN EXACTLY THAT
BEFORE -- THERE HAVE BEEN
SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS BY THE
SUPREME COURT IN YEARS PRIOR
ABOUT WHETHER THE UNITARY
STRUCTURE IS IN FACT PROBLEMATIC --
HOWEVER IS MISS CUTTING AS
INDICATED BEFORE IT WE OBSERVE
THAT THIS DECISION DECISIONS ARE
DECADES OLD AND AND PROBABLY
EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY.
THERE'S BEEN A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT
IN THE C. JP'S AUTHORITY SINCE
THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS WERE
MADE -- CERTAINLY THERE HAVE
BEEN A FEW SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS -- SINCE PROP ONE
NINETY PASSED IN NINETEEN NINETY
FOUR BUT NONE OF THOSE HAVE
SPECIFICALLY SPOKEN TO THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU THE
UNITARY STRUCTURE IS PROBLEMATIC
FOR A JUDGE -- AGAIN IN IT HERE
IT'S TO THE BEST PRACTICES THAT
HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AS WELL
AS FOR THE CONCERNS THAT COULD
PRESENT THEMSELVES WHEN A JUDGE
IS -- ESSENTIALLY FACING --
CHALLENGING THE COMMISSION --
THAT WAS BOTH THE INVESTIGATE.
THIS FINAL DECISION MAKER AS TO
WHETHER DISCIPLINE SHOULD BE
ISSUED WE MADE OUR
RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY BE
SPLIT INTO A BY CAMEL STRUCTURE.
MY NAME MY NAME IS HEATHER
KENDRICK I WAS THE ATTORNEY WHO
ASSISTED THE AUDIT TEAM.
THE AS A POINT OF DISTINCTION
THESE DECISIONS THAT CAME OUT
PRIOR -- TO NINETEEN PRIOR TO
PROPOSITION ONE NINETY COMING
INTO AFFECT THOSE STRUCTURE AT
THE TIME WAS THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE WOULD ACT AS
THE PROSECUTOR PROSECUTORIAL
FUNCTION.
AND THEN THE SUPREME COURT WOULD
BE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER ON
ALL THE RELIEF SEVERE FORMS OF
DISCIPLINE.
AND THEN THE CJ P. WAS MORE
WORKING IN IN THE EVIDENTIARY
CAPACITY IN DOING MINDING SING
CONCLUSIONS AND SO THERE IS
REALLY KIND OF A SPLIT.
OF HOW.
A A PROCESS OF HOW IT JUDGES
CASE WOULD GO THROUGH THERE WAS
A SEPARATION BETWEEN THE THE
PROSECUTOR THE DECISION MAKER
THE EVIDENCE FACT FINDER AND SO.
ONCE PROP ONE NINETY CAME INTO
EFFECT ALL OF THOSE FUNCTIONS
CAME INTO THE ONE UNITARY
STRUCTURE CGP [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
ON THAT POINT.
ASSEMBLY.
LINE ON THAT POINT PLEASE ENTER
A CASKET.
YOU HAVE A DE FACTO BICAMERAL
SYSTEM IF YOU SIMPLY SEGREGATED
THE INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION FROM
THE EDGY KATORI FUNCTION YOU
WON'T NEED TO HE JUST SAY IF
YOU'RE DOING INVESTIGATION. FOR
YEAR ONE THAT YOU'RE ON THE
YOU'RE ON THE COMMISSION THEN
YOUR TO YOU DO YOU DO THE
DECISIONS AND YOU SPLIT IT SPLIT
IT UP AND THEN.
YOU IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE DONE
INVESTIGATION NOW IT'S UP TO THE
THE PANEL THAT YOU JUST -- DON'T
PARTICIPATE WOULDN'T THAT
EFFECTIVELY GET AT THE ROOT THIS
IS THE SEPARATION THAT YOU'RE
ASKING.
FOR IT IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY DO
THAT HOWEVER THAT IS NOT WHAT
OUR CONSTITUTION ALLOWS FOR
CURRENTLY THE CONSTITUTION SAYS
THAT THE COMMISSION CJ P. AS THE
COMMISSIONERS AS A BODY. TO BE
INVOLVED IN ALL OF THE PROCESS.
FROM SO BUT THEY MAKE IT.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT EVERY
COMMISSIONER HAS SERVICE I READ
IT YOU SEE EVERY COMMISSIONER
HAS.
TO DO EVERY INVESTIGATION.
THEY MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT
WHETHER IN THE INVESTIGATION
GOES FORWARD.
THEY MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT IT BUT FORMA
DISCIPLINE SHOULD HAPPEN THEY
HEAR THE THE JUDGES WHEN THE
JUDGES COME FORWARD AND SAY YOU
KNOW I I DISAGREE OR I WANT TO
PRESENT SOME EVIDENCE.
SO THEY'RE INVOLVED IN ALL THE
STAGES OF THE PROCESS.
WE ALSO TO TALK TALK TO CJ P.
ABOUT SOME OF THOSE POTENTIAL
ALTERNATIVES AND THE BIGGEST
CONCERN THAT THEY EXPRESSED WAS
LOGISTICS.
IN TERMS OF FIGURING OUT HOW TO
BEST MANAGER SYSTEM LIKE THAT
SOME OF THESE CASES CAN GO ON
FOR MULTIPLE YEARS.
AND SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR
THEM TO MANAGE HAVING
COMMISSIONERS BE INVOLVED IN ONE
PART OF THE PROCESS THOSE
COMMISSIONERS MIGHT TERM OUT.
AND THEN -- WOULDN'T BE
AVAILABLE TO BE INVOLVED IN THEM
THE REST OF THE PROCESS AND SO --
IT WAS LOGISTICAL REASONS THAT
ALTERNATELY LET US TO ACCEPTING
BEST PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING
A BICAMERAL STRUCTURE.
I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE
ROLE OF THE SUPERVISOR WHY WOULD
YOU NEED SUPERVISOR IF FOR ALL
COULD BE HAPPY DOING ALL THE
INVESTIGATION TO MAKE ALL
DECISIONS.
WHEN I I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD
THE ROLE THE SUPERVISOR -- IF
YOU IF YOU HAVE THE JUDGES TO IN
THAT THE EVIDENTIARY.
EVIDENTIAL.
THREE PORTION OF IT AND THEN YOU
HAVE [inaudible]
THE COMMISSION.
ADJUDICATING NOW YOU'RE SAYING I
THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING IS THAT NO THE
COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO BE
INVOLVED FROM DAY.
ONE AND THEY HAVE TO BE IN THE
COURTHOUSE WATCHING OBSERVING
THE JUDGES.
WHAT BENEFIT IS THAT SAID SO TO
CLARIFY?
THE COMMISSION IS INVOLVEDAT
THE KEY DECISION POINTS IN A
CASE SO THE A COMPLAINT IS
RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION IT'S
REVIEWED INITIALLY BY ITS INTAKE
STAFF WHO REACH A PRELIMINARY
CONCLUSION ABOUT WHETHER THERE
SHOULD BE AN INVESTIGATION OR
NOT.
THAT'S THE FIRST DECISION POINT
AT WHICH THE COMMISSION IS
INVOLVED AND AND MAKES A
DECISION AS A BODY -- BUT NO
THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT ACTING
AS THE INVESTIGATOR IN SO FAR AS
THEIR OUT AT THE COURTHOUSE IS
DOING THE THE BOOTS ON THE
GROUND WORK THEMSELVES THEY HAVE
IT A STAFF OF INVESTIGATORS TO
DO THAT FOR THEM.
THE PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATIVE
SUPERVISOR POSITION IS TO ENSURE
THAT THE WORK DONE BY THOSE SIX
INVESTIGATORS AS OF THE HIGHEST
QUALITY AS TIME IT'S CRAZINESS
MENTIONED.
WE FOUND PROBLEMS WITH THE
THOROUGHNESS OF THE INVESTING
SOME OF THE INVESTIGATIONS WE
REVIEWED ABOUT A THIRD OF THOSE
INVESTIGATIONS WE FELT LIKE WERE
NOT THOROUGHLY CONDUCTED.
THAT'S WHAT THE INVESTIGATIVE
SUPERVISOR WOULD INSURE SO THAT.
WHEN THE INVESTIGATORS COME BACK
TO THE COMMISSION AND PRESENT
THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EITHER
CLOSING THE INVESTIGATION WITH
NO FURTHER ACTION OR -- ISSUING
DISCIPLINE THAT THE COMMISSION
CAN HAVE ALL AVAILABLE
INFORMATION AND MAKE A FULLY
INFORMED DECISION.
SO LET'S TALK ABOUT MAYBE.
MIKE HOUSE KEYS EXAMPLE. FOR
EXAMPLE THAT YOU BROUGHT UP
EARLIER ABOUT THE ON PAGE.
FOUR WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT.
I GUESS NUMBER EIGHT FOR YOUR
FIVE FOR THE JUDGE CENTER
THERE'S BEEN SOME MEDIA
ATTENTION ON THIS AS WELL --
THOSE SERIOUS WITH THE COLORS
YEARS BREACH OF MISCONDUCT.
AND THE TEAM DIDN'T.
CJ P. A THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT
IS BASICALLY DRAG THEIR FEET.
IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY DOING
ANYTHING -- AT THE END OF THE
DAY THEY DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING
BUT THE JUDGE STILL -- ABDICATED
HIS ROLE SO IN.
A BICAMERAL SYSTEM HOW WOULD
THAT ACTUALLY WORK AS OPPOSED.
TO THE UNITARY -- THE UNITARY AT
CAROL SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE NOW.
MAYBE OUR PROVIDE SOME CLARITY
AND RIGHT SO WE CAN WE CAN UE
THE INFORMATION ON PAGE FOR THIS
STEP THROUGH HOW IT WOULD WORK
IN A BY CAMEL SITUATION SO -- IN
THE BY CAMEL STRUCTURE THAT WERE
SUGGESTING THE WORK THAT IS DONE
BEFORE THE DECISION WHETHER
DISCIPLINE SHOULD BE ISSUED OR
NOT WHAT ALL HAPPENED ON THE
INVESTIGATIVE SIDE OF THE HOUSE
SO IN LOOKING AT PAGE.
FOUR COMPLAINTS ONE THROUGH.
WELL REALLY WANT ONE THROUGH
EIGHT ALL OF THE INVESTIGATIVE
WORK.
BY THE INVESTIGATIVE BODY THEY
WOULD HAVE A STAFF.
PROBABLY THE SAME STAFF THAT THE
COMMISSION CURRENTLY HAS.
THAT WOULD DO THE INVESTIGATIVE
GROUNDWORK.
HOWEVER IF THOSE INVESTIGATORS
FELT LIKE DISCIPLINE WAS MERITED
OTHER WORDS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY
PROOF THAT THE JUDGE HAD ENGAGED
IN MISCONDUCT.
THEY WOULD THEN MAKE A REFERRAL
TO THE DISCIPLINARY BODY WHO
WOULD THEN OPINE ON ONE THING
AND ONE THING ONLY WHICH IS
BASICALLY WHAT LEVEL OF
DISCIPLINE IS MERITED HERE GIVEN
THE PROVEN MISCONDUCT.
SO.
IN THE SITUATION OF COMPLAINTS
SEVEN AND EIGHT WERE AN
INVESTIGATION IS OPENED THAT
WOULD BE AN INVESTIGATION OPEN
BY THE INVESTIGATIVE BODY.
NGUYEN COMPLAINANT EIGHT
SUBMITTED THE TRANSCRIPTS THAT
MUST CRAZINESS TALKED ABOUT
EARLIER THAT WERE ENDED ENDED UP
BEING THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT.
I AM IS THAT SIMPLY THERE'S A
COURT TRANSCRIPT THAT PROVED THE
JUDGE AND ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT.
THEN THE INVESTIGATIVE BODY
WOULD REFER THAT TO THE
DISCIPLINARY SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
THEY WOULD HAVE ONLY ACCESS TO
THE PROVEN ALLEGATIONS SO FOR
INSTANCE IF COMPLAINING EIGHT
ALLEGED SEVERAL OTHER INSTANCES
OF MISCONDUCT THAT WERE NOT
PROVEN THE DISCIPLINARY BODY
WOULD NOT BE PRIVY TO THAT
INFORMATION.
THEY WOULD ONLY KNOW WHAT THE
COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATIVE BODY
HAD.
LAIN CAM INTEGRATE SUBSTANTIATED.
AND THEN THEY WOULD MAKE A
DISCIPLINARY DECISION.
SERVICE SAY THE INVESTIGATIVE
BODY THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE
TAINTED BECAUSE ACTUALLY
REVIEWING ALL OF THE FACTS OF
THE SOME OF THOSE THINGS WERE
JUST BEST FOR THE DISCIPLINARY.
OKAY WITH THAT WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE TO SENATOR JACKSON THEN
SENATOR MINING THAN SENATOR COPY
AT ALL.
SO CENTER JACKSON PLEASE AND I'M
GONNA HAND OVER THE GAVEL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH --
APPRECIATE THIS -- AGAIN LONG
TIME IN COMING -- THE THE
PROPOSITION WHICH REFLECTED A
PUBLIC THE PUBLIC'S.
DESIRE TO BE MORE.
HAVE A MORE OPEN AND ROBUST
JUDICIARY -- I THINK WAS VERY
IMPORTANT AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
POINTING OUT.
THE INHERENT UNFAIRNESS OF THE
UNICAMERAL SYSTEM.
WE HAVE BEEN IRONICALLY TOLD BY --
THE COURTS THAT -- IN SITUATIONS
UNDER A PROP.
TITLE NINE WHEN WE'VE HAD --
UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES HAVE A
UNICAMERAL TYPE PROCESS THAT THE
INVESTIGATOR WAS ALSO THE THE
DAY THE FACT FINDER AND THE
DISCIPLINARY -- THAT THAT WAS A
VIOLATION TO PROCESS.
AND OF COURSE WE HAVE A VERY
SIMILAR THE ANALOGY I THINK IS
QUITE SIMILAR HERE AND AS WAS
POINTED OUT.
WHEN YOU'RE A RECIPIENT OF
UNCONFIRMED AN UNSUBSTANTIATED
ALLEGATIONS TO BE ALSO THE ONE
HEARING THE ACTUAL PROCEEDING
AND THEN MAKING A DISCIPLINARY
DECISION REALLY DOES VIOLATE TO
PROCESS SO?
I I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT.
THAT THAT IS PART OF YOUR
RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT THAT
IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE JUDGES --
IN THE PROCESS.
WHAT WHAT CONCERNS ME IS A
COUPLE THINGS THAT I ALLUDED TO
OUR IN MY OPENING REMARKS?
WHAT IS MISCONDUCT?
I'D I THINK THAT THAT'S
SOMETHING WE REALLY HAVE TO BORE
DOWN ON BECAUSE FREQUENTLY WHAT
WE SEE IS WE SEE LITIGANTS WHO
ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE DECISION.
THAT COMES DOWN FROM THE COURT.
AND WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO SORT
OF SEPARATE THAT BECAUSE THERE
IS A PROCESS NOW TO CALL THE
APPELLATE PROCESS WHERE IF
YOU'RE DISSATISFIED WITH THE
DECISION IT'S REACHED YOU CAN
REACH YOU CAN APPEAL.
AND THAT I THINK WE ALL WANT TO
SEE.
SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT WE WE BY
VERY THE VERY NATURE OF THE
PROCEEDING SHOULD BE TALKING
ABOUT.
THE BEHAVIOR.
COURT MORE THAN THE DECISION OF
THE COURT.
AND AND SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU --
IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS HERE AND
ANALYSES OF THE THE FUNCTIONING
OF THIS SHE JP TOOK A LOOK AT
WHAT REALLY IS THE ISSUE HERE --
AND THAT IS WHETHER JUDGES ARE
RUDE TO LITIGANTS -- WHETHER
THEY ARE BEHAVING IN AN
INAPPROPRIATE WAY AS A AS A
JUDGE OR AS A HUMAN BEING WE'VE
HEARD SOME HORRIFIC STORIES
ABOUT THINGS THAT HAVE GONE ON
AGAIN BY SMALL HOPEFULLY SMALL
MINORITY OF JUDGES BUT FOR WHICH
ACTION CLEARLY.
IS APPROPRIATE.
SO WE HAVE BEHAVIOR WE HAVE
TEMPERAMENT -- I HAVE BEEN
YELLED AT BY JUDGES AND NOT BEEN
VERY HAPPY AT IT AND COURSE YOU
CAN'T YELL BACK IF YOU HAVE ANY
OUNCE OF COMMON SENSE -- AND
THESE CAN BE PATTERNS THAT THAT
COME FORWARD A LOT OF THIS
THOUGH IT SEEMS TO ME CAN BE
RESOLVED THROUGH.
THE EDUCATION PROCESS.
AND YOU INDICATED WHICH I WASN'T
AWARE OF THAT THE COURT AT THAT
THE C. JP DOESN'T HAVE THE
AUTHORITY. TO REQUIRE THAT I
THINK MOST JUDGES WANT TO DO A
GOOD JOB I THINK -- I RECALL.
I KNEW WHO SUFFERED -- US OF
YOUR BLOOD SUGAR PROBLEMS SO IF
YOU HAPPEN TO BE IN COURT A
QUARTERTO TWELVE WITH THE JUDGE.
YOU WERE LIKELY.
TO IT HAVE SOME KIND OF
INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR BECAUSE
HIS BLOOD SUGAR WAS TOO LOW --
SIMPLE THINGS LIKE THAT THAT CAN
BE ADDRESSED I THINK
APPROPRIATELY THROUGH EDUCATION.
BUT I'M I'M CURIOUS WHEN YOU
TALK ABOUT.
THE INITIAL DECISION MAKER WHO
IS THE INTAKE PERSON.
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN THE INTAKE
PERSON COMES IN AND AND DECIDES --
WHETHER OR NOT TO GO FORWARD.
DID YOU EXAMINE THE KINDS OF
THINGS THAT THE INTAKE PERSON IS
TRAINED TO LOOK FOR SO THAT WE
CAN -- DIFFERENTIATE YOU KNOW
WHEN WE HAVE HERE -- THE
STATEMENT THAT -- THE COMMISSION
HAS WEAKNESSES IN ITS OVERSIGHT
CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT TO PERSIST
THAT IMPLIES THAT THERE IS A LOT
OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.
I THINK TO THE PUBLIC SO I THINK
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS BE MORE
CLEAR AND HOW WE DEFINE WHAT IS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OR WHAT IS
JUST DECISION MAKING THAT
LITIGANTS.
DON'T LIKE CAN CAN YOU RESPOND
TO THAT [inaudible]
YEAH.
SO. TO YOUR POINT JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT IS A VIOLATION OF THE
CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS AND ONE
OF THE CORE RESPONSIBILITIES OF
THE INTAKE ATTORNEYS AT C. JP.
IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A
COMPLAINANT HAS ACTUALLY ALLEGE
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.
MANY OF THE COMPLAINTS I THINK
IT'S OVER 90% OF THE COMPLAINTS
YOU J. P. RECEIVES ARE ACTUALLY
CLOSED IT INTAKE. ONE OF THE
MAIN REASONS WE SAW FOR THAT IS
BECAUSE THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT
ALLEGING JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
THEY'RE ALLEGING -- CONCERNED
WITH THE OUTCOME OF THEIR CASE
IT'S CALLED LEGAL ERROR AND SO
WE DID LOOK INTO THOSE TYPES OF
CASES AND WE HAVE SOME.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO SEE JP ABOUT
TRACKING JUDGES WHO HAVE
CONSISTENTLY RECEIVED COMPLAINTS
ABOUT LEGAL AIR BUT YOU ARE
CORRECT IN THAT MANY OF THE
COMPLAINTS YOU J. P. RECEIVES
ARE NOT ABOUT JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT. NINETY PERCENTS
PRETTY HIGH NUMBER NOT JUST MANY
SO I THINK THE PART OF WHAT WE
NEED TO DO TO IS TO EDUCATE THE
PUBLIC.
OUR END IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
THINGS ONLINE I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT.
THAT WE IDENTIFY CHEST WHAT THE
C. JP'S ROLE IS AND IF THEY ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT A DECISION THAT
THEY SHOULD SEEK COUNSEL LORD
THAT THERE ARE OTHER AVENUES
AVAILABLE. FOR THEM TO PURSUE.
I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT
DEFINING ELEMENT AS WELL IS IT
NOT ABSOLUTELY CENTER JACKSON
THAT'S WHY WE SKEWS ME HAD THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY NEED TO
DO A BETTER JOB OF CONDUCTING
OUTREACH TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
SO THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC
UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND
BEING DISAPPOINTED IN THE
OUTCOME OF YOUR CASE -- AND WHEN
WE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT SOME OF
THE A LOT OF THE CASES THAT WERE
CLOSE THE MEN MAJORITY THE CASES
THAT WERE CLOSED WERE FILED BY
THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THEY WORK.
SUBMITTING INFORMATION THAT WAS
RELEVANT TO THE JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT OR VIOLATION OF THE
CODE YOU JUDICIAL ETHICS -- SO
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THERE
NEEDS TO BE GUIDANCE OUT THERE
FOR THE PUBLIC TO REALLY
UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN BETWEEN.
NOT BEING HAPPY WITH THE OUTCOME
OF YOUR CASE AND WHAT REALLY IS --
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT MY LAST
QUESTION AND I DID.
OKAY PLEASE SENATOR RICK CASKEY.
ON THE FOLLOWING UP ON THAT YOU
HAVE A SECTION.
TALK ABOUT THE INITIAL TAKE
SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE DID YOU
GET INTO A DISCUSSION ON LEGAL
AIR. ONE SEVEN ORALLY.
I MANAGING THE COMPLAINT IS THE
INITIAL CASTLE BC BOB.
IT.
WILL BE ALRIGHT JUDICIAL ERROR
IT'S NOT A CONTACT US TODAY
RIGHT -- IS THE PEOPLE OF OUR
TIMES.
THE MOBILE CHURN THAT SHOULD
TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE
TWENTY FIRST.
IT DOESN'T.
WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT.
PROBLEM ONE NINETY AND HAVING.
NON LAWYERS IN THE MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC LOOK AT THIS.
AIR AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE
RULES THAT THE CHURCH IF YOU
TALK ABOUT THE INDEPENDENCE OF
THE JUDICIARY WHEN YOU'RE GOING
TO AT LEAST.
YOU INDICATE THAT THE PROBLEM
ONE OF THE REQUIRES MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC TO BE HERE LOOKING AT
THE YEARS OF LEGAL LEGAL AIR.
HOW OTHER GOOD GREASY ONE NINETY
HOW COULD THAT POSSIBLY BE?
WE HAVE.
PEOPLE LOOKING AT WHETHER OR YOU
WILL HAVE TO SAY I DON'T KNOW
WHY I DO THAT.
A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS I THINK
IN RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION SO
ONE WOULD BE THAT THE THE
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD
COMPRISE THE MAJORITY OF THE
COMMISSION -- DO CURRENTLY
COMPRISE THE MAJORITY THE
COMMISSION THEY'RE NOT DOING
THAT WITHOUT -- JUDGE MEMBERS AN
ATTORNEY MEMBERS SO THAT'S
THAT'S ONE THE IT'S A DELIBERATE
OF PROCESS THEY ENGAGE IN
DISCUSSION AND AND HOPEFULLY
THAT DISCUSSIONS EDUCATIONAL TO
THE COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO MAY
NOT HAVE -- SPECIFIC TRAINING OR
BACKGROUND.
A SECOND THING THAT WOULD BE
THAT THE TYPE OF DECISIONS THAT
THE COMMISSION MAKES ARE NOT
DECISIONS.
WHETHER TO OVERTURN A JUDICIAL
DECISION OR NOT THAT'S THE
APPELLATE COURT'S ROLE ONLY AN
APPELLATE COURT CAN CHANGE THE
ACTUAL DECISION MADE BY THE
JUDGE IN A PARTICULAR CASE.
WITH THE COMMISSION IS CONCERNED
ABOUT AND WHAT WE NEED THE
COMMISSION TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT
IS WHETHER A JUDGE HAS ENGAGED
IN SUCH A PERVASIVE PATTERN OF
MAKING A LEGAL ERROR.
OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME
THAT'S THE DATA THAT WE WANT
THEM COLLECTING IN REVIEWING.
HAS THIS JUDGE DEMONSTRATED OVER
OF A CONSISTENT PERVASIVE PERIOD
OF TIME THAT THE JUDGE.
MAY BE ENGAGING IN LEGAL AIR
THAT INDICATES SOME OTHER FACTOR
INVOLVED BIASES ONE OF THEM IT
COULD ALSO BE -- INCOMPETENT
SOMETHING THAT INDICATES THAT
THIS GOES BEYOND UST -- AN
ERROR CONDUCTED WITH THE FULL
INTEGRITY AND INTEND TO DO WELL
AT IN THEIR ROLE AS IT AS A
JUDGE -- THE CAP WILL NEED TO
SET YOU KNOW STANDARDS FOR HOW
IT'S GOING TO TRY AND ESTABLISH
IN A WIN IF WE CROSS THAT
THRESHOLD WHEN WE CROSSED THE
THRESHOLD -- TO AT LEAST OPEN AN
INVESTIGATION AND ASK FURTHER
QUESTIONS OR WHEN IS THIS JUST --
ISOLATED INSTANCES OF LEGAL AIR
COMMITTED IN GOOD FAITH.
WELL BUT PART OF THE PROBLEM
THERE IS WHO DECIDES WHAT'S
LEGAL ERROR.
USUALLY LEGAL THERE IS DECIDED
BY THE APPELLATE COURT.
SO AND THIS IS A CONCERN IKNOW
WHEN THE PUBLIC IT IT GETS
INVOLVED IN ALL THE LOS THE LAW --
PEOPLE DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE IT
A IT'S THE JAW THE JOB OF A
JUDGE TO INTERPRET THE LAW TO
APPLY THE LAW.
AND WHEN THE JUDGE DOESN'T TO
WOULD PROPERLY THAT'S WHEN IT
CASES APPEALED AND OVERTURNED ON
APPEAL SO.
I THINK IT'S A VERY FINE LINE
HERE AND I THINK PERHAPS WHAT WE
REALLY NEED TO DO IS FOCUS ON
JUST WHAT JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT IS --
BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE
CJ PIECE OF ENGAGED IN AND BIAS
IS CERTAINLY AN ISSUE AND I KNOW
THE COURTS A WITH THEY HAVE A
SYSTEM OF EDUCATION.
WHERE THEY'RE TRYING -- TO
IDENTIFY YOU KNOW WE ALL HAVE
IMPLICIT BIAS WERE WE ALL HAVE
OUR OWN BIASES AND WE TRY TO
ADDRESS THAT WE'VE GOT
COMMITTEES HERE IN OUR OWN
BUILDING.
A TRYING TO DEAL WITH THAT --
AND PERHAPS THAT'S ANOTHER THING
THAT THE C. JP COULD BE DOING.
THE BILL INTO CAN'T I THINK IS
WHICH WHAT FRUSTRATES THE PUBLIC
IS THE NOTION THAT WE OF THESE
BAD ACTORS WHO CONTINUE TO BE
ABLE -- TO TO RULE THROUGH THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS WITH IMPUNITY.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT PROP.
NINE ONE NINETY I TRY TO ADDRESS.
MY QUESTION THOUGH GOING FORWARD
HERE IS.
IN THE PROCESS IN THE
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT FREQUENTLY
JUDGES ONLY LEARNED THAT AN
INVESTIGATION HAS TAKEN PLACE.
AFTER IT'S DETERMINED THAT THE
COMPLAINT IS JUSTIFIED.
AND I AM WONDERING.
IN THE PROCESS OF INVESTIGATING.
ARE IS THERE ANY EFFORT MADE AS
YOU SAW TO ACTUALLY INTERVIEW
THE JUDGE.
AND AND TO ADDRESS THE
ALLEGATIONS. TO GET THE COURTS
PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT THESE
ALLEGATIONS ARE.
I I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY SOME
JUDGES THEY'VE GOTTEN BLINDSIDED
GET IS A LETTER PLEASE APPEAR
YOU BEEN ACUSED OF X. Y. AND Z.
WE FIND THAT THERE'S OF THAT YOU
KNOW THAT IT'S A VALID OR THEIR
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO INDICATE
THIS BEHAVIOR.
WHAT DO YOU SAY AND IF YOU DON'T
LIKE IT YOU CAN HAVE A PUBLIC
HEARINGS WHICH I SUSPECT FOR
MANY JUDGES IS NOT AN OPTION
BECAUSE?
PARTICULARLY IN SMALL
COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BE THE
END OF THEIR CAREER.
AND MY CONCERN IS THAT IT MIGHT
IMPACT THEIR ABILITY.
TO DISPENSE JUSTICE AS THEY
LEGITIMATELY AND INDEPENDENTLY
FEEL IS APPROPRIATE SO COULD YOU
RESPOND TO THAT.
YES -- SO WE DID SEE CJ P..
CONTACTING JUDGES DURING
INVESTIGATIONS NOT NECESSARILY
IN AN IN PERSON INTERVIEW BUT
THEY WILL SEND LETTERS USUALLY
AFTER CONDUCTING SOME
INVESTIGATIVE WORK BELIEVE IT
WAS TWENTY ONE OF THE THIRTY
CASES WE REVIEWED THEY CONTACTED
THE JUDGE.
AND WHEN THEY CONTACT THE JUDGE
THEY'RE LAYING OUT WHAT THE
ALLEGATION IS WHAT EVIDENCE
THEY'VE COLLECTED TO THAT POINT
AND BASICALLY ASKING THE JUDGE
FOR THEIR PERSPECTIVE ON THAT
ALLEGATION.
IF THE JUDGE PROVIDES THEM WITH
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR INFIRM.
THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE THE
DECISION TO NOT MOVE FORWARD
WITH THAT CASE AND CLOSE THAT
CASE WITHOUT DISCIPLINE AND WE
SAW THAT HAPPEN IN SOME OF THE
CASES THAT WE REVIEWED -- DO YOU
HAVE ANYTHING.
SB DIDN'T SEE ANY INSTANCES OF
JUDGES BEING CALLED.
TO APPEAR WITHOUT ANY
OPPORTUNITY DATE DO EXACTLY WHAT
WAS CRAZINESS ALSO EXPLAINED IN
AN I THINK IT'S A THE FINAL
THING THAT I WOULD HIGHLIGHT IS
THE INSTANCES WHERE WE SAW
JUDGES WERE NOT CONTACTED IT'S
BECAUSE THE COMMISSION DECIDED
THERE WAS NO SUBSTANCE TO THE
ALLEGATIONS.
SO IT'S NOT AS THOUGH DISCIPLINE
JUST HAPPENED OUT OF NO WHERE IN
THOSE NINE INSTANCES WHERE THE
JUDGES NEVER CONTACTED IS
ACTUALLY.
THERE'S NOT EVEN A POINTS TO
CONTACTING TO THE JUDGE HERE
THERE'S NOTHING TO TO DISCUSS
ANY FURTHER.
SENATOR MONNING THANK YOU.
THANK YOU A MADAM CHAIR.
WELL I WANT TO START BY THANKING --
THE AUDITOR AND YOUR TEAM -- FOR
ASSEMBLING WHAT I THINK IS VERY
USEFUL.
AUDIT AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
THAT PROVIDE US THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PROVE. TO ENGAGE IN ARE BOTH
APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT AND
POTENTIALLY ON OUR FUTURE
LEGISLATIVE ROLE IN IN SEEKING.
TO FIND. TO THE PURSUE SOME OF
THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
A QUESTION IN TERMS ONE OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS IS.
NO ABILITY TO FILE AN ELECTRONIC
COMPLAINT.
IN THE CURRENT COMPLAINT PROCESS
IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR AN
ATTORNEY OR A COURT ROOM STAFF
TO FILE AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT
OR DO THEY HAVE TO ATTACH THEIR
NAME. TO THE COMPLAINT FOR TO BE
ACTED UPON.
WE SAW INDIVIDUALS WHO SUBMITTED
ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS CGP
RECOMMENDS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL
COMPLAINING ATTACHED THEIR NAME
SO WE CAN FOLLOW UP IF IT DOES
CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION TO GET
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -- BUT
THERE IS AN OPTION OF FILING
ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS.
IN AS YOU CAN IMAGINE ONE OF THE
PROBLEMS.
FOR AN OFFICER OF THE COURT AN
ATTORNEY. TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN
[inaudible]
AGAINST.
A SITTING JUDGE IN THEIR
JURISDICTION.
IS A FEAR OF RETALIATION.
IN A FROM A DUE PROCESS POINT OF
VIEW IF A COMPLAINT MOVES
FORWARD I CAN SEE THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE ACCUSED.
HAVING THE ABILITY.
TO IF NOT DIRECTLY CROSS EXAMINE
TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE
COMPLAINTS COMING FROM.
RESPOND TO IT -- BUT I'VE HEARD
FROM.
PRACTICING ATTORNEYS WITH
PROBLEMS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.
AND I I I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR'S
CONCERN OF MAYBE A GRAY AREA BUT
I WOULD THINK IN THE ORIENTATION
OF THE INVESTIGATIVE -- PANEL
WHETHER IT'S A STAFF
INVESTIGATOR WAR WAR
COMMISSIONERS.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT IS DIFFERENT
THAN DISSATISFACTION WITH A
LEGAL OPINION -- YOU HAVE
YELLING AT LITIGANTS
RELATIONSHIP WITH A SUBORDINATE
IN THE COURT ROOM.
IMPROPERLY BARRING ENTRY TO THE
COURTROOM DELEGATING JUDICIAL
ROLE TO CLERKS THREATENING TO
ASSAULT LITIGANTS.
THAT'S JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.
THAT THAT DOESN'T TURN ON HOW
THEY DECIDED IN THE CASE IN
FRONT OF THEM -- SO IF THERE'S
ANY.
GRAY AREA -- LACK OF
UNDERSTANDING IT SEEMS LIKE WE
JUST HAVE TO READ.
JUDICIAL ETHICS REQUIREMENTS.
AND HAVE THAT BE PART OF THE
ORIENTATION PROCESS BUT BACK TO
THE QUESTION OF IF YOU EXPAND
EDUCATION.
PUBLIC.
I WOULD AGREE THAT PART OF THAT
HAS TO BE PART OF THAT EDUCATION
WHAT DOES CONSTITUTE JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT.
MY GUESS IS THERE ARE A LOT OF
INMATES IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS
WHO BELIEVE.
THEY WEREN'T TREATED
APPROPRIATELY BASED ON A FINDING
OF GUILT IN A SENTENCING TO
STATE PRISON.
DOESN'T MEAN THERE WAS JUST
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.
BUT FOR THESE EXAMPLES.
IN IN VOTE INVOLVED IN ELEVEN
COMPLAINTS THAT WERE NOT
THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED TO ME
THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT'S IN
FRONT OF US TODAY AND THAT'S
WHERE THE RECOMMENDATIONS GO.
IN MAYBE NOT FOR DISCUSSION
TODAY BUT THIS.
THE ABILITY TO FILE ANONYMOUSLY --
BUT STILL BE CONTACTED
POTENTIALLY BY INVESTIGATORS SO
IN OTHER WORDS YOUR NAME.
COULD YOUR NAME BE MADE
AVAILABLE IN THE COMPLAINT.
BUT NOT NECESSARILY SHARED WITH
THE JUDICIAL OFFICER AGAINST TO
THE COMPLAINTS BEING MADE
WITHOUT.
THE STAFF INVESTIGATOR SEEKING.
THAT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE
COMPLAINANT THE COMPLAINANT MAY
RATHER WITHDRAW THEIR COMPLAINT.
THEN HAVE A GO FORWARD WITH THE
JUDGE.
KNOWING THAT THERE THE ONE
MAKING THE COMPLAINT
PARTICULARLY FOR AN ATTORNEY
PARTICULARLY FOR SOMEBODY WHO
WORKS IN THE COURTS SO.
COULD YOU SPLIT IT THAT WAY WERE
YOU YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN
ANONYMOUS.
BUT FOR A COMPLAINT TO GO
FORWARD THE INVESTIGATOR MIGHT
ADVISE THE COMPLAINANT.
WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE YOUR NAME.
TO PURSUE THE COMPLAINT.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON
THAT SO SEE JP ALREADY.
AT THAT DOES WHAT YOU'RE
DESCRIBING SO THEY WILL RECEIVE
A COMPLAINT IT COULD BE
SUBMITTED TO THEM ANONYMOUSLY
SAID BAY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO'S
COMPLAINING SO THEY DON'T KNOW
WHO TO GO BACK TO RIGHT BUT
THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH
MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH THE
COMPLAINT AND ATTACH AS THEIR
NAME.
HOWEVER IT CJ'S PEAS PRACTICE
NOT TO DISCLOSE THE NAME OF THE
COMPLAINANT TO THE JUDGE IF THEY
CONTACT THE JUDGE AND WE SAW
THEM FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THAT
PRACTICE WHEN THEY CONTACT THE
JUDGE THEY DO NOT NAME THE
COMPLAINANT.
NOW.
OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE PROBABLY
SITUATIONS WHERE.
JUDGES COULD INFER BASED ON
CIRCUMSTANCES AND I DON'T KNOW
WHAT YOU DO ABOUT THAT BUT SEE
IF HE'S NOT ACTIVELY DISCLOSING
THE NAME OF COMPLAINTS.
THANK YOU AND I THINK MAKING
THAT CLEAR NOT JUST TO THE
PUBLIC BUT TO OFFICERS OF THE
COURT MAKING SURE ATTORNEYS.
NO THAT IN COURT STAFF BUT AS
YOU SAY BASED ON THE NATURE.
OF THE ALLEGED CONDUCT NAM THAT
ME.
MAY REVEAL WHO THE COMPLAINANT
IS.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WORTH
NOTING WE DO SEE CJ ALSO -- WE
DID CCG ALSO MAKING CERTAIN
DECISIONS ABOUT WHEN TO COMMENCE
AN INVESTIGATION THAT FACTORED
IN WHETHER PERHAPS THERE WAS AN
ONGOING COURT CASE.
SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE ARE
ASKED IN THIS AUDIT IS DO DOES
HE J. P. DIFFER OR DELAY
INVESTIGATION OF CASES -- OR
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN THE
ANSWER IS YES UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES IF THE COURT CASE
IN QUESTION IS STILL ON GOING
CGP WILL DECIDE TO TO FOR ITS
INVESTIGATION TOLD THE QUé
UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE --
SPECIFICALLY FOR RETALIATORY
CONCERNS ME.
THANK YOU AND AGAIN I THINK.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT FUNCTION
[inaudible]
IS.
IS FOR THIS COMMISSION'S.
WORK TO ALSO.
SERVE TO EDUCATE SITTING JUDGES
ON THE BENCH AND BE A DETERRENT
THAT.
THAT YOU CAN'T GET AWAY WITH
CERTAIN MISCONDUCT IN SOME OF IT
IT'S A LEDGE IS SO EGREGIOUS AND
IF THERE'S A FINDING.
THAT IT IN FACT HAPPENED OR
CONTINUE TO HAPPEN.
THOSE FINDINGS AND DISCIPLINE OR
FROM THE BENCH.
NEED TO BE BROADLY PUBLICIZED.
THROUGHOUT THE JUDICIAL
COMMUNITY -- TO SERVE A
DETERRENT.
PURPOSES WHILE BUT AGAIN I
APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU'RE ALL
DOING IN THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU CENTER MINING US
CENTER CUBBY GYRO FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MADAM CHAIR --
FIRST LET ME SAY THAT I AM
REALLY APPRECIATE THE REPORT --
EIGHT THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN
REGARDS TO THE BICAMERAL SYSTEM
I THINK THAT -- PROBABLY THE WAY
THAT WE NEED TO TO MOVE ON THIS
AND AND THE THE NEED FOR A
ROBUST INTAKE SYSTEM -- I DON'T
THINK THE PUBLIC HAS A CLUE
QUITE FRANKLY I PRACTICE TWENTY
FIVE YEARS IN THE COURT NEVER
SAW ANYTHING THAT INVITES ME.
HOW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT -- AND
PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD
IDEA IN SOME OF THE CASES --
JUST BECAUSE IN ORDER TO GET YOU
TO CHAU TEMPERAMENT IS SO
IMPORTANT IN IN IN.
THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC BUT
ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS IN AND
MAYBE YOU COULD -- ELUCIDATE A
LITTLE BIT IS MY CONCERN WITH
THE TIME THAT IT TOOK.
MANY OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS --
IS IT AN ISSUE OF MONEY.
OR IS IT AN ISSUE I MEAN I MEAN
EVERYTHING IS RECORDED IN IN
MOST OF THE COURTS -- IT'S
EITHER RECORDED OR THERE'S A
REPORTER AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE
INSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE ARE
COMPLAINING ABOUT A JUDGE YOU'D
THINK I'D BE FAIRLY SIMPLE.
TO PULL UP THAT INFORMATION OR
TO GET.
THE WHICH WHO WHOEVER WAS.
IN THE COURTROOM AT THE TIME TO
GET INFORMATION BECAUSE IT'S ALL
ON THE DOCKET AND SO I'M
WONDERING -- I'M WONDERING THAT
NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO IS --
IT'S REALLY CLEAR TO ME THAT THE
SYSTEM HAS TO INCLUDE A TRACKING
SYSTEM AS WELL SO THAT THE
INVESTIGATORS CAN GO BACKWARDS
AND LOOK AT WHETHER THERE'S BEEN
A HISTORY OF COMPLAINTS.
NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO THAT --
IT'S IT'S NOT ONLY.
THAT WE NEED TO DIFFERENTIATE
BEHAVIOR FROM.
FROM -- THE DECISIONS THAT THE
RENDERING.
IT APPEARS TO ME IN THE RESEARCH
THAT YOU DID THAT.
LEGAL ERROR.
IS IT IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT
THE LEGAL HEIR TO FIGURE OUT IF
THERE'S AN IN INHERENT BIAS.
THE THE THE JUDGES EXHIBITING AS
WELL AND IN THE ONLY WAY YOU GET
THERE IS IF THE IF YOU'RE
LOOKING AT A TRACKING SYSTEM
THAT ALLOWS YOU TO GO BACK AND
SEE WHO'S COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS
AND AND IS IT A PATTERN OVER
PEER TYPE SO I'M WONDERING IF
YOU.
COULD COMMENT ON BOTH OF THOSE
THOSE ISSUE AND BOTH OF THOSE BY
THE WAY RELATE TO MONEY AND
THAT'S WHY.
WHY AM QUé I'M FOCUSED ON THAT?
SO WITH REGARD TO THE TIMELINESS
OF INVESTIGATIONS AS I MENTIONED
JUST A MOMENT AGO THERE ARE
TIMES WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE
AN INVESTIGATION FROM ABSOLUTE
START ABSOLUTE FINISH MAYBE
TAKES.
LONGER THAN YOU MIGHT EXPECT AND
THAT MIGHT BE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN
INTENTIONALLY DELAYED -- AS I
MENTIONED BEFORE THERE MAY BE
GOOD REASONS TO DO THAT IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
OUR KEY CONCERN WITH THE
TIMELINESS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS
THOUGH IS THAT THEY WEREN'T AS
SIEGE OF HE'S NOT.
EVEN BOTHERING OR HASN'T BEEN
IDENTIFYING -- AN EXPECTED
LENGTH OF INVESTIGATION THOSE
INVESTIGATIVE STRATEGIES THAT WE
WERE TALKING ABOUT A MOMENT AGO --
ARE SORT OF THE FIRST INDICATOR
FOR WHETHER THERE'D -- MOVING
THROUGH THE INVESTIGATIONS
QUICKLY ENOUGH WE'RE NOT SEEING
THEM PRE PLANNING THOSE
INVESTIGATIONS THESE ARE THE
STEPS I'M GOING TO TAKE IN ABOUT
HOW LONG I THINK BEFORE I'LL BE
DONE -- THAT'S THE IMPORTANT
FIRST STEP IN MAKING SURE THE
INVESTIGATIONS PROCEED IN A
TIMELY FASHION.
OUR TO COLLECTING THE DATA YES I
AM A MORE SUBSTANTIVE -- DATA
SYSTEM WILL ALLOW THEM TO START
TRACKING A MORE SUBSTANTIVE DATA
SYSTEM AND BETTER PRACTICES WITH
CODING THEIR COMPLAINTS SO.
WE DO HAVE A CONCERN THAT THE
LEGAL ERROR CASES WERE NOT BEING
TRACKED APPROPRIATELY EVEN IN
THE EXISTING SYSTEM. TO SEE JP
SHOULD SHORE UP ITS PRACTICES
FOR CODING COMPLAINTS BUT ONCE
THEY HAVE A NEW SYSTEM IT'LL BE
A FAR LESS LABOR INTENSIVE
PROCESS FOR THEM TO RUN TRENDING.
TO LOOK BACKWARDS AND THEN SEE
IF LEGAL AIR IS AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER ISOLATED --
UNDERSTANDABLE BECAUSE IT'S
SOMETHING COMMITTED IN GOOD
FAITH WITHOUT L. INTENT OR
WHETHER IT'S INDICATIVE OF A
PATTERN THAT ACTUALLY
CONSTITUTES MISCONDUCT.
THANK YOU SENATOR ALLEN.
ONCE AGAIN ECHO THE COMMITTEES --
PRAISE FOR THIS REPORT.
BOB I WAS INTERESTED I HAVE YOU
SEEN ANY DISCERNIBLE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN -- COMPLAINTS --
DIRECTED TOWARD JUDGES WHO ARE
ELECTED RATHER THAN APPOINTED.
WE DID THAT TYPE OF AN ANALYSIS
AND WE FOUND NO CORRELATION OF
AMONG THE OUTCOME OF COMPLAINTS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEPENDENT OF
IF THE JUDGE WAS ELECTED OR
APPOINTED LITTLE [inaudible]
NO CORRELATION.
FASCINATING OKAY THANK YOU.
YES ASSEMBLY MEMBER VOEPEL.
THANK YOU CHAIR.
JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON PAGE.
FIFTY ONE ON THE THE SIDE PANEL
IT SAYS WHEN INDIVIDUALS WHO
WERE NOT ATTORNEY SUBMITTED
COMPLAINTS C. J. P. WAS NEARLY
50% MORE LIKELY TO CLOSE THE
COMPLAINTS WITHOUT PERFORMING AN
INVESTIGATION.
COMPARED TO WHEN ATTORNEYS
SUBMITTED THEM NOW ON THE
SURFACE.
FROM OF A LAY PERSON'S VIEWPOINT
THAT WOULD TELL ME IT'S A
STACKED DECK UNLESS YOU'RE
WITHIN THE THE PROFESSION YOU'RE
NOT GOING TO GET A HEARING.
NOW.
WE'RE SENATOR JACKSON'S POINTS
AND OTHER POINTS.
BEING MADE.
THERE.
MUST BE A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND SIMPLY.
SOUR GRAPES ABOUT YOUR OUTCOME
SO IT WAS THAT WHY YOU PUT THIS
IN HERE.
I'M I'M JUST A HAZY ON IT NO
THIS IS TO SO.
WE FOUND THIS FACT IN SUPPORT OF
OUR CONCLUSION THAT CJ BE COULD
BE DOING MORE TO EDUCATE PEOPLE
ABOUT WHAT JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
IS AND ABOUT WHAT INFORMATION IT
NEEDS TO SUBMIT.
ORDER FOR ITS COMPLAINT TO BE
FORWARDED ON TO AN INVESTIGATION --
CERTAINLY AS WE KNOW IN THE
REPORT ON THIS PAGE THERE ARE
REASONS WHY -- ATTORNEYS FOR A
PEOPLE WHO ARE AROUND THE
COURTHOUSE IS MORE OFTEN THAN
THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULD BE MADE.
THEY MAY JUST OBSERVE JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT MORE FREQUENTLY DUE
TO THAT PROXIMITY BUT WE DO
THINK THAT THIS INDICATES THAT
CGP COULD BE DOING MORE TO
EDUCATE THE GENERAL PUBLIC AGAIN
AS I SAID WHAT IS MISCONDUCT.
AND ALSO WHAT INFORMATION DOES
IT NEED OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
SPECIFICALLY IS IN THE DIRECTION
OF PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF WHAT A
HIGH QUALITY COMPLAINT LOOKS
LIKE.
INDICATE CLEARLY THAT YOU DO
WANT -- INDIVIDUALS TO SUBMIT
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IF THEY
DO HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW THE
WEBSITES MORE SUGGESTIVE THAN IT
IS IN ON SORT OF REALLY SAYING
YES GIVE THAT TO US.
SO THAT'S WHY WE MADE THIS
OBSERVATION IS IN SUPPORT OF
BETTER PUBLIC EDUCATION
[inaudible]
THE TEACHER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I THINK
WHEN.
LAWYERS AND THOSE AROUND THE
COURTHOUSE ACTUALLY LODGE A
COMPLAINT.
HE DO SO BECAUSE OF THEY DO SO
AT THEIR OWN PERIL.
IN MANY RESPECTS THAT'S WHERE
THEY DO THE THAT'S WHERE THEY
CONDUCT THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND IF
THE COURT.
WERE TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT
WHICH IS WHY I APPRECIATE THAT
THERE IS SOME ANONYMITY -- IT
COULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.
ON THE OTHER HAND.
THE QUESTION ABOUT WHEN YOU
ENGAGE THE COURT TO DIRECTLY
INQUIRE -- FOR EXAMPLE A
COMPLAINT HASBEEN LARGE THAT%
YOU CONTINUALLY HARASS -- JURY
PANELS AND DEMEAN THEM WHAT IS
YOUR PROCESS WHAT ARE YOU DOING.
I WONDER IF IF WE ENGAGE THE
COURTS EARLIER WE MIGHT NOT BE
ABLE TO REMEDY THAT BEHAVIOR
PARTICULARLY IF WE NOW ADD TO
THE C. J. P. -- AUTHORITY THE
ABILITY TO DO THAT EDUCATION AND
TRAINING.
OUR THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT
WILL HELP.
I I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IT IN IT
HAPPENS IN MANY PROFESSIONS YOU
DO SOMETHING LONG ENOUGH YOU YOU
LOSE SIGHT OF OF THE CONTEXT OF
YOUR BEHAVIOR SOMETIMES AND HOW
YOU'RE PERCEIVED BY THE BY THE
PUBLIC AND JUST GETTING THAT.
ADDITIONAL TRAINING OR EDUCATION
OR ESSENTIALLY BEING CALLED OUT
FOR IT CAN MAKE ALL THE
DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD SO I
HOPE THAT SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE
LOOK AT SEEING NO OTHER
QUESTIONS ARE THANK YOU VERY
MUCH VERY HELPFUL I THINK A VERY
POSITIVE.
WE FINALLY DID GET THIS.
AUDIT CHEN I'M VERY GLAD THAT
YOU PERSISTED AND THAT MY
COLLEAGUES ALSO.
IN IN MAKING SURE THAT WE GOT --
THAT INFORMATION AND AND WITH
THAT I'D LIKE TO CALL UP THE
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE.
AND WOULD NOTE THAT WE NOW HAVE
A FAIRLY NEW.
LEADERSHIP DAD AS I UNDERSTAND
HAS TAKEN THIS AUDIT VERY
SERIOUSLY -- AND IS IMPLEMENTING.
THE REFORMS THAT WERE
RECOMMENDED AS WELL SO -- I'M
SUPPOSED TO ALSO REMIND YOU THAT
YOU HAVE -- UP TO TEN MINUTES
FOR OPENING COMMENTS.
AND THEN WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS
GOOD GOOD MORNING MORNING THANK
YOU -- SENATOR JACKSON'S --
MEMBERS OF THE OF THE COMMITTEES --
I'M GREGORY DRESSER I'VE BEEN
THE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF COUNSEL
OF THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE SENSE.
A JANUARY OF LAST YEAR I'M HERE
WITH -- CHARLENE DRUMMER WHO'S
THE LEGAL ADVISER TO THE
COMMISSION -- YOU HEARD A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT HER POSITION IN THE
PRIOR PRESENTATION AND ALSO WITH --
CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION ON NEED
TO MISSION MORE WHO IS A
PRACTICING ATTORNEY I'LL TRY TO
KEEP A CALM COMMENTS A VERY
BRIEF AS YOU ALL KNOW.
OF THE COMMISSION IS AN
INDEPENDENT STATE AGENCY THAT
WAS A STOP.
BY THE CONSTITUTION AS THE AUDIT
REPORT NOTED ANY FUNDAMENTAL
CHANGES TO THE AUTHORITY OF OR
STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION --
HOUSE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY --
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THE TH
THE THREE PURPOSES OF THE
COMMISSION WHICH I KNOW EACH
COMMISSION MEMBER TAKES VERY
SERIOUSLY ARE. TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC. TO UPHOLD HIGH STANDARDS
OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT.
AND TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC
CONFIDENCE IN JUDICIAL
INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY.
AND YOU ALL YOURSELVES SPOKE
ABOUT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
EARLIER AND I COULD NOT PUT IT
BETTER AS I LIKE TO SAY TO MY
FRIENDS -- JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE YOU
MAY NOT NOTICE IT AND ALSO LIKE
OXYGEN YOU MAY NOT NOTICE IT BUT
YOU ARE SAD WHEN BOTH ARE GONE --
IS SO IT IN THE IN THE
CONSTITUTION THAT THE
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT THE
COMMISSION -- CAN MAKE RULES FOR
CONFIDENTIALITY AND IT HAS DONE
THAT -- DICK CONFIDENTIALITY
SERVES AT LEAST TWO IMPORTANT
PURPOSES ONE IT PROTECTS THE
IDENTITY.
PLANETS AND WITNESSES WHO MIGHT
NOT OTHERWISE COMPLAIN TO THE
COMMISSION.
IT ALSO ALLOWS THE COMMISSION TO
OBTAIN.
EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION FROM
COMPLAINANTS AND WITNESSES.
AND REPORTS OF MISCONDUCT THAT
THAT PEOPLE OTHERWISE MIGHT NOT
MAKE THEY WOULD NOT MAKE IT IF
WE COULD NOT GUARANTEE THEM
CONFIDENTIALITY.
CONFIDENTIALITY ALSO PREVENTS
FALSE RUMORS ABOUT JUDGES IT
PROTECTS THE FAIRNESS OF THE
COMMISSION'S PROCESS IN IT ALSO
PREVENTS THE USE OF COMPLAINTS
TO THE COMMISSION. FOR THE
IMPROPER COLLATERAL PURPOSE OF
AFFECTING WHAT GOES ON IN COURT
OR WHO JUDGES ON A PARTICULAR
CASE -- JUST SOME -- DETAILS
ABOUT THE COMMISSION -- AND
AGAIN I I KNOW THAT YOU ALL KNOW
THEM BUT JUST -- TO JUST PUT
THEM ALL OUT THERE THERE ARE
LEFT THERE ARE ELEVEN COMMISSION
MEMBERS SIX OF THEM ARE MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC. TWO OF THEM ARE
ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE BEEN
PRACTICING -- IN CALIFORNIAFOR
MORE THAN TEN YEARS. TWO OF THEM
ARE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES AND
ONE IS A COURT OF APPEAL JUSTICE
ALL OF THE COMMISSIONMEMBERS.
ARE VOLUNTEERS.
COMMISSIONHAVE FOR OF FOR A
VOLUNTEER COMMISSION THE
COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE A VERY
HEAVY WORKLOAD I WOULD ESTIMATE
THAT -- ON THE MODEST SIDE
COMMISSION MEMBERS SPEND TWO TO
THREE HUNDRED HOURS A YEAR ON ON
COMMISSION WORK ON UNCOMPENSATED
BASIS.
ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION'S IN THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH -- FOR OF THE
COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED
BY THE GOVERNOR FOR OUR
APPOINTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH AND THE THREE JUDGES WHO
ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION
ARE APPOINTED BY.
THE SUPREME COURT.
THE COMMISSION IS A SMALL AGENCY
THE COMMISSION HAS TWENTY TWO
EMPLOYEES INCLUDING MS DRUMMER
AND MYSELF FOURTEEN OF WHOM --
OUR ATTORNEYS -- LAST YEAR -- WE
WHEN WE APPEARED BEFORE -- THE
ASSEMBLY -- BUDGET COMMITTEE AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER STONE WE THERE
WERE -- SERIOUS CONCERNS
EXPRESSED ABOUT ON THE LAWSUIT
THAT WAS THEN PENDING -- THE
LAWSUIT -- TOOK PLACE BECAUSE
THE COMMISSION DID HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT ITS CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS
AND ALSO MAINTAINING THE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF THOSE RECORDS
ONCE.
THEY WERE PART OF THE LAW
AUDITOR'S FILES IN AT LEAST
ARGUABLY SUBJECT TO PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT IN.
THE COMMISSION FILED AN ACTION
TO SEEK GUIDANCE FROM THE COURTS
ON THE ISSUE WE WE DEFINITELY.
GOT THE MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR I
HAVE -- INDELIBLE MEMORY OF
THINGS THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER
STONE SAID TO ME -- LAST MAY AND
WE DID MOVE FORWARD AND WE
SETTLED THE LAWSUIT WE WE SIGNED
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN -- IN
JULY.
AND THAT -- YOU KNOW THAT DID --
PART OF THE PART OF THE
SETTLEMENT OF PROVIDED FOR THE
PARTIES -- TO SECORD LEASE NOT
OPPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE
GOVERNMENT CODE TO PROTECT THE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF COMMISSION
RECORDS.
IT ALSO -- REQUIRED THE
COMMISSION TO CONSIDER -- RULE
CHANGES THAT WOULD ALLOW THE
AUDITOR TO ACCESS --
CONFIDENTIAL COMMISSION RECORDS
AND THE COMMISSION ARE
CONSIDERED AND ENACTED SUCH A
RULE -- WE DID SETTLE LAWSUIT IN
TIME FOR THE AUDIT TO BE
COMPLETED -- BE BEFORE YOU TODAY --
FROM THE TIME WE SETTLED THE
LAWSUIT THROUGH THE END OF THE
AUDIT AND FRANKLY CONTINUING
UNTIL TODAY.
WE COOPERATED.
FULLY WITH THE AUDIT THE
COMMISSION INSTRUCTED ME TO
COOPERATE WITH THE AUDIT I
INSTRUCTED STAFF TO COOPERATE
WITH THE AUDIT -- AND AS AS YOU
KNOW FOR ALL OF THE AUDITOR'S
RECOMMENDATIONS DIRECTED TO THE
COMMISSION THE COMMISSION HAS
EXPRESSED.
THAT IT INTENDS TO IMPLEMENT ALL
OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS SOME OF
THE RECOMMENDATIONS -- REQUIRE A
BUDGET INCREASE AND IT WHEN THE
FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN OUR
BUDGET TO DO SO WE WILL WE WILL --
ACCOMPLISH THOSE ALSO.
I DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOU TOO FAR
INTO THE WEEDS -- IN TERMS OF
EACH AND EVERY RECOMMENDATION IN
THE AUDIT BUT I JUST WANT TO
NOTE I'M WE'VE WE HAVE
UNDERTAKEN IN.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS -- FOR YOU
KNOW IMMEDIATE ACTION INCLUDING
GIVING STAFF INSTRUCTION ABOUT --
CODING OF ALLEGATIONS SO THAT --
THEY'RE MORE APPROPRIATE AND
COULD POTENTIALLY BE USED LATER
TO TRACK TRENDS WE'VE --
EXPLORED OPTIONS -- FOR READ
LOCATING THE COMMISSION'S OFFICE
THERE ARE OF COURSE PRACTICAL
AND ALSO LEGAL -- RESTRICTIONS
AROUND OUT BUT IT IS SOMETHING
THAT WE'RE DOING WE ARE -- WE'RE
IMPLEMENTING A PROCESS FOR
MANAGEMENT TO REVIEW AND APPROVE
INVESTIGATIVE STRATEGIES AND TO
ESTABLISH DEADLINES FOR
INVESTIGATIONS -- THE LEGAL
ADVISER HAS -- FORMULATED
PROCEDURES TO CONDUCT PERIODIC
REVIEWS OF CLOSED INVESTIGATIONS
TO MAKE SURE THE INVESTIGATIONS
WERE.
DONE APPROPRIATELY AND
THOROUGHLY.
WE'VE -- CREATED AND IMPLEMENTED
PROCEDURES FOR INVESTIGATING
ATTORNEYS TO REVIEW.
PRIOR COMPLAINTS TO ASSESS
SIMILARITIES AND PATTERNS WITH --
WITH PRIOR COMPLAINTS AND YOU
KNOW AS WE NOTED IN THE IN OUR
RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
THAT WE SAW -- WE INTEND TO
IMPLEMENT ALL OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DO NOT
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FUNDING BY
THE RECOMMENDED DEADLINES.
AND WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON OTHER --
RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING
RESEARCHING A NEW NEWER IMPROVED
CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INCLUDING
THE COST OF THAT.
AND INCLUDING CUTTING COSTS IN --
OTHER PLACES.
CAN I I WANNA JUST PAUSE BRIEFLY
ON THE NOTION OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND I I
I THINK THAT I MIGHT HAVE GIVEN
THE WRONG IMPRESSION IN MY
LETTER.
IN TERMS OF AMENDING THE
CONSTITUTION -- WE USED.
THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT
THAT'S A POLICY DECISION FOR THE
LEGISLATURE AND ULTIMATELY THE
VOTERS TO MAKE -- HI MY PLEASE
IS THAT THAT BE SOMETHING THAT
IS DONE WITH PRECISION AND CARE.
BECAUSE IF IT'S GOING TO BE A
VERY BIG OVERHAUL OF THE
COMMISSION AND THE WAY THAT IT
DOES ITS WORK -- I'D I JUST
THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO
HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE COME TO THE
TABLE AND TALK ABOUT IN THINK
THROUGH.
WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT WILL -- WILL SAY AND
THE RESULTS THAT IT WILL -- THAT
IT WILL GET -- MY WHAT I
DISPUTED -- NOT THE AMENDMENT
ITSELF MY DISPUTE WAS WITH THE
COMMENT THAT THERE WAS A DUE
PROCESS PROBLEM WITH THE
COMMISSION'S CURRENT STRUCTURE I
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A
DUE PROCESS PROBLEM WITH THE
COMMISSION'S CURRENT STRUCTURE.
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE DUE PROCESS
THE THE FUNDAMENTAL THINGS THAT
HAVE TO BE PROVIDED TO JUDGES
WHO ARE IN THE PROCESS IS.
THEY HAVE TO RECEIVE NOTICE OF
THE CHARGES AGAINST THEM WHICH
WE PROVIDE AND THE JUDGES HAVE
TO HAVE A SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY
TO RESPOND TO THOSE ALLEGATIONS.
AND DEFEND HERSELF OR HIMSELF
THOSE OPPORTUNITIES ARE PROVIDED
I SUBMIT THEY ARE PROVIDED
EXTENSIVELY -- THE CURRENT THE
COMMISSION'S CURRENT STRUCTURE
HAS EXISTED SINCE NINETEEN
NINETY FIVE AND THERE HAS NOT
BEEN.
A SIEVE -- A SUCCESSFUL DUE
PROCESS CHALLENGE TO THE
STRUCTURE OF COMMISSION.
THE REMEMBER THE PARTIES
INVOLVED IN COMMISSION
PROCEEDINGS ARE -- OUR JUDGES
THEIR SOPHISTICATED THEY KNOW
THE LAW AND THEY ALSO ALL HAVE
GOOD COUNSEL.
IF THERE ARE CHALLENGS TO BE
MADE I SUBMIT THAT THEY WILL
MAKE THEM.
SO -- THOSE ARE THOSE ARE
BASICALLY THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE
OF MY COMMENTS I THE ONE THING
THAT I WANT TO MENTION WILL HAVE
SO MANY OF YOU -- BECAUSE THERE
WAS A COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT.
ALL PROCEEDINGS BEING.
SCRIBE A RECORDED THAT IS NOT
THE CASE.
THERE ARE LOTS AND LOTS OF
PROCEEDINGS IN COURT BAT OR
THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT
TRANSCRIBED AND THEY'RE NOT
RECORDED AND I SUBMIT BEYOND.
THE COMMISSION -- THE FAILURE TO
HAVE A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTS AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE
ISSUE.
THAT'S A VERY SERIOUS AND WHAT I
WOULD JUST MY PLEA IS.
IF THERE IS A WAY A ON AT THE
LEGISLATIVE LEVEL TO PROVIDE
THAT THAT MORE OR FRANKLY ALL
PROCEEDINGS IN COURT BE
TRANSCRIBED A RECORDED.
I AM I PERSONALLY AM VERY MUCH
IN FAVOR OF THAT THAT WILL MAKE
THE BELLAMY COMMISSION'S WORK --
EASIER BETTER AND MORE THOROUGH.
DOESN'T IT THANK YOU VERY MUCH --
TO EITHER OF THE TWO IF YOU WISH
TO COMMENT.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME PHYLLIS SO
WE'VE GOTTEN.
A LOT OF GENERALITIES HERE AND
I'D LIKE TO GET A LITTLE BIT
MORE INTO THE SUBSTANCE.
BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO
BEFORE YOU DIE.
SPEAK THE ONE THING THE ONE
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE WITH THE DUE
PROCESS ISSUE -- THE AUDITOR.
IDENTIFIED THAT DO.
SLACKING BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT
THIS UNITARY POLICY VIOLATEDIT
I WILL TELL YOU I THINK THE
COURTS THEMSELVES SAY THAT
BECAUSE AS I HAVE BEEN WORKING
ON ISSUES RELATED TO DUE PROCESS
AND TITLE.
NINE THE COURTS HAVE ALSO
INDICATED THAT THEY THINK HAVING
A SINGULAR.
INVESTIGATOR JUDGE AND JURY
PROCESS VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE SO.
WHILE WE MADE RESPECTFULLY
DISAGREE.
THE AUDITOR DID RECOMMEND THAT
YOU CHANGE THAT PROCESS AND I MY
QUESTION IS ARE YOU PREPARED TO
DO THAT IRRESPECTIVE ALL OF THE
APPARENT DISAGREEMENT ON WHETHER
OR NOT IT ACCURATELY REFLECTS
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
SENATE JACKSON MY UNDERSTANDING
OF THE AUDIT REPORT IS THAT IT
RECOMMENDS A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE
STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION TO A
BICAMERAL AGENCY.
THE COMMISSION ITSELF DOESN'T
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT
AND I DO AGREE WITH THE AUDIT
REPORT THAT THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED BY CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT.
AND IF THAT IS THE DETERMINATION
OF THE LEGISLATURE -- AND THE
VOTERS OF THE STATE -- STE SO BE
IT MY ONLY PLEA IS THAT THAT
JUST BE DONE THOUGHTFULLY AND
CAREFULLY THAT IS ALL I CARE
ABOUT.
THANK YOU -- THE THERE I JUST
ALL I WANNA DO IS IS SAFE THANK
YOU VERY MUCH THIS AUDIT HAS
BEEN VERY PRODUCTIVE.
A LEARNING EXPERIENCE AND I AND
I FEEL SINCERELY THAT WE WILL
ALL BE BETTER FOR IT WE ALL OF
US HERE ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS.
YOU HAVE DEVOTED YOUR CAREERS
JUST SERVE THE PUBLIC.
I'M SICK I'M JUST A HUMBLE
VOLUNTEER HERE -- BY DAY I'M A
PRACTICING LAWYER CULTURE
PEACHTREE MCCARTHY -- I VIEW MY
ROLE HERE WITH THE COMMISSION AS
A BRIDGE I'M SIMPLY A BRIDGE
BETWEEN THE PUBLIC.
AND THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT
SYSTEM I'M IN COURT ALL THE TIME
I HAVE BEEN THE TARGET OF
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT I DIDN'T
KNOW IT.
AND NOW SINCE SINCE THE
FINANCIAL CRISIS.
THERE ARE NO COURT REPORTERS
THERE ARE NO REPORTERS WE HAVE
TO PAY FOR OUR OWN COURT
REPORTERS AND GOD KNOWS HOPE
HOPE.
SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS ARE
REALLY STRUGGLING AND OUR JOB AS
THE COMMISSION IS TO HELP GIVE
THEM A VOICE WHEN THEY FEEL
THEY'VE BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY
AND THEY DON'T.
LIKE YOU'VE MENTIONED BEFORE
THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT VERSUS AN UNFAIR --
OF A DECISION AGAINST THAT.
RIGHT WE STRUGGLE TO GET THROUGH
THAT AND WE TRY TO GIVE
EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD.
WE WE RELEASED WE REALLY DO PART
OF THE ISSUES COURT FUNDING --
BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH -- THIS
IS.
BEEN A LONG PROCESS AND IT'S
BEEN A VERY PRODUCTIVE.
ONE AND I KNOW THAT HAVING SEEN.
HOW THE?
CGP OPERATED PRIOR TO YOUR
EITHER SHIP.
IT'S A WELCOME REFRESHING CHANGE.
TO SERVE OPEN UP -- THE CONCEPTS
IN THE DISCUSSION.
ARE AND YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD
POINT WITH -- SELF REPRESENTED
LITIGANTS BEING MORE AND MORE
PART OF THE PROCESS -- THE
FRUSTRATION THAT THEY FEEL
SOMETIMES THE FRUSTRATION THE
COURT FEELS -- WHEN YOU HAVE
PEOPLE COMING IN WHO DON'T KNOW
THE RULES -- IT IT IT CAN BE
CHALLENGING BUT I THINK BETTER
EDUCATING OUR JUDGES AND TRYING
TO EDUCATE OUR LITIGANTS.
IS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO START
DOING MORE MORE BECAUSE THEY'RE
MORE PREDOMINANT IN OUR COURTS.
YEP JUST VERY IMPORTANT TO US
GREAT SO I GO TO THE ROTARY CLUB
I AM TALKING TO PEOPLE I MAKE.
SURE I THE VENTS THANK YOU VERY
MUCH APPRECIATED A SENATOR.
ALLEN AND THEN WOULD YOU IS ARE
YOU THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NOW
OR LEGAL ADVISER SO YOU'RE GOING --
TO ASSOCIATE YOUR REMARKS WITH
LEGAL COUNSEL.
I JUST WANTED TO INVITE YOU IF
YOU HAD ANYTHING TO ADD.
I REALLY DON'T I SUPPORT WHAT
QUE.
THANK YOU.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO COOPERATING%
ON AN ONGOING BASIS TO HELP
IMPROVE OUR SYSTEM.
THANK YOU SENATOR ALLEN.
YEAH I'D I'D JUST IT IT SEEMS
LIKE AN EXTRAORDINARY COMMITMENT --
I WAS TALKING TO CENTER MINING
YOU MENTION THAT SOMEONE HE
KNOWS ESTIMATES THEY SPEND ABOUT
TWENTY HOURS A WEEK ON THIS SORT
OF WORK.
I MEAN I I JUST SO.
I HOW IS IT POSSIBLE AND I'M
JUST INTERESTED MAYBE THE
COMMITTEE HAS SOME THOUGHTS OR
OR THAT YOU FOLKS.
ARE AND WE OUGHT TO HAVE SOME
FORM OF COMPENSATION I
UNDERSTAND THE JUDGES SERVING ON
THE COMMISSION.
ARE BEING PAID TO BE JUDGES BUT
OFFER EVERYBODY ELSE FOR WHOM
THIS IS THIS IS SUCH A WE WE
HAVE ALL THE VOTE OURSELVES THE
PUBLIC SERVICE WE ARE AT LEAST
GETTING A SALARY -- YOU KNOW I
JAY DID IT DOES.
COMING BY MAKE ME WONDER WHAT
WHETHER WE OUGHT TO CREATE SOME
SORT OF COMPENSATION SYSTEM TO
MAKE SURE THE FOLKS ARE.
ARE ARE ARE BEING COMPENSATED
FOR THIS EXTRAORDINARY ACTIVE --
OF OF PUBLIC SERVICES AGENCIES
THAT DELETING THE CONSTITUTION
IT DOES ALLOW FOR IT OR I'D LOVE
TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.
SO.
WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
CONSIDERING THAT WITH WITH SOME
OF THOSE SIX PUBLIC MEMBERS IT
IS A BURDEN THEY DO NOT GET PAID
WHEN THEY'RE AT COMMISSION
MEETINGS AND WE MEET PROBABLY.
EVERY SIX WEEKS.
BUT SOMETIMES TWO DAYS IN A ROW
AND IT TAKES MANY MANY HOURS TO
PREPARE THEY'RE NOT PAID ON TIME
AND I'M A PARTNER AT A LAW FIRM.
MY LAW FIRM IS IS VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT I DO I'M HERE
ON MY OWN TIME TODAY THIS IS MY
OTHER LEGAL COLLEAGUE HE HAS HIS
OWN PRACTICE SO IF HE'S NOT AT
THE OFFICE HE'S NOT GETTING.
PAID -- YEAH THAT'S SO THAT'S
FOR ME IT'S ALRIGHT. FOR ME I'M
AN UNUSUAL SITUATION AS WELL
BECAUSE I LIVE WITHIN ONE
HUNDRED MILES OF THE
COMMISSION'S OFFICES AND
THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE GET
REIMBURSED TO STAY IN A HOTEL.
I I DRIVE BUT I HAPPILY.
VOLUNTEER MY TIME I PAY MY OWN
WAY I DO NOT BILLS TO THE
COMMISSION BECAUSE THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT TO ME.
I BELIEVE IN PUBLIC SERVICE LIKE
YOU DO AND I'M WILLING TO DO
THIS AND I SUPPORT MY COLLEAGUES
HERE BECAUSE YEAH I DON'T THINK
PEOPLE OUT A A RICH DOING THIS
BUT I DO THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE
SOME FORM OF COMPETITION I GET I
MEAN WHAT.
HOW WHY IS IT THAT THEY'RE NOT
COMPENSATED WHAT'S THE WHAT'S
THE IS THERE LEGAL BARRIERS IS
JUST PRACTICES?
SO IT'S BEEN THAT WAY -- FOREVER
AS FAR AS I KNOW AND THEN THE
AND THEN THE OTHER REASON WOULD
BE BUDGETARY.
SIR SURE.
OKAY WHY I GUESS I WOULD JUST
SAY IF IT YOU KNOW AS WELL AS IT
WAS THIS CONSIDERED AT ALL BY
THE AUDIT.
HE COULD HEAR FROM ONE OF YOU
ABOUT. TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS.
SO AGAIN BOB HARRIS WITH THE
STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE I'M THE
ONE AREA IN WHICH WE
SPECIFICALLY CONSIDER
COMPENSATION WAS WITH OUR
PROPOSAL. TO HAVE THE COMMISSION
HERE AT SOME CASES AND IT WAS
BECAUSE OF CONCERNS THE
COMMISSION HAD EXPRESSED TO US
ABOUT THE UNCOMPENSATED NATURE
OF THE COMMISSIONERS -- SO WE
THEIR OWN CASES WOULD MEAN SO
WHERE IN THE STRUCTURE THAT
WE'RE PROPOSING INSTEAD OF USING
THE SPECIAL MASTERS TO REVIEW TO
HOLD THE EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS
THE COMMISSIONERS THEMSELVES
WHAT ACTUALLY SET FOR THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING THEMSELVES.
TO US THAT WAS AN EXTRA ASK IT'S
SOMETHING THE COMMISSIONERS ARE
NOT CURRENTLY DOING RIGHT -- SO
WE DEVELOPED A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF
WHAT.
MY MISSION PACKAGER LOOK LIKE TO
PAY THEM FOR THEIR TIME TO DO
THAT SO THAT SPECIFIC THING FOR
THAT SPECIFIC THING NOT FOR THE
REGULAR SERVICE THAT THEY'RE
CURRENTLY CONDUCTING THAT'S THE
EXTENT TO WHICH WE LOOKED AT
COMPENSATION.
THAT'S SIX INTO WHICH THAT'S THE
EXTENT TO WHICH WE LOOKED AT
COMPENSATION A HIGH -- DO YOU
HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THE BAT
BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT WE DIDN'T
KNOW PINE ON WHETHER THERE
SHOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE
CONVERSATION THE FACT THAT
THEY'RE CURRENTLY UNCOMPENSATED
I UNDERSTAND YOU DIDN'T DO THEIR
PART BUT WOULD YOU OPINE.
WE HAVE NO RECOMMENDATION IN
THAT AREA OKAY.
THANK YOU.
IN THE OFFENSE AT THAT IS AN
ISSUE. TO WORK ON BY THAT'S
REALLY MINOR IN THE CONTEXT OF
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS
HERE AND PERHAPS IF WE COME UP
WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE
CONFERENCE OF A PACKAGE WE THAT
MAY BE SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT
BUT YOU'RE ALSO TALKING TO A
GROUP OF LEGISLATORS WHO'VE.
DONE LOTS OF THINGS ON A
VOLUNTARY BASIS I WAS A COASTAL
COMMISSIONER WHICH TOOK MORE
THAN A QUARTER OF MY TIME.
UNCOMPENSATED SO THERE ARE
THINGS THAT WE DO BECAUSE WE
NEED TO AND THE SYSTEM NEEDS TO
FUNCTION BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT ON ON THE BUDGET THE OTHER
DID MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON
SOME FUNDING INTO THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD DO THIS
LEGISLATURE TO DO THAT.
AS WAYS FUNDING PROBLEM WITH
THAT IS IN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH WE TEND TO
THROW MONEY OVER THE WALL IN THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH SPENDS ITS MONEY.
AND BEFORE WE COME UP WITH LINE
ITEM RECOMMENDATIONS I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE SYSTEM
BROADER.
DOESN'T ALREADY HAVE THE
CAPACITY TO DO THIS WHAT'S BEING
ASKED IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY.
POTENTIALLY AND THERE ARE POTS
OF MONEY IN THINGS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE SO.
THAT THAT'S A SIDE.
ISSUE IN MY MAIN QUESTION
BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO SEE
THAT BE USED AS AN EXCUSE TO NOT
MAKING PROGRESS ON THIS BUT SO
MY MAIN QUESTION IS.
WHAT'S YOUR ACTION PLAN YOU'VE
AGREED YOU'RE GONNA DO ALL THIS
THAT'S WONDERFUL.
WHEN HOW WHAT'S THE WHAT ARE THE
CHANGES THAT ARE GOING TO BE
MADE NOW WHAT'S THE TIME LINE
HOW IS THAT GOING TO ROLL OUT?
BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS IS GOING
TO BE KEY AS WE CONTINUE TO
TRACK THIS AND AND AND
UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO
DO.
YOUR POINT ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WHICH
COULD BE FUNDAMENTAL TO THIS.
WELL TAKEN AND THAT IS SOMETHING
WE'RE GOING TO DO IT.
YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY NEVER BEEN
BEFORE US BEFORE IF YOU EXPECT
US TO DO THINGS THAT ARE
DETAILED AND EXACT AND
CORRECTION THE FIRST TIME
THROUGH BUT WILL HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION THAT'S WIDE.
BUT ALL THOSE A BACKDROP TO THE
COMMITMENT TO THE PROCESS
CHANGES THAT NEED TO HAPPEN SO
WHAT'S THE WORK PLAN.
SO AT THE I MEAN AT THE MOST
GENERAL LEVEL THE AUDIT REPORT
HAS -- NOT JUST RECOMMENDATIONS
BUT TIME FRAMES FOR
IMPLEMENTATION AND WE ARE THE
INTENTION IS.
TO IT FOR THE THINGS THAT WE CAN
DO WITHOUT WITHOUT EXTRA FUNDING
TO DO THEM BY THE DATES
RECOMMENDED AND ALSO TO WORK ON
ALL OF THEM -- YOU KNOW NOW I ON
AN ONGOING BASIS AND TO
IMPLEMENT THEM -- EARLY I MEAN
BY MY COUNT WE HAVE THERE ARE
THREE OR FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT.
I THINK ARE FULLY OR NEARLY
FULLY -- RECOMMENDED -- THE
DEADLINES FOR WHICH WERE IN
OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR OR EVEN
APRIL OF NEXT YEAR SO ARE YOU
KNOW OUR PLAN IS TO MOVE THEM
ALL FORWARD.
AND AND TO DEFINITELY ACCOMPLISH
THEM BY THE DATES THAT THE AUDIT
REPORT RECOMMENDS.
OKAY SO THE OTHER REPORT THEN IS
YOUR FRAMEWORK FOR WORKING ON
THAT DIRECT YES I THINK WE WOULD
APPRECIATE AND I'M NOT SURE IF
THIS IS.
I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE HOW J.
LACK OPERATES OR ITS FUNCTION
BUT AS A COMMITTEE CHAIR AND I
DO WANT TO SPEAK FOR MY KIND OF
BUT WE WOULD LOVE TO BE KEPT
ABREAST I THINK OF THE PROGRESS
THAT'S BEING MADE THE TIME LINES.
THINGS IT CAN GET DONE EARLIER
AND THERE ARE SOME DETAILS FOR
EXAMPLE ONE OF THE THE ERRORS
THAT I FIND IT I FIND THIS KIND
OF ACROSS.
GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS WE TEND TO
LOOK AT SNAPSHOTS FROM TIME TO
TIME AND SO WE MISS.
PATTERNS PICKING UP PATTERNS IS
A FUNDAMENTAL THERE'S A THERE'S
A THERE'S CULTURAL PROCEDURAL
THERE ARE NUMBER OF THINGS THAT
NEED TO BE PUT IN PLACE. TO MAKE
SURE THAT THOSE PATTERNS GET GET
IDENTIFIED I DON'T KNOW HAT
THAT THE AUDIT REPORT DIDN'T GO
INTO.
THAT MUCH DETAIL BUT FROM YOUR
STANDPOINT SINCE YOU HAVE.
THE OPERATIONAL FUNCTION YOU
HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO DO THIS
HOW DO YOU ADDRESS.
THAT THE CHANGES NECESSARY
WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION TO MAKE
SURE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING BROADER
SCOPE RATHER THAN SO
SPECIFICALLY.
IN TERMS OF LOOKING BROADLY AND
I MEAN FRANKLY AS THE AUDIT --
REPORT RECOMMENDS -- FOR MATTERS
THAT THAT COME IN AND CERTAINLY
FOR INVESTIGATIONS THAT ARE
OPENED WE'RE GOING TO LOOK BACK
AT ALL OF THE PRIOR COMPLAINTS.
AND TO SEE IF THERE'S A PATTERN
I MEAN THERE ARE THERE FRANKLY
DUE PROCESS ISSUES.
USING INVESTIGATIONS ON PREVIOUS
COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN CLOSED
BUT THERE MIGHT BE AN INDICATION
THAT THAT THERE IS A PATTERN AND
THE PATTERN IS ON GOING BUT SO
PART OF THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO
BE THROUGH -- DIFFERENT TYPES OF
INVESTIGATIONS LOOKING -- PRIOR
COMPLAINTS I DO THINK ABOUT
WITHIN NEW OR UPDATED OR
MODIFIED CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
THERE THERE MAY BE A WAY OF
TRACKING IT ALSO ON THE DATA
LEVEL.
YEAH NAY NAY I UNDERSTAND THE
DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT THERE BUT A
LOT OF THAT DEPENDS ON YOUR
PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES
INTERNALLY ABOUT HOW YOU MANAGE
THAT HOW YOU REPORTING ON ON
WHAT YOU'RE USING FOR A DECISION.
BUT WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS FOR
SOMEONE TO HIDE BEHIND PRIOR
COMPLAINS THAT SAID AND DONE AND
YET THAT PATTERN OF SMALL ABUSES
SHOWS A BLATANT DISREGARD.
FOR THE LEVEL OF AUTHORITY THAT
A JUDGE HAS BEEN GIVEN THOSE
KINDS OF THINGS THAT THAT AGAIN
UNDERMINE PUBLIC TRUST IN.
PROVIDE SOME CHALLENGES TO TO
THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC IN
DEALING.
THIS IS VERY SAID THE COURTS TO
MAKE A VERY SIGNIFICANT
DECISIONS FOR PEOPLE AND IF THEY
ARE NOT.
TRULY INDEPENDENCE AND I S. AND
OBJECTIVE IN IN WHAT THEY HAVE
THEN.
PEOPLE ARE GETTING HURT BECAUSE
OF HUMAN FRAILTIES THAT'S WHAT
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WERE
GUARDING AGAIN RIGHT I I I
COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU AND I
ALSO AGREE THAT PART OF IN TERMS
OF TRYING.
TO DETECT WHETHER THERE ARE
PATTERNS THE CONCERN IS WHETHER
IT'S CHRONIC AND ONGOING AND AND
I AGREE THAT -- THERE'S THERE
SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN IMPROVE
METHODS -- FOR FOR FOR LOOKING
AT THINGS LIKE THAT IN IN YOU
CAN SET STANDARDS FOR THAT THAT
THEN ARE OBVIOUS AND IN MADE
PUBLIC AND THAT'S SOME OF YOUR
DUE PROCESS PROTECTION.
RIGHT -- CENTER BY CASSIE
[inaudible]
ON THE SUGGESTION IS THAT WE GO
WITH THE BICAMERAL -- COMMISSION
SO THAT THEY THEY ARE THE FOLKS
THAT ARE DOING THE INVESTIGATION
ARE NOT MAKING THE FINAL
DECISION -- AFTER THE FORMAL
PROCEEDINGS GO TO THE THE
SPECIAL MASTER.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THE AUDITOR
THAT THAT THERE'S NO FLEXIBILITY
IN THE WAY THAT THE
INVESTIGATIONS ARE.
NOW UNDER PROP ONE NINETY THAT
IT SAID IT SEVEN MANNED.
BECAUSE I SUGGESTED THAT YOU BUY
FOR GAY TO COMMISSION YOU SAY
YOU PEOPLE ARE DOING
INVESTIGATIONS OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS YOU PEOPLE
MAKING.
THE DECISIONS YOU AGREE WITH
THEIR INCLUSION THAT EVERYBODY
ALL ELEVEN COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO
MAKE TO THE THE FINAL DECISION.
THAT IS YES I THINK THAT'S THE
WAY THAT.
THAT THE CONSTITUTION
CONSTITUTES THE COMMISSION NOW --
YES.
OKAY IN ON I LOST MY PAGE.
ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY
MADE ON SAVING FIVE HUNDRED AND
FOUR EIGHT FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS
PAGE.
FIFTY SEVEN AND FIFTY SIX ON THE
CORE FUNCTIONS AND NOT -- IS MY
UNDERSTANDING YOU ARE PROCEEDING
WITH THE LOOKING FOR NEW LEASE --
PLACES SWITCHING TELEPHONE
SYSTEMS ALL THOSE.
SUGGESTIONS YES OKAY.
I MEAN IN TERMS OF IN TERMS OF
MOVING I MEAN THERE ARE.
THERE ARE LEGAL RESTRICTIONS
AROUND OUR ABILITY TO MOVE AND
THERE ARE.
YOU KNOW PRACTICAL --
RESTRICTIONS INCLUDING THEIR
BEING SPACE AVAILABLE IN IT YOU
KNOW IN A IN A STATE BUILDING
SINCE I REPRESENT THE TEN
SENATE-DISTRICT.
BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T SUGGEST
THAT YOU ALSO INCLUDE.
HEY WORD OR FREMONT IN YOUR
SEARCH FOR OTHER OFFICE
BUILDINGS IN THE EAST BAY JUST
DON'T STOP IT OAKLAND IS.
TO HELP MANY REPORTS ONLY SAY
JUST GO TO OAKLAND.
THANK YOU.
THE PLENTY OF GOOD SPOTS AROUND
THE STATE.
THANK YOU SENATOR -- WE ASK
THERE'S A YEAH OUR BIGGEST
FILTER THE SALINAS VALLEY HERE.
THE COAST.
FURTHER UP NORTH -- SO THANK YOU
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY HOW
I'M GETTING CAUGHT UP HERE BUT
WANTED ASKS JUST GENERALLY
BECAUSE IT WAS A LOT OF THINGS
THAT WERE OUTLINED IN THE
PREVIOUS PANEL.
AND ONE WAS THAT SOME VERY BASIC
AND EASY TO DO WAS ACCEPTING
COMPLAINTS ELECTRONICALLY -- ARE
YOU STARTING TO DO THAT I KNOW
WE HAVE A CHECK IN AT THE END OF
JUNE.
WHICH IS A SIXTY DAY CHECK IN
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE KIND OF A
PROGRESS REPORT AT THE END OF
OCTOBER -- BUT IS CJ PEER WE
MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION.
SO SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING.
YES I MEAN WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE
DEFINITELY RESEARCHING IT AT YOU
KNOW AT AS WE ARE RESEARCHING --
IMPROVEMENTS OR DO A CASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT WOULD
ALLOW US -- TO TO ACCEPT --
COMPLAINTS ONLINE SO WE DO NEED
TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE COST OF
THAT WOULD BE AN AND WE NEED THE
FUNDING FOR IT BUT YES.
OKAY SO RESEARCHING NOT WHETHER
IT'S AFFECTED BUT RESEARCHING AS
INTO HOW DO WE IMPLEMENT THIS
RIGHT HOW TO HOW TO HOW TO
ACQUIRE THE TECHNOLOGY WE NEED --
YOU KNOW INCLUDING AS INCLUDED
WITH OTHER UPDATES STORE CASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM [inaudible]
GOT IT.
AND THEN -- IT'S ONE ASKING
WHETHER YOU KNOW THE STATE
AUDITOR FOUND THAT THE
COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATORS TO
DOT PREPARE INVESTIGATIVE PLANS
DOCUMENTING THEIR STRATEGIES AT
THE OUTSIDE OF INVESTIGATIONS
YOU KNOW SEEMS TO BE AN INDUSTRY
STANDARD -- THE AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION THE COUNCIL OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL ON INTEGRITY
AND EFFICIENCY BOTH RECOMMENDED.
AT YOUR OWN INVESTIGATION --
MANUAL SEEMS TO RECOMMEND THE
INVESTIGATIVE PLANS SO QUESTION
IS IS -- IS A LACK OF OVERSIGHT
IS LACK OF TRAINING WHY DON'T WE
SEE THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
ADJUSTER COMMENTS ON THAT.
I THINK -- I'D JUST LIKE -- TO
GET TO THE END WHICH IS I MEAN
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS
RECOMMENDED THAT WE IMPLEMENTED --
WHERE -- WERE WORKING ON THAT
AND THAT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED
SOON.
THAT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED SINCE
THE WILLSEE THAT AT THE CHECK
IN.
THAT WOULD DO YOU IMPLEMENTED
SUED MEANS THE THE THE END OF
THIS MONTH OR THESE.
THE OCTOBER WHEN WE DO THE
PROGRESS REPORT WE'LL SEE AT
THAT.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WILL
BE IN THE IN THE PROGRESS REPORT
THAT'S DUE IN TWELVE DAYS BUT MY
MY MY ANTICIPATION IS IS THAT
THAT WILL BE COMPLETED WITHIN
THE NEXT MONTH OR SO.
GOT IT AND JUST MY UNDERSTANDING
FROM YOUR TESTIMONY EARLIER --
FOR THE BI CAMERAL WHEN WE WERE
SPEAKING ABOUT THAT -- SEEMS
LIKE YOU'RE NOT OPPOSED TO IT --
WHERE TO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR
TESTIMONY SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE NOT
OPPOSED TO MOVING IN THAT
DIRECTION IF THAT'S WHERE THE
LEGISLATURE?
WHICH IS TO MOVE BUT YOUR LETTER
AND RESPONSE SEEM TO BE
CONTRADICTORY TO THAT IS THAT
JUST A CHANGE OF DIRECTION AT
THIS POINT.
I THINK THAT MAYBE THE ANSWER IS
MY LETTER WAS NOT WRITTEN AS
WELL AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN --
AND WHAT I ATE INTENDED TO SEND
THE LETTER AND WHAT I SAID
EARLIER WAS -- IF THAT SOMETHING
IF THE LEGISLATURE DETERMINES
AND THE VOTERS DETERMINED THAT
THE THAT THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD
BE AMENDED THAT'S A POLICY.
TO THE LEGISLATURE IN THE VOTERS
TO MAKE WHAT I SAID WAS THAT THE
COMMISSION'S CURRENT STRUCTURE
PROCESS AND I YOU KNOW THERE ARE
A LOT OF THINGS TO BE SAID ABOUT
IT AND YOU KNOW I DON'T -- WE
DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A A SUPREME
COURT ARGUMENT ABOUT IT BUT WE
DO PROVIDE JUDGES WITH NOTICE WE
PROVIDE THEM WITH PROCESS.
AND THEY HAVE -- AMPLE
OPPORTUNITIES TO KNOW THE
CHARGES AGAINST THEM AND TO
DEFEND THEMSELVES THAT'S WHAT
DUE PROCESS REQUIRES AND WE
PROVIDE DUE PROCESS NOW.
GOT IT YEAH AND I THINK THAT'S
EVERYBODY JUST WANTS
ACCOUNTABILITY TRANSPARENCY
OBVIOUSLY DUE PROCESS FOR THE
JUDGES AS WELL SO THAT THEY GET --
A FAIR SHAKE UP I BELIEVE
SENATOR ALLEN HAD MENTIONED
MAYBE EVEN PAYING SOME OF THE
THE INVESTIGATORS BABY IF THAT
HELPS THAT PROCESS BUT DO YOU
HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ON WHAT YOU THINK WOULD.
HELP US IN THE GOAL OF REACHING.
THE TRANSPARENCY THE
ACCOUNTABILITY THAT THE PUBLIC
DEMANDS BUT STILL BEING FAIR TO
THE JUDGES -- MAYBE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WARRANT
OUTLINED IN THE AUDIT REPORT.
THE SO I DO THINK THAT OUR
PROCESSES NOW ARE FAIR AND
INAPPROPRIATE -- AT I'D SAY I'VE
STE I SENT A COUPLE TIMES I JUST
IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
I DO THINK THAT -- YOU'LL WANT
TO HEAR FROM A LOT OF DIFFERENT
INTERESTED PARTIES ABOUT THE
STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION
THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO
STRUCTURE.
A BICAMERAL A COMMISSION THAT
ALL OF THE STATES THAT HOW THE
QUOTE UNQUOTE BICAMERAL
COMMISSION THEY DON'T ALL HAVE
THE SAME CONTENT.
NO NO STATE HAS THE STRUCTURE
THAT THE ABA MODEL RULES
RECOMMEND -- THE WHAT THE AUDIT
REPORT RECOMMENDS IS NOT
ENTIRELY IN LINE WITH WHAT THE
ABA MODEL RULES RECOMMEND AND SO
ALL I ALL I WANT TO SAY IS I DO
THINK THAT WE HAVE A GOOD SYSTEM
NOW AND I DO THINK IT COMPORTS.
WITH THE PROCESS AND THE
PROCESSES ARE GOOD.
AND IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A
DIFFERENT STRUCTURE THAT THAT
JUST BE CAREFULLY THOUGHT
THROUGH SO THAT WE DON'T END UP
WITH A SYSTEM THAT IS WORSE.
GOT MORE EXPENSIVE RIGHT.
CAN YOU JUST OUTLINED WHAT ARE
SOME OF THOSE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN.
THE ABA MODEL.
THAT'S NOT OUTLINED ARTS OF THE
THINGS WE SHOULD CONSIDER KIND
OF IF WE WERE TO MOVE DOWN THIS
PATH BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A
LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THE BY CAN.
POST SO -- IT JUST FOR STARTERS
THE THE AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDS
THAT -- THERE FOR THE
ADJUDICATIVE BODY THAT THE
ADJUDICATIVE BODY BE A MAJORITY
OF THE LAY MEMBERS -- I I WILL
NOTE THAT IN -- IN THE CURRENTLY
THE WAY -- DISCIPLINE TRIALS ARE
CONDUCTED THERE ARE GOVERNED BY
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE -- SO
THERE IS AN OPEN QUESTION IN MY
MIND ABOUT HOW A MAJORITY OF LAY
PEOPLE WOULD APPLY RULES OF
EVIDENCE IN A TRIAL IN TERM WHAT
THE ABA MODEL STRUCTURE
RECOMMENDS IS THAT THERE BE ONE
JUDGE ONE LAWYER AND ONE LAY
PERSON -- AS A PART OF THE
ADJUDICATIVE BODY WHICH IS
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE AUDIT
REPORT RECOMMENDS.
THE A BE A MODEL RULE ALSO
RECOMMENDS THAT FINAL DISCIPLINE
BE IMPLEMENTED BY.
THE BY STATE SUPREME COURTS --
THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IN THE ONE
THE AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDS IS
THAT -- THE DISCIPLINE
IMPLEMENTED BY THE COMMISSION BE --
BE YES -- SELF EXECUTING -- EAT
AND THERE NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT
GIVEN TO HOW -- HOW WOULD YOU
TWO CASES? TO WORK ON ONE THING
THAT -- MISTER HARRIS SAID WAS
THAT WHAT THE DISCIPLINARY BODY
WOULD DO.
THE ONLY THING IT WOULD DO WOULD
BE TO A PINE ON DISCIPLINE BUT
THAT'S NOT EXACTLY RIGHT.
THE THE ADJUDICATIVE BODY IS
GOING TO HAVE TO ADJUDICATE
FACTS AND APPLY THE LAW AND THEN
APPLY DISCIPLINE AND SO THAT IS
A THAT IS A MORE SERIOUS
ENDEAVOR AND THEN THERE ARE
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER --
EVERYTHING IF IF FOR THE
ADJUDICATIVE BODY ARE YOU GOING
TO CHARGE EVERY SINGLE JUDGE WHO
IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED
MISCONDUCT -- NOW THE NOW THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT ALL
CHARGES BE PUBLIC SO EVEN FOR
LOW LEVEL MISCONDUCT ARE WE
GOING TO NOW PUBLICLY CHARGE
JUDGES WITH LOW LEVEL MISCONDUCT.
AND EVEN IF THE LEVEL OF
DISCIPLINE IS A PRIVATE
ADMONISHMENT EVERYONE WILL KNOW
ABOUT IT BECAUSE THERE ARE
CHARGES AND AND THE JUDGE HAS
BEEN PUBLICLY CHARGE.
I'M NOT ADVOCATING ONE WAY RIGHT
I JUST THINK THAT THIS NEEDS TO
BE THOUGHT THROUGH BECAUSE I DO
THINK THAT WITH SOME JUDGES --
THEY GET PRIVATE DISCIPLINE THEY
UNDERSTAND.
AND THEY DON'T RE OFFEND AND
THERE'S VALUE IN THE DISCIPLINE
BEING PRIVATE DISCIPLINE.
OKAY THANK YOU KNOW OBVIOUSLY
ALL THINGS THAT NEED TO HAVE A
LONGER DISCUSSION A MORE ROBUST
DISCUSSION AS IF THE LEGISLATURE
MOVES INTO A LOOKING AT THIS BI
CAMERAL A ARE -- CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE GOT SOME OF YOUR THOUGHTS --
AS WELL AS WE PROBABLY CONTINUE
THOSE DELIBERATIONS -- DID WANT
TO ASK. ONE FINAL QUESTION
PROBABLY.
FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE YOU KNOW.
TO ME THE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF
THE EXAMPLE OF THE JUDGE WHERE
THERE WAS COMPLAINTS OF HIS
TRANSCRIPTS.
NOTHING WAS DONE FOR YEARS AND
THEN THE JUDGE ULTIMATELY
STEPPED DOWN.
WHAT COULD HAVE GOTTEN WHAT
COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER?
OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER.
BUT NOW THE IN HINDSIGHT I KNOW
IT'S MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK
IN. TWENTY TWENTY TWENTY
HINDSIGHT BUT HOW COULD WE HOW
CAN WE IMPROVE THAT PROCESS SO
THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
SO WE CAN WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK --
FOR WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK FOR
PATTERNS AND I DO THINK THAT IF
YOU HAVE.
IMPROVE CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
IT MIGHT AT THE END MIGHT BE
EQUALED.
EASY TO TRACK.
THINGS -- OUT AT OUT A DOLLAR
DOWN A LEVEL I WOULD JUST LIKE
TO ADD -- THAT -- THERE ARE --
OTHER MATTERS THAT WE HAVE WHERE.
IT'S A NEGOTIATED RESOLUTION --
WITH THE JUDGE THAT THE JUDGE
WILL -- LEAVE THE BENCH AND
AGREE NOT TO SERVICE A JUDICIAL
OFFICER AGAIN AND WE THINK WHEN
THAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE'S BEEN
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT.
THAT'S THAT IS -- SIGNIFICANT
PUBLIC PROTECTION.
I'M NOT SURE IT'S THE CASE THAT
IN THE EXAMPLE YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT THAT THE JUDGE JUST
DECIDED TO GO ON HIS OWN AYE AYE.
AYE AYE READILY ASSUME THAT WAS
A NEGOTIATED RESOLUTION.
GOT IT.
JUST ONE CASE PLEASE CENTER JUST
A LAST COMMENT I LOOK AT THIS
HEARING IS THE BEGINNING OF
DISCUSSION SO I HOPE THAT.
THIS WAGES SOME OF YOUR ANXIETY
ALSO I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO
TAKE A LOOK TO WITH THE
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS I MEAN I I
THINK THERE IS SOME CONCERN AND
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEXT PANEL
ABOUT AT WHAT POINT.
DO WE ENGAGE THE JUDGES WHO ARE
THE SUBJECT OF THESE
INVESTIGATIONS -- HOW EARLY IT
IS MOST APPROPRIATE AND WHAT IS?
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH
SO I THINK THOSE ARE ALSO PART
TO THIS DISCUSSION THAT WE I
SHOULD GO INTO WITH SOME GREATER
LENGTH YOU KNOW THIS IS MORE AND
SEE THIS IS MORE THAN TEN
THOUSAND FOOTVIEW.
BUT THERE ARE SOME LEGITIMATE
CONCERN SHOULD I THINK THE
LEGISLATURE.
I CAN AND IN MAY VERY WELL
TACKLE -- HOPEFULLY WITH YOUR
PARTICIPATION ASSISTANCE IN
DOING THAT.
THANK YOU RIGHT WITH THAT LET ME
ASK THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS FROM THE PANEL
ANYTHING ADDITIONALLY YOU'D LIKE
TO ADD TO YOUR TESTIMONY.
NO SIR ALL RIGHT WELL THANK YOU
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY
AND WITH THAT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND
MOVE.
TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER -- FOUR
COMMENTS ON THE AUDIT REPORT WE
HAVE A BRIDGET GRAMMY
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE
CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
[inaudible]
AND AND I PAUL.
BUT SHE GLOBAL PRESIDENT OF BUT
SHE GOT LUPO I LIKE IT NO ONE
EVER PRESIDENT.
THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES
ASSOCIATION.
THANK YOU THANKS FOR JOINING US
[inaudible]
RIGHT.
A GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS
BRIDGET GRAMMY.
I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER
FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW
SCHOOL.
AND I'M REALLY GRATEFUL FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY TO
TALK ABOUT THIS VERY IMPORTANT
ISSUE -- AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN
THE LAST PANEL SEVENTY FOR A
CERTAIN STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT
OVER 75% OF LITIGANTS IN
CALIFORNIA STATE COURT ARE SELF
REPRESENTED.
AND I THINK THAT FACT ALONE.
REALLY HIGHLIGHTS THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE PUBLIC'S TRUST IN THE
JUDICIARY SYSTEM AND AND JUDGES
ABILITY TO BEHAVE IN A IN A WAY
THAT IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE SO
I'D REALLY APPRECIATE.
THESE COMMITTEES AND THEIR
ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER AND I
ALSO WAS VERY ENCOURAGED BY THE
LAST PANEL THAT THE COMMISSION
IS TAKING THE AUDITOR'S
RECOMMENDATIONS VERY SERIOUSLY --
SO AT THE JUST A BRIEF
BACKGROUND -- WE SUBMITTED A
LETTER WHICH HAS MORE DETAILS.
DESCRIPTION ABOUT OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE AUDIT AND
SOME MORE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES SO
I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME
HIGHLIGHTS HERE AND THEN I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THANK YOU -- THE CENTER FOR
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW IS BASED AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW
SCHOOL AND WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT
AND NONPARTISAN CENTER OF
RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY.
AND WHAT WE HAVE FOCUSED ON FOR
THE LAST ALMOST FORTY YEARS NOW
SINCE.
NINETEEN EIGHTY IS THE
REGULATION OF BUSINESS
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES AND
CALIFORNIA WE'VE DONE A LOT OF
WORK AND TAKE ITALY RECENTLY
WITH THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.
BUT WE ALSO LOOK AT OTHER
REGULATORY AGENCIES SUCH AS THE
MEDICAL BOARD THE CONTRACTORS
STATE LICENSE BOARD -- IT'S
ADDRESS WE HAVE A LOT OF
EXPERIENCE IN THIS PARTICULAR
AREA OF REGULATING PROFESSIONALS.
AND THE LEGISLATURE HAS LONG
RELIED ON OUR CENTER -- AND THE
COURTS AS WELL FOR EXPERTISE
WHEN IT COMES TO THE PROFESSION
REGULATION OF THE PROFESSIONS
AND AS WITH AYE DETAILED IN IN
MORE AND MORE DETAIL IN THE
LETTER BUT ARE THEY EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF OUR CENTER AND THE
FOUNDER OF OUR CENTER PROFESSOR
BOB SOME MATH.
HE WAS APPOINTED IN NINETEEN
EIGHTY SEVEN TO BE THE STATE
BARS I DISCIPLINE MONITOR AND HE
AND AND SEE PL STAFF DID SOME
REALLY INTENSE STUDIES ELEVEN
DIFFERENT REPORTS THAT THEY
REPORTED BACK TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEES AND TO THE COURT.
I'M WITH RECOMMENDATIONS ON
REFORMING THE DISCIPLINE SYSTEM
AT THE STATE BAR -- INCLUDING
LEGISLATION AND IMPOSE THE
INDEPENDENT STATE PARK COURT SO
WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THESE
PARTICULAR ISSUES -- WEIRD
STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF ALL OF
THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
BUT IT -- AND RATHER THAN RE
HASH THE ONES THAT WERE ALSO
PART OF THAT I JUST WANTED TO
ADD IN THE U. DECISIONAL
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAVE
BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE AND A
WITH OTHER LICENSING AGENCIES AS
WELL.
SO THE FIRST ONE HAD TO DO WITH
THE INVESTIGATIONS -- AND
IMPROVING THE QUALITY THE
INVESTIGATIONS AND WE WE
DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE WOULD
BE AN ADDITIONAL -- SUPERVISOR
SOMEBODY WHO IS -- SETTING
SPECIFIC TIME FRAMES I THINK IS
REALLY IMPORTANT WE SEE AND
OTHER STATE AGENCIES LIKE THE
MEDICAL BOARD THEY HAVE SPECIFIC
DAYS.
WHERE THEY AT LEAST TRY TO MEET
SO THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS
HAPPEN WITHIN A CERTAIN EXPECTED
TIME FRAME THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR
THE PUBLIC PROTECTION IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
BEING INVESTIGATED SO THAT THEY
KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT?
AS WELL AS SPECIFIC PROCEDURES
THAT SHOULD BE TAKING PLACE AT
THE INVESTIGATIONS WAS ALREADY
MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THE
INVESTIGATORS ARE.
GIVEN A LOT OF DISCRETION THAT
THE WAY THAT IT'S CURRENTLY
RUNNING RIGHT NOW.
AND GIVEN THAT THE AUDITORS
FOUND THAT -- THE COMMISSION AND
ALMOST ALL CASES JUST ACCEPT THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE ATTORNEY
WHO IS INVESTIGATING AT LEAST AT
THE BEGINNING STAGES WHERE IT
TALKS ABOUT.
AND CLOSING THE COMPLAINT
WITHOUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION I
THINK THEY ONLY. FOR ELEVEN
INSTANCES WHERE THE COMMISSION
DISAGREED WITH THE ATTORNEYS
DECISION TO NOT TO CONTENT OR TO
CLOSE THE INVESTIGATION OUT OF
LIKE -- SIX THOUSAND AND
REMEMBER THE NUMBER OFF THE TOP
OF MY HEAD BUT IT WAS A VERY
VERY TINY PERCENTAGE.
SO THAT JUST DEMONSTRATE THE
IMPORTANCE OF HAVING -- GOOD
PROCEDURES AND AND REALLY WELL
TRAINED INVESTIGATORS SOMEBODY
WHO'S SUPERVISED.
WHO COULD SUPERVISE THE
INVESTIGATORS AND ALSO PROVIDE
SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW IF THE
INVESTIGATION IS VERY VERY
IMPORTANT IN THIS PROCESS
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT
IT IS A CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE BIRD AND THAT THEY HAVE
TO MEET?
AND SO -- THE FINAL
RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO
THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC
THAN WHAT WAS LAID OUT IN THE
I'D IT.
HAS TO DO WITH THE TRAINING AND
THE INVESTIGATORS ON THE FACT
THAT INVESTIGATORS ARE.
ATTORNEYS ALONE DOESN'T
NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY'RE
TRAINED AND HOW TO YOU AND DO A
QUALITY INVESTIGATION AND TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE THAT THE
EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE.
SO AND ENSURING THAT THERE IS
VERY SPECIFIC TRAINING FOR THAT
INVESTIGATORS WE THINK IT'S
SOMETHING THAT IS A VERY
IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE
RECOMMENDATION [inaudible]
AND I SOMETHING THAT WASN'T
FOCUSED ON TOO MUCH -- IN THE
PRIOR PANELS THAT I WANTED TO
FOCUS ON IS THE FACT.
OUT THE SPECIAL MASTERS -- AND
THE AUDITOR'S RECOMMENDATION
THAT THEY DON'T.
THAT THE SPECIAL MASTER SHOULD
NOT BE PART OF THIS PROCESS --
AND AND WE WE REALLY SUPPORT
THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE SPECIAL MASTERS
ARE JUDGES THEMSELVES AND IF
YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS AS A
PART AS A PERCEPTION OF THE
PUBLIC -- WHETHER OR NOT IT'S
ACTUALLY HAPPENING BIG THERE CAN
DEFINITELY BE A PERCEPTION THAT
JUDGES WHO ARE JUDGING THEIR OWN
PEERS THEY HAVE A TENDENCY EVEN
AND EVEN SUBCONSCIOUSLY.
TO GIVE MORE LENIENT AND
DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDATIONS FAN
THEN THEY MAY BE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC MIGHT.
AND I BELIEVE THE AUDITOR FOUND
THAT IN THE CASES WHERE THE
COMMISSION DIFFERED FROM THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL
MASTER THE COMMISSION WHO HAS
PUBLIC MEMBERS ON THE COMMISSION.
IN EVERY INSTANCE VOTED TO
ELEVATE THE RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF
DISCIPLINES I THINK THAT WAS AN
IMPORTANT FACT THAT I WANTED TO
MAKE SURE.
WE HIGHLIGHTED HERE -- WITH
RESPECT TO THE CONCERN THAT
SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE REYES WITH
HAVING PUBLIC MEMBERS INVOLVED
IN BEING YOU KNOW AND EDUCATING
THESE CASES.
THIS THIS IS WHERE IT'S REALLY
HELPFUL TO LOOK AT THE WAY THAT
OTHER STATE AGENCIES RYAN.
AND I HAD WE'VE KIND OF
SPECIFIED.
IS AND I WILL GO THROUGH THE
WHOLE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT FOR YOU RIGHT NOW.
BUT I DO WITH WHEN YOU ARE
LOOKING AT HOW TO RUN THIS I CAN
TELL YOU THAT -- FOR EXAMPLE
WHAT THE MEDICAL BOARD THE BOARD
DOES MAKE THE DECISIONS -- AS
FAR AS THE DISCIPLINE AT THE END
OF THE DAY IN THE MEDICAL BOARD
IS MADE UP OF PUBLIC MEMBERS AND
POSITION MEMBERS -- THAT THE
WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE I THINK IS
THE BALANCE BETWEEN INDEPENDENCE
AND EXPERTISE SO IF YOU HAVE
ONLY JUDGES MAKING DECISIONS
ABOUT THE WAY THAT JUDGES SHOULD
OR SHOULDN'T BEHAVE.
YOU MAY HAVE THE EXPERTISE BUT
YOU'RE LACKING THE INDEPENDENCE
FROM THE PUBLIC STANDPOINT AS
FAR AS WHAT IS FAIR AND
EQUITABLE AND SO YOU WANT TO
MAKE SURE AND AS YOU'RE PUTTING
SOMETHING LIKE THIS FORWARD.
THAT THERE SHOULD BE THIS
BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO AND THAT
AND THAT REALLY CAN BE DONE.
ON THE OTHER THING THAT WE WE
POINTED OUT IN OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS IS THAT BOARD
SUCH AS THE MEDICAL BOARD HAVE
DISCIPLINARY GUIDELINES.
THAT THEY GO THROUGH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE PROCESS
TO ADOPT.
AND AND THAT GUIDELINE AGAIN
BOTH FOR THE JUDGES WHO WOULD BE
UNDER INVESTIGATION AND THE
POTENTIAL DISCIPLINE AS WELL AS
FOR THE PUBLIC IT REALLY.
MAKES IT MORE CLEAR WHAT WHICH
TYPES OF VIOLATIONS OF WILL YOU
KNOW.
WHICH TYPES OF DISCIPLINE AND
NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE
ADOPTED IN THE PUBLIC PROCESS.
AND SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT.
WE DEFINITELY RECOMMEND THAT THE
THE COMMISSION CONSIDER -- AND
AND WE ALSO REALLY DO RECOMMEND
THIS BI CAMERAL RECOMMENDATION
FOR THE TRUCTURE IT'S AN WE ARE
WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER
GENCY IN CALIFORNIA FOR SURE
THAT HAS THIS UNITARY STRUCTURE.
USUALLY THE THAT REALLY THE
BOARD WHO IS MAKING A FINAL
DECISION ABOUT DISCIPLINE SHOULD
NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION AT ALL
ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING KIND OF
ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE AT THE
BEGINNING.
WHETHER IT'S JUST EVEN IF IT
COULD SUB CONSCIOUS THOSE DOES
FACTS ARE AND AND THE HEADS OF
THE ULTIMATE DECISION MAKERS AND
SO IT'S A IT'S A MUCH.
MORE FAIR PROCESS FOR EVERYONE
INVOLVED TO HAVE A SEPARATE
STRUCTURE.
U. S. SUPPORT THAT
RECOMMENDATION -- AND THEN JUST
LASTLY WE I I HAVE SPECIFIED
SOME SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TRANSPARENCY ADDITIONAL
TRANSPARENCY MEASURES IN MY
LETTER -- AND WE'VE WORKED VERY
CLOSELY WITH THE STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA AND THEY'VE
IMPLEMENTED SEVERAL OF THESE
INCLUDING.
WEBCASTING EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE
NOT SUBJECT TO YOU AND THE SAME
ROLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT THAT THE REST OF
THAT.
BRENT AGENCIES ARE SUBJECT -- TO
HAVING A PROCESS WHERE YOUR POST
THEY WOULD BE POSTING THEIR
PROPOSED RULE CHANGES ON THEIR
WEBSITE THEY HAVE A PUBLIC
HEARING THE HEARING IS WEBCAST --
THEY HAVE AN EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION
ON THEIR WEBSITE WHERE YOU
PEOPLE CAN SIGN UP AND SAY I
WANT TO GET MORE INFORMATION I
WANT TO BE NOTIFIED ANY TIME
THAT -- FOR INSTANCE THE
COMMISSION IS HAVING A PUBLIC
HEARING ALL OF THESE MEASURES --
ARE NOT VERY EXPENSIVE THEY'RE
NOT THAT OWNERS AND THEY REALLY
EMPLOYMENT.
GOOD POLICIES SO THAT THE PUBLIC
CAN BE MORE INVOLVED AND AND
WHAT'S HAPPENING AND PRESERVING
THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE.
SO -- I'M WITH THAT I'LL I'M
JUST HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS AT THE END.
THANK YOU IN A PREVIOUS THAT IN
THE RECOMMENDATIONS LET'S GO TO
MOVE ON THANK YOU THANK YOU --
COMMITTEE MEMBERS WELCOME. TO
RESHAPE AND ALSO -- WELCOME TO
THE A CO PANELISTS.
INTO THE PUBLIC MEMBERS HERE
HERE'S WELL -- MY NAME IS PAUL
BY CHECK A LOOP ON I HAVE BEEN A
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
LOS ANGELES FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS.
AND I AM THE ELECTED PRESIDENT
OF THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES
ASSOCIATION.
CGA IS THE LARGEST VOLUNTARY
JUDICIAL ASSOCIATION IN THE
COUNTRY WITH TWO THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED MEMBERS WHO ARE ACTIVE
AND RETIRED.
JUSTICES IN.
SIR THANK YOU FOR INVITING.
CJ TO PARTICIPATE TODAY IN THIS
IMPORTANT HEARING.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE I AM A
SPECIAL MASTER WITH THE C. JP.
AND I STARTED MY JUDICIAL CAREER
NINETEEN YEARS AGO WHEN I HAD
THE PRIVILEGE OF SENATOR BOB
HERTZBERG.
APPOINTING ME AS A JUDGE TO THE
CALIFORNIA STATE BAR COURT.
AND I I HAD THE PLEASURE OF
SERVING ON THAT COURT FOR TWO
YEARS.
AND I ALSO WAS -- THE FOUNDING
SUPERVISOR AND PARTICIPATED IN
THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ALTERNATIVE HIS DISCIPLINE
PROGRAM.
WHICH ADDRESSES -- SUBSIDY USE A
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES FOR
ATTORNEYS WHO STRUGGLE WITH THAT --
IN SENATOR JACKSON IS A PLEASURE
TO SEE YOU TODAY AND SERVE WITH
YOU ON THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL WE
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT ON
IMPORTANT MATTERS PERTAINING TO
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH AND ACCESS
TO JUSTICE WHICH ARE SO
IMPORTANT.
I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO FOUR MAJOR
THEMES TODAY MAINLY. ONE
EMPHASIZING THE MAINTENANCE AND
EXPANSION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
FOR JUSTICES JUDGES AND
COMMISSIONERS.
WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE JUDICIAL
DISCIPLINE SYSTEM?
TO THE PRESERVATION OF
CONFIDENTIALITY.
IN DISCIPLINE PROCEEDINGS THREE
TYPES OF DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
INCLUDING CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.
IN FOR A C. J. P. REORGANIZATION.
FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
AUDITOR AND HER TEAM FOR ITS
WORK.
MAKE NO MISTAKE ALL OF THE
JUSTICES AND BENCH OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA FULLY SUPPORT THE CJ
PEAS FUNDAMENTAL MISSION WHICH
INCLUDES THE PROTECTION OF THE
PUBLIC -- AND WHILE.
HAVE A THE PANELISTS HAS
MENTIONED THE STRUCTURE OF OTHER
DISCIPLINARY BODIES FOR
PROFESSIONALS AND OTHERS.
LET'S NOT LOSE SIGHT THAT EVERY
BENCH OFFICER IN CALIFORNIA IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER.
EACH AND EVERYONE OF US HAS
TAKEN AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE
UNITED STATES IN CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTIONS UNLIKE.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES
PROFESSIONALS IN OTHER
GOVERNMENT WORKERS AS MENTIONED
EXCEPT LAWYERS ONLY JUDGES ARE
GOVERNED BY A CODE OF ETHICS.
UNDERSTANDING THE INTRICACIES OF
ETHICAL RULES IS SOMETIMES A
COMPLEX UNDERTAKING.
I KNOW THAT THE CALIFORNIA
JUDICIAL CONDUCT HANDBOOK IS
OVER NINE HUNDRED PAGES.
ALL P MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND
SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY BENCH
OFFICERS IN CALIFORNIA
APPRECIATE THAT THE ULTIMATE
OBJECTIVE OF OUR WORK.
IS TO ENSURE INTEGRITY IN HONEST
HONESTY IN DECISION MAKING.
A SOMETIMES MOST DIFFICULT IN
SUBTLE TASK WHILE SEEKING
SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX ISSUES.
WHAT CAN GET LOST IN THE
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE WORK THAT
JUDGES DO IS THE FACT THAT MANY
ASSIGNMENTS?%
LIKE CONFIDENTIAL DEPENDENCY IN
FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS.
INHERENTLY HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO
EVOKE STRONG EMOTIONAL REACTIONS
FROM PARTIES WHO ARE UNHAPPY
WITH THE LEGALLY SOUND AN
ETHICAL OUTCOMES.
SOMETIMES THAT UPSET IS TURNED
ON JUDGES WITH FALSE AND
MISLEADING CRITICISM AND
PERSONAL ATTACKS.
PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ARE TYPICALLY
FILED WITH THE COURT -- LOCAL
LEADERSHIP FOR INVESTIGATION AS
WELL AS THE C. JP.
THE SUPERVISING JUDGES IN OUR
FIFTY EIGHT COUNTIES THOROUGHLY
REVIEW ALL COMPLAINTS.
NO ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IS
DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO
EXPRESS THEMSELVES AND AS YOU
TO THE C. J. P..
R. MERITLESS.
SOME PEOPLE WONDER.
A JUDGE RESPOND TO AND JUST TO
TAX.
WE CAN'T.
THE CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS
PROHIBIT A JUDGE FROM COMMENTING
ON AN OPEN CASE.
ALTHOUGH THE STATISTICS BEAR OUT.
THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF
COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED TO THE C.
J. P. ARE INVESTIGATED AND
DISPOSED OF AND ARE MERITLESS.
THE ATTACKS AGAINST JUDGES
PERSIST ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND
WITHIN THE PRESS.
PLEASE BE MINDFUL ABOUT THE
PERSPECTIVE OF A JUDGE WHO
PURSUES THIS WONDERFUL AND NOBLE
PROFESSION.
WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT
MAINTAINING TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
IN THE COURTS IN ACCESS TO
JUSTICE.
AT THE SAME TIME.
JUDGING.
IS A STRESSFUL PARTICULARLY IN
THE FACE OF CHRONIC INCIVILITY.
WHERE INDIVIDUALS ARE RUDE
DISRESPECTFUL?
BELITTLING OTHERS SPEAKING IN A
CONDESCENDING AND HURTFUL MANNER.
AND BRINGING ON MANAGED PERSONAL
AND PROFESSIONAL CRISIS IS INTO
THE COURT ROOM.
MANY JUDGES FEEL THE DAILY
STRESS OF HEAVY DOCKETS WEIGHTY
DECISIONS.
REPEATED EXPOSURE TO DISTURBING
EVIDENCE AND TRAUMATIZED PARTIES
AND VICTIMS.
ON TOP OF FALSE AND MISLEADING
PUBLIC ATTACKS IN THREAD OF RE.
ELECTION CHALLENGE.
OUR COURT ROOMS ARE AT THE
INTERSECTION OF SOCIETY SERIOUS
PROBLEMS.
LIKE HOMELESSNESS.
OPIATES AN ALCOHOL ADDICTION
MENTAL HEALTH THE SUICIDE CRISIS.
GANG VIOLENCE AND DISCRIMINATION
AND HARASSMENT.
IN FAMILIES IN CRISIS.
FURTHERMORE THE LEGISLATURE IN
SOCIETY OR ASKING JUDGES TO PLAY
A MORE COMPLEX ROLE THAN THE
TRADITIONAL A JUDY KERRY
FUNCTION.
JUDGES ARE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE.
RUNNING MENTAL HEALTH VETERANS
AND DRUG AND ALCOHOL COURSE.
WE COLLABORATE WITH JUSTICE
PARTNERS THE COMMUNITY STAKE
HOLDERS.
WE ARE ASKED TO DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENT EVIDENCE BASED
PRACTICES IN OUR DECISION MAKING.
WHILE SOCIETY IS CHANGING SO IS
THE ROLE AND FUNCTION A JUDGE
PLACE IN OUR COMMUNITIES.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO MENTION
THAT JUSTICE IS A BENCH OFFICERS
SPENT THOUSANDS OF HOURS
VOLUNTEERING.
IN COMMUNITY AND CIVIC OUTRAGE
TO HELP OR USE IN MARGINALIZED
COMMUNITIES.
AND SPEAK ABOUT THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT
JUDGES ARE COMMITTED TO
MANDATORY EDUCATION.
SO THAT WE ARE BETTER AWARE OF
OUR IMPLICIT BIAS.
IN MINDFUL THAT OUR CONDUCT IN
PRIVATE IN PUBLIC LIFE FULFILLS
THE ROLE TO MAINTAIN AN
INDEPENDENT IMPARTIAL AND
HONORABLE JUDICIARY.
WE ASK OURSELVES.
DID I CONSCIOUSLY OR
UNCONSCIOUSLY ALLOW THE
INTRUSION OF INSIDIOUS BIAS TO
COMMAND.
DID I ALLOW THE PRESS OF
BUSINESS TO TRANSCEND JUSTICE.
HAVE I PRETENDED TO HEAR.
WHEN IN FACT I DID NOT LISTEN?
HAVE I ABOUT THE PUBLIC OPINION
YOUR PRESSURE.
REACHING DECISIONS TO FAVOR ONE
SIDE OR THE OTHER.
OR PLEASE THE POWERFUL.
JUDGES ARE THE MEN AND WOMEN
YOUR NEIGHBORS WHO
CONSCIENTIOUSLY STRIVE EVERY DAY.
TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE EQUITABLY
IN FAIRLY.
I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE
AUDIT DOES NOT ELABORATE THE
JUDGES WHO ARE DUTY BOUND TO
PROTECT AND BALANCE.
THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF ALL
WHO APPEARED IN OUR COURTS.
RIGHTLY EXPECT THE SAME WITH
RAMOS INTERACT WITH TO SEE JP.
LET ME REFER YOU TO QUESTIONS
THREE INFORM THE AUDIT WHICH
ADDRESS WHEN JUDGES ARE
CONTACTED ABOUT A COMPLAINT.
IN WHAT INFORMATION DOES SEE JP
PROVIDE JUDGES.
THE CURRENT CJ POOL THE ROLE
PROVIDE.
THE SHARING OF DISCOVERY ONLY
AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE OF FORMAL
PROCEEDINGS BE ISSUED.
CONSEQUENTLY JUDGES DO NOT
DEVELOP COMPLETELY EXCULPATORY
IN MITIGATING EVIDENCE IN DIRECT
RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS MADE
AGAINST THE JUDGE.
NOR OR JUDGES INTERVIEWED EARLY
IN THE PROCESS AS PART OF ITS
INVESTIGATION WHICH COULD BE
PART OF THE INITIAL STEPS OF AN
INVESTIGATION.
JUDGES DO SUPPORT THE COMPLAINTS
BE ASSESSED AND INVESTIGATED.
BUT EXIT THE PROCESS PROCEED
WITHIN A TIME FRAME IT'S FAIR TO
THE JUDGE AS WELL AS THE
COMPLAINT.
A PRE FILING PHASE IN THE
PROCESS IS SO IMPORTANT FOR BOTH
THE C. J. P. AND THE JUDGE IN
ALL BECAUSE IT CAN LEAD. TO
RESTORATIVE PRO APPROACH OR
PROVIDE FOR THERAPEUTIC PLAN OR
OTHER CORRECTIVE MEASURES ALL
SHORT OF DISCIPLINE.
IN FACT.
THE AUDITOR GIVES A NOD TO THE
GROUND BREAKING SEE JP MENTORING
PROGRAM.
CGA COMMENCED THIS SEE JP FOR
THIS INNOVATIVE APPROACH TOWARDS
REMEDIAL JUSTICE.
JUDGES ARE ESPECIALLY CONCERNED
ABOUT PRESERVING IN AND MADE
MAINTAINING CAUGHT.
ALLERGY IN THESE CASES.
AS THE STATISTICS BEAR OUT MOST
COMPLAINTS ARE DISMISSED BUT IN
THOSE INSTANCES WHERE A
COMPLAINT MOVES FORWARD.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE WITHOUT A COMPLETE
ADJUDICATION OF THE FAX.
CAN HAVE DEVASTATING ADVERSE
PUBLICITY.
AND LEAD TO UNFAIR CRITICISM AND
FALSE CLAIMS AND RESULT IN THE
POLITICIZATION OF ELECTORAL
CHALLENGES TO JUDGE BASED UPON
AN INCOMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD.
THE PRESERVATION OF
CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTS THE
INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS FOR ALL
INVOLVED.
CJ SUPPORTS THE AUDITOR TO
IMPLEMENT.
ADDITIONAL CORRECTIVE MEASURES
IN LIEU OF DISCIPLINE.
SUCH AS ANGER MANAGEMENT.
THERAPEUTIC COUNSELING AND OTHER
FORMS OF INTERVENTION THAT HELP
REHABILITATE BEHAVIOR.
THE RECENTLY INITIATED MENTORING
PROGRAM IS A TERRIFIC SHOT A
START CGA ENCOURAGES THE C. J.
P. TO CONTEMPLATE IN ADOPT OTHER
CORRECTIVE MEASURES THAT ARE NOT
DEEMED DISCIPLINE.
IN STILL SERVE THE PURPOSE OF
PRINT PUBLIC PROTECTION.
CJ WOULD BE PLEASED TO WORK WITH
A C. SHAPING ON HAND SAYING SUCH
MEASURES.
LASTLY THE AUDIT RECOMMENDS
REORGANIZATION AND RESTART.
THE CGPA.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT
THE VOTERS A CALIFORNIA IN
APPROVED A MAJOR REFORMULATION
OF THIS CGP AND ESTABLISH A
SYSTEM WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE
COMMISSIONERS ARE PUBLIC MEMBERS.
THEY HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY.
ONLY THREE OF ELEVEN MEMBERS ARE
JUDGES.
THE VOTERS INTENDED IN NINETEEN
NINETY FOUR THAT HAVING THE
VOICES OF JUDGES UNDERSEA JP.
IS CRITICAL.
TOWARDS ENSURING FAIRNESS.
JUDGES ARE ALWAYS BOUND BY THE
CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS
INCLUDING SERVING IN THEIR
FUNCTION.
AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
FOR SPECIAL MASTERS.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT
SOMETHING THAT I'VE HEARD IN
THAT IS THAT.
SPECIAL MASTERS DO NOT IMPOSE
DISCIPLINE.
THAT IS THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF
THE COMMISSION.
THE SPECIAL MASTERS CONDUCT
FINDINGS OF FACT AND MAKE
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
THEY DO NOT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
UPON DISCIPLINE.
AND I MIGHT FURTHER AT THAT LAST
YEAR THERE WERE TWO PUBLIC
HEARINGS ONLY TWO INSTANCES OUT
OF ALL OF THESE CASES WHERE
THERE IN FACT WAS A PUBLIC
HEARING.
AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE RATIO
THAT SPEND GOING.
FOR THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE OVER
THE YEARS. ONE OR TWO CASES IN A
YEAR WHERE THERE'S A A FORMAL
HEARING IN WHICH IS SPECIAL
MASTERS AND FALL.
CGA URGES YOU. TO NOT ACT.
IN HASTE BUT CONDUCTED DEEP
THOUGHTFUL AND DELIBERATE OF
ANALYSIS AND EXAMINATION.
OF THE RESTRUCTURING
RECOMMENDATIONS.
IN CONCLUSION THANK YOU FOR THE
INVITATION TO SPEAK TO YOU I'M
HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE NOW.
AND WILL REMAIN AVAILABLE IN THE
FUTURE TO RESPOND TO ANY
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.
THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY.
AND MAYBE WE'LL JUST BEGIN RIGHT
THEIR COLLEGE WANT TO GET THAT
CLARIFICATION SO SPECIAL MASTERS
BECAUSE THERE'S A PERCEPTION
THAT ONE SPECIAL MASTERS ARE
INVOLVED THAT THERE'S OBVIOUSLY
MORE LENIENCY. TWO OTHER JUDGES.
BUT YOU'RE SAYING.
NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION IS
ACTUALLY PASSED IT STEP BY THE
WHOLE COMMISSION.
AND IT'S A WAITED COMMISSION
WHERE.
I BELIEVE THERE'S THREE SPECIAL
MASTERS ON THE COMMISSION IS
THAT CORRECT YES.
RIGHT.
SO I'D WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT
POINT WAS CLEAR SO THEN.
YEAH I'M WILL ALSO ADD THAT THE
SPECIAL MASTERS.
ARE -- SELECTED INTERPRET.
BY -- THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE A
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.
AND THAT THE SPECIAL MASTERS --
PARTICIPATE IN EXTENSIVE.
TRAINING -- WITH REGARDS TO THE
RULES AND PROCEDURES OF THE C.
JP.
THEY ARE THOROUGHLY EDUCATED
ABOUT -- THE LAW AND THEY
CONSCIENTIOUSLY AND DELIVER
TAILORED LITERALLY -- CONDUCT
THE HEARINGS ALL OF WHICH ARE IN
IN PUBLIC.
AT WHICH TIME -- TESTIMONIES
RECEIVED AND THEY THEY THEN
CONCLUDE WITH THEIR FINDINGS OF
FACT.
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CUT WITH
RESPECT TO VIOLATIONS OF THE
CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS THANK
YOU.
AND SO.
YOU SAY THAT'S ALL DONE IN
PUBLIC YES THIS COMMENTER LAWYER
ABOUT BABY WEBCASTING THAT ARE
IT'S NOT A SET DAY.
OUR THERE'S LITTLE THERE'S
PUBLIC NOTICE OF THESE PUBLIC
LETTERS.
THE PUBLIC IS PRESIDENT THE
PRESSES PRESIDENT THERE --
CONDUCTED AND IN WITH -- FULL
TRANSPARENCY.
GOT IT THANK YOU LET'S MOVE
SENATE JACKSON YES THANK YOU AND
CAN THANK YOU FOR MINDING US THE
THE ROLE OF JUDGES.
WHEN I PRACTICED LAW IT WAS
ALWAYS VERY FRUSTRATING WHEN I
HAD TO WAIT?
A PRO PER LITIGANT. TO CONCLUDE
THEIR APPEARANCE UP FREQUENTLY
THE JUDGES WOULD END UP HAVING
TO EXPLAIN WHAT RULES OF
EVIDENCE ARE -- IT'S REALLY -- I
THINK A VERY CHALLENGING
POSITION TO BE AND CERTAINLY IS
AN ATTORNEY WAITING. TO BE ABLE
TO PRESENT ON BEHALF OF MY
CLIENT TO WAS PAYING ME FOR MY
TIME -- WHILE WAITING FOR A A
COURT TO HAVE TO EDUCATE.
A LITIGANTS ON WHAT.
JUDICIAL PROCESS SHE IS -- CAN
BE VERY VERY DIFFICULT AND WHEN
YOU HAVE A LARGE A CALENDAR OF
CASES BEFORE YOU I CAN CERTAINLY
UNDERSTAND WHY -- MIGHT PERCEIVE
THAT COURTS GET IMPATIENT AND
FRANKLY THEY PROBABLY DO -- AND
THEY ARE.
YOU KNOW HUMAN BEINGS AND FOR
ALL SUBJECT TO THE VAGARIES OF
OUR HUMANITY -- WHICH BRINGS ME
TO A POINT I IT IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT. ONE OF THE CRITICAL
COMPONENTS HERE IS TO TRY TO
ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS BEFORE
THEY RISE TO A LEVEL.
OF DISCIPLINE.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE EVER GOING
TO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.
AVAILABLE TO INVESTIGATE EVERY
CASE -- AND I THINK THAT THE
MAJOR.
HAVE SPECIAL MASTERS ARE USUALLY
IN PARTICULARLY EGREGIOUS
CIRCUMSTANCES -- MOST OF THE
SITUATIONS I EITHER GET RESOLVED
OR COULD BE RESOLVED IT SEEMS TO
ME.
WITH EARLY INTERVENTION IF YOU
WILL THAT THERE ARE FOR EXAMPLE
CONCERNS -- BY A NUMBER OF
PEOPLE -- THAT A JUDGE'S
BEHAVIOR IS INAPPROPRIATE AGAIN
I MENTION THAT ONE CIRCUMSTANCES.
I RECALL WERE JUDGE BETWEEN
ELEVEN THIRTY AND TWELVE O'CLOCK
IN THE MORNING -- WAS ACTUALLY
ON IMPOSSIBLE -- AND IT TURNED
OUT IT'S BECAUSE HE HAD VERY LOW
BLOOD SUGAR WAS I THINK WAS
DIABETIC IT'S MANY MANY YEARS
AGO HE'S LONG DECEASED.
BUT IF SOMEONE HAD INTERVENED
EARLY AND SAY THEIR COMPLAINTS
JUST GRAB A SANDWICH ELEVEN
O'CLOCK I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE
A TAKING CARE OF A PART OF THE
THE PROBLEM NOW NOT ALL THE
SITUATIONS ARE THAT EASY TO
RESOLVE BUT I'M WONDERING -- AT
IF YOU COULD TO AND PERHAPS
SOMEONE.
OTHER THAN THE JUDGE IF THEY
KNOW BETTER -- IS THERE A
PROCESS NOW.
WHERE WE CAN HAVE THAT EARLIER
INTERVENTION -- IS THIS
SOMETHING THAT THE AUDITOR
RECOMMENDS IN IN HER REPORT.
OFTENTIMES EARLY INTERVENTION
SAVES A LOT OF GRIEF OF FOR THE
LITIGANTS FOR THE JUDGE FOR THE
JUDGES -- STAFF I CHOSE BEING
MADE AWARE.
AND THE FACT THAT THE BEHAVIOR
IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT -- THERE
HAVE TO BE CHANGES MADE AND
WHETHER THERE CAN BE TWO
ADDITIONAL TRAINING -- IS THAT
SOMETHING THAT IS ON THE TABLE
HERE RIGHT NOW.
WE COULD WE DO SHOULD DO MORE.
TO TO CREATE THAT I KNOW -- THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL IN THE COURT OF
A TRIES TO DO THAT THE STATE BAR
NOW WE DO WE TRY TO HAVE
PROGRAMS ON DIFFERENT KINDS OF
BEHAVIORAL TRAINING.
ABOUT THE CPAP BEING A UNIQUE
CREATURE IS THAT IS THAT --
OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE UNDER THE
CURRENT LAW OR IS THAT SOMETHING
ELSE THAT HAS TO GET CHANGED
THROUGH A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE MICHAEL
PANELS TO ADDRESS THAT RIGHT.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME I WOULD
LIKE TO SHARE -- FROM THE
JUDGE'S PERSPECTIVE ABOUT THIS
AND MUCH OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT IS -- JUDGES -- PRACTICING.
THOUGHTFUL DEEP SELF AWARENESS.
AND THAT IS CRITICAL ABOUT
HAVING AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT --
WHAT IS GOING ON WITH --
YOURSELF AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT.
SO THAT YOU CAN PRACTICE THE THE
DEGREE OF PATIENCE IS THAT'S
APPROPRIATE.
IN EVERY SINGLE CASE SO THAT YOU
CAN -- MAKE SURE THAT -- THE
MAJORITY OF CASES THAT WE HAVE
WHO ARE SELF REPRESENTED
LITIGANTS -- FEEL THAT THAT THAT
THEY HAVE -- HAD THE DUE PROCESS
THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO SO THE
QUESTION THEN IS IS THE ARE THE
TOOLS TO IT FOR A JUDGE TO
ENGAGE AND THOUGHTFUL SHOP
WORKERS.
ARE THOSE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE IF
WE WERE GOING TO SAY AS WE FOCUS
ON THE CGP AS WE FOCUS ON
JUDICIAL CONDUCT.
LET'S TRY TO ADDRESS WHAT ARE
LIKELY TO BE SOME OF THE
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS THAT ARISE
GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT.
SUCH A 75% OF THE LITIGANTS ARE
ARE SELF REPRESENTED AND DON'T
KNOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND
DON'T KNOW CIVILITY IN A COURT
ROOM MORE WHAT HAVE YOU DONE ARE
THOSE PROGRAMS CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE AND IF SO WHO PROMOTE.
PROVIDES THEM THE CGA HAS A
ROBUST EDUCATION PROGRAM WHERE
WE CONDUCT CONFERENCES WE HAVE
WEAPON ARE.
A LOT OF OF OUTREACH AND
TRAINING IN A LOCAL COURTS ARE
DOING THIS IN INDIVIDUAL COURTS
ARE ALSO DOING THIS IN AN
INFORMAL WAY.
SO THAT THERE ARE CONVERSATIONS
WITH COLLEAGUES TO DO THAT
FURTHERMORE.
THE CENTER FOR JUDICIAL --
EDUCATION WHICH IS -- JUDICIAL
COUNCIL DIVISION THEY HAVE A
ROBUST EDUCATION COMPONENT.
THAT ADDRESSES EXACTLY WHAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SO THERE IS
A LOT OF ROBUST EDUCATION ON
THIS.
DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT FROM
THE C. K. PLEASE [inaudible]
ONE YOUR HERE AGAIN I I DON'T
KNOW WHETHER CHAIRED BY MY
COLLEAGUES BUT I STILL BELIEVE
AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH
A POUND OF CURE AND AND I ALSO
DO KNOW THAT SOME OF THESE
PROGRAMS ARE.
THOROUGHLY INEFFECTIVE -- SO IF
WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER
OF COMPLETION OF MY COMPLAINTS
THAT COME BEFORE GOING TO CHANGE
THE BEHAVIOR WITHIN THE
COURTROOM -- SO THAT LITIGANTS
FEEL THAT THEY'VE BEEN HEARD IN
MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT'S WHAT
LITIGANTS WANT.
EVEN IF YOU DON'T NECESSARILY
AGREE WITH THEM THEY WANT THEIR
DAY IN COURT THEY WANT TO BE
HEARD THEY WANT TO BE RESPECTED --
WHAT IS AVAILABLE SO THAT WE CAN
ASSURE THAT THE?
INJUSTICE THAT THE PUBLIC SEES
IS A CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEIR
EXPECTATIONS.
SO IT THIS AYE AYE HERE'S WHAT I
UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION TO BE
WAS WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE
COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY -- TO
ORDER -- NON DISCIPLINARY -- BUT
EDUCATION ROLE OR THINGS THAT
WOULD HELP JUDGES IMPROVE THE
COMMISSION DOESN'T HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO DO THAT -- THE WHAT
THE COMMISSION CAN DO IS DEFINED
IN THE CONSTITUTION THE
COMMISSION DOES NOT NOW HAVE THE
AUTHORITY. TO ORDER JUDGES TO
UNDERGO EDUCATION OR ANGER
MANAGEMENT OR OR SEEK A
SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT -- AND
HAVE THAT BE -- NON DISCIPLINARY
SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT
WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED TO THE
COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY THANK YOU.
LET ME ASK JUST ON THAT.
BECAUSE I'M NOT VERY FAMILIAR.
IZZARD OPPORTUNITY FOR A JUDGE
[inaudible] TO SAY.
I HAVE HAD ACCESS.
CONDUCT COMPLAINTS AND WHERE
DOES THAT PUT BE IN RELATION TO
MY PEERS.
AND SAY THE COUNTY OR ACROSS THE
STATE -- IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR JUDGE TO EVEN GET THAT
FEEDBACK IS MISERY YEARLY REVIEW
OR SOMETHING WHERE.
SOMEONE CAN TELL THE JUDGE.
THE COMPLAINTS FOR YOUR HERE THE
AVERAGES HERE MAYBE THERE'S
SOMETHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS AND
GO -- TO OF THESE EDUCATION
PROGRAMS AND WHAT NOT.
THERE'S NOTHING -- SPECIFICALLY
LIKE THAT BUT THE COMMISSION
DOES HAVE AN ANNUAL REPORT AND
IN THE ANNUAL REPORT.
THERE ARE -- THERE ARE FULSOME
SUMMARIES OF PUBLIC DISCIPLINE.
AND THERE ARE A BRIEF SUMMARIES
OF OF CONFIDENTIAL DISCIPLINE SO
THEY HAVE TO BE BRIEF BECAUSE
BECAUSE THE DISCIPLINE WAS
CONFIDENTIAL BUT THERE IS ENOUGH
INFORMATION IN THERE. FOR A
JUDGE TO SEE -- WHAT CONDUCT
THAT WARRANTED DISCIPLINE WE
ALSO HAVE A ROBUST INFORMATION
ABOUT -- PRIOR DISCIPLINE ON OUR
WEBSITE BUT WE HAVE BEEN IN
ORDER PORT EVERY YEAR AND WE
SEND IT TO EVERY SINGLE JUDGE IN
THE STATE AS WELL AS YOU ALL
MISTER CHAIR I WOULD LIKE TO
COMMENT THAT.
JUDGES HAVE THE ETHICAL
OBLIGATION TO SELF REPORT.
AND THERE MAY BE SOME -- THE
APPEARANCE OF THE ETHICAL
TRANSGRESSION.
SO WE HAVE THE OBLIGATION AND WE
DO THAT.
AND SECOND WITH RESPECT TO THIS
MATTER OF HOW WE MIGHT -- PER TO
ENHANCE AND BOLSTER --
EDUCATIONAL.
REMEDIATION AND AND THINGS OF
THAT SORT SHORT OF DISCIPLINE IF
THAT'S NOT WITHIN THE STATUTORY
PURVIEW OR CONSTITUTIONAL
PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION AS IT
STANDS NOW.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT.
MANY JUDGES WHO FEEL THAT THE
STRESS OF THAT PARTICULAR
ASSIGNMENT IS NOT WELL SUITED
FOR THEM.
ASKED TO BE REASSIGNED AND SO
THERE IS A LOT OF SUPERVISION
OVERSIGHT OVER THE CONDUCT
BEHAVIOR OF JUDGES BECAUSE AT
THE FRONT LINE.
THE COURTS ARE CONSTANTLY
RECEIVING FEEDBACK AND INPUT --
FROM LITIGANTS FROM ATTORNEYS
FROM STAFF MEMBERS WITH RESPECT --
TO WHAT'S TRANSPIRING IN THE
COURT ROOM.
AND SO THERE IS A LOT OF
DISCUSSION AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
CORRECTIVE ACTION BEFORE IT GETS
AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL AND WE
DO -- WE DO THAT KIND OF THING
UP AND DOWN THE STATE.
WATER AND WITH THAT THE THE
PRESIDING I'M SORRY AS OF THE
SUPERVISING JUDGE SUPERVISING
JUDGE JUDGE HERE IN THE SYSTEM
TO IN SOME CAPACITY RIGHT GOT IT
WORK IT'S TELLING. TO ANOTHER
COLLEAGUE WHO MAY BE A SENIOR
JUDICIAL OFFICER TO ASSIST AND
AND HELP OUT IN A YOU COULD SAY
IN A MENTORING FASHION THAT WE
HAVE.
ESTABLISHED INFORMALLY WITHIN
OUR OWN COURTS.
I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM
THOUGH IS THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION
IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT AND SO I
THINK WE HAVE TO BE MORE EARNEST
AND MORE EFFECTIVE.
IN THOSE PROCEDURES AND AS I
LOOK BACK -- I A NUMBER OF THE
IN PLAIN SAID THAT I HEARD AND
FELT MYSELF WHEN I WAS
PRACTICING WHICH SHALL BE IT IS
A LONG TIME AGO.
IS SOME OF THE IMPLICIT BIAS.
GENDER BASED BIAS RACIALLY BASED
BIAS -- AND THOSE ARE THE KINDS
OF THINGS THAT -- REALLY DO
UNDERMINE -- THE PUBLIC
PERCEPTION OF THE COURTS AND SO --
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE DOING
IS MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE A
VERY ROBUST AND EFFECTIVE
PROGRAM.
A TO ADDRESS IMPLICIT BIAS -- TO
ADDRESS THE KIND OF BEHAVIOR
THAT.
RESULTS IN THE PUBLIC BELIEVING
THAT A PARTICULAR JUDGE.
IS -- BIASED AGAINST CERTAIN
LITIGANTS -- BECAUSE PUT PART OF
THE MY CONCERN TO IS A JUDGE'S
BECOME OF WE HAVE AN ELECTED
JUDICIAL PROCESS HERE IN
CALIFORNIA.
I WANT YOUR JUST TO ENFORCE THE
LAW AND NOT TO WORRY ABOUT
WHETHER WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE
GOING TO GET REELECTED OR
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE IS GONNA
PUBLICLY -- CHALLENGE THEM -- SO
THAT THEY ARE AFRAID TO DO WHAT
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO BECAUSE
OF THEIR FEAR OF LOSING THEIR
JOBS OR THESE ARE JUST PEOPLE.
AND WHEN WE SEE THIS HAPPEN.
THE QUESTION TO ME IS COULD WE
HAVE -- COULD WE HAVE INTERVENED
BEFORE WE GOT TO THAT LEVEL
BECAUSE PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE
JUDICIARY IS CRITICAL IF WE'RE
GONNA HAVE COURT A COURT SYSTEM
THAT FUNCTIONS AS SHE WILL NOW
SO.
I CAN SAY THAT CJ'S MINDFUL OF
AB -- TWO FORTY TWO WHICH IT WAS
AN OPPORTUNITY -- TO BROADEN --
EDUCATION -- FOR LEGAL
PROFESSIONALS AND FOR JUDGES AND
IN FACT JUST YESTERDAY -- CGA
HAD A HAD A MEETING WITH -- OUR
TASK FORCE ON GENDER RACIAL AND
ETHNIC FAIRNESS IN THE COURTS
AND SO THAT WE CAN BEGIN
PLANNING AND DEVELOPING.
MORE ROBUST -- TREATING IN
EDUCATION ON IMPLICIT BIASES
ADDITIONALLY THE CHIEF JUSTICE --
HAS SET CREATED A TASK.
FOR AND HARASSMENT -- AND ITS
RECOMMENDATIONS WILL SOON BE
COMING OUT IN JULY -- WHICH WILL
CONTAIN A NUMBER OF OF
EDUCATIONAL -- IDEAS THAT WE CAN
IMPLEMENT SO MY LAST QUESTION IS
IS THERE ANY WAY FOR THE C. J.
P. TO BE WORKING WITH THE CGA OR
THE COURT SO THE CHIEF FOR ANY
OF THE OTHER -- COURT FOCUSED
ENTITIES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE A ROBUST AND COMPETENT --
EDUCATIONAL PROCESS AND OTHER
REMEDIAL.
EFFORTS TO INTERVENE AT AN
EARLIER STAGE SO THAT WE DON'T
END UP.
WITH -- HAVING TO GO THROUGH A
PROCESS WITH SPECIAL MASTERS
WITH WHAT HAVE YOU THAT THAT WE
CAN DO EARLY INTERVENTION THE
JUDGES DON'T HAVE TO WORRY
NECESSARILY ABOUT.
WHETHER WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS
GOING TO RESULT IN THEM.
LOSING THEIR JOBS I MEAN.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE WE
HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENT GROUPS
THAT ARE TRYING THAT ARE
DESIGNED TO TRY TO REACH THE
SAME GOAL.
IS THERE ANY INTERACTION OR IT
IS A SYSTEM DESIGNED TO EXCLUDE
THAT KIND OF INTERACTION MAYBE
THIS QUESTIONS AS ARE MANY
STAKEHOLDERS AS YOU POINTED OUT --
I HAD THE PLEASURE OF MEETING --
MISTER DRESSLER A MAYBE ABOUT --
SIX WEEKS AGO -- WHEN HE WAS AT
A CONFERENCE -- THAT WAS IT THAT
IT WHICH I WAS INVITED TO ATTEND
AS WELL AS THE DEFENSE COUNSEL.
WHO -- APPEAR REGULARLY BEFORE
THE COMMISSION AND SO IT WAS A
FORM -- BY WHICH STAKEHOLDERS
COULD PARTICIPATE IN THE
IMPORTANT ISSUES -- WITH THE CJ
PAEAN SO CERTAINLY THERE ARE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO TO
PURSUE THOSE KINDS A
CONVERSATION BUT I WONDER FROM
THE C. JP'S PERSPECTIVE IS THIS
SOMETHING OUTS AND CURRENTLY
OBVIOUSLY OUTSIDER AUTHORITY HE
MADE THAT CLEAR.
BUT IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOU
BELIEVE WOULD.
HELP EFFECTUATE A GREATER.
APART GREATER INTEGRITY PERHAPS
GREATER COMPLIANCE WITH CODES OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE OF ETHICS.
IS THERE SOME WAY WE CAN DO THIS --
AT THE FRONT END RATHER THAN AT
THE BACK END.
SO THE THE AND THE ANSWER TO
YOUR QUESTION IS YES IN TERMS OF
PUTTING ON EDUCATION.
LIKE THAT IS OUTSIDE OF OUR
PURVIEW ANDERSON IN AS I
MENTIONED WE DON'T HAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO
ORDER IT -- AND TO ORDER ORDER
CORRECTIVE ACTION.
DO NOT CONSTITUTE A DISCIPLINE
BUT CERTAINLY WERE HAPPY TO
PARTICIPATE WITH THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL AND YOU KNOW OTHER UP.
OTHER APPROPRIATE ENTITIES IN IN
IN FIGURING OUT -- EDUCATION
THAT WILL BE -- EFFECTIVE IN
TRAINING JUDGES ESPECIALLY WERE
ETHICAL CONCERNS ARE INVOLVED
THANK.
THANK YOU.
PLEASE MR TERRACE BUT IT TO
CORRECT A COUPLE THINGS THAT YOU
HAD A QUESTION I DIDN'T GET A
CHANCE TO RESPOND SO I I DO
APOLOGIZE I DID MISSPEAK
MISSPEAK.
IT WASN'T THE REFERENCE TO THE
DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS --
AS FROM THE SPECIAL MASTER
SAMPLING BUT IT WAS THE
DIFFERENCE TO THE COMMITTEE THE
SPECIAL MASTERS FINDINGS.
AND FACTUAL FINDINGS THAT THE
COMMISSION IS HESITANT TO CHANGE
THOSE FINDINGS AND AN AYE AYE I
DO WANT TO REITERATE THAT I AM
SURE.
THE VAST MAJORITY IF NOT ALL OF
THE SPECIAL MASTERS ARE VERY
WELL TRAINED AND ARE ACTING VERY
ETHICALLY I THINK THE PROBLEM
WITH THIS IS REALLY THE PUBLIC
PERCEPTION.
AS ABSOLUTE JACKSON MENTIONED IN
THAT WHETHER IT'S TRUE OR NOT
AND WHETHER THEY HAVE THAT THEY
HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION OR NOT.
FROM THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION
THAT IS WHAT'S VERY IMPORTANT
AND SO FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT
YOU CAN LOOK AT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MOD.
THING LIKE THAT WHICH IS THE WAY
THE OTHER AGENCIES -- HANDLE
THESE TYPES OF HEARINGS WITH THE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO
HANDLE IT AND I DO RECOMMEND
THAT YOU A LOOK AT THOSE OTHER
MODELS.
AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING I WASN'T --
IMPLYING THAT THOSE -- HEARINGS
DO NOT HAPPEN IN PUBLIC WHAT I
WAS REFERRING TO IF THE PUBLIC'S
IMPACT ON GET ON THE RULES THAT
THE COMMISSION HAS AND AND MORE
OF AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WAY
WITH RESPECT TO CHANGE IN THOSE
ROLES.
THANK YOU FOR THE LET ME JUST
ASK YOU GUYS YOUR THOUGHTS
BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT
THE UNICAMERAL BICAMERAL --
OPTIONS HERE.
SO JUST BE THOUGHTS ON THAT.
HI AGAIN I JUST WOULD RECOMMEND
THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AND AS
WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED IN OUR LETTER
THE WAY THAT THE OTHER AGENCIES
WORK AND THAT THEY SHOULD
SEPARATE.
AND THE INVESTIGATOR SHOULD BE
HAPPENING AND ON ONE SIDE AND
THAT SHOULD BE VERY SEPARATE
FROM WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH.
THE DECISION MAKER IS I THINK IS
THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THAT.
THANK YOU I VOTERS HAVE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THIS
AND IS DEEPLY ANALYZED -- OVER
THE PAST TWENTY FIVE YEARS.
THERE HAVE BEEN CONSTITUTIONAL
MEMBERS PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS.
AND I THINK THIS IS -- A HEALTHY
OPPORTUNITY I BELIEVE THAT'S THE
WORD.
THE STATE AUDITOR USED
OPPORTUNITY HERE TO EXAMINE AND
LOOK AT HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN
RUNNING IN IN WHAT -- INPUT CAN
BE AVAILABLE TO MAKE SOME
ADJUSTMENTS -- FOR THE FUTURE
HOWEVER -- TO IMPLEMENT SUCH A A
A A MAJOR -- STRUCTURAL A CHANGE
I THINK REALLY REQUIRES -- MORE
THOUGHTFULNESS MORE DELIBERATION
MORE INPUT.
RATHER THAN SIMPLY RELYING ON
THE ATTORNEYS MODEL AS
IMPLEMENTED BY THE AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION.
AND THEIR RECOMMENDATION GRANT.
IT'S A VERY -- THOUGHTFUL AND
AND AND SALAS -- PLAN HOWEVER
CALIFORNIA IS UNIQUE AND I THINK
WE SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWING.
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BASED
ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE
NOT LIKE THE JURISDICTION OF
CALIFORNIA SO LIKE THAT WOULD BE
MY SUGGESTION IS TO JUST PROCEED
SLOWLY WITH THIS AND AND REALLY --
THE DELIBERATIVE THROUGH YOUR
PROCESS.
OKAY THANK YOU LET ME ASK OF ANY
ADDITIONAL TESTS MUDDY WATER
PROVIDE BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT PANEL.
OKAY THANK YOU WITH THAT WE'LL
GO AHEAD AND WILL MOVE TO AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER FIVE WHICH IS PUBLIC
COMMENT.
CENTER FOR ONE FROM THE PUBLIC
WHO WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE A
BRIEF COMMENT.
ASK THAT YOU PLEASE KEEP YOUR
COMMENTS TO TWO MINUTES SO THAT
WE CAN HEAR FROM EVERYONE PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME AFFILIATION WITH.
OR WHICH COUNTY RESIDE.
THANK YOU THE NAME IS ALIGNED
AND I'M WITH THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN CHAPTER
TEARS ALTHOUGH WE APPRECIATE THE
AUDIT THAT TOOK PLACE TODAY.
WE HAVE SOME VERY VERY IMPORTANT
THINGS THAT WE NEED TO EXPRESS.
WE CONDUCT OUR OWN AUDIT AND I'M
SO HAPPY THAT WE HAVE SOMEONE
REPRESENTING THE LOS ANGELES
COURT SYSTEM BECAUSE THAT'S ONE
OF THE TWO LOS ANGELES AND SANTA
CLARA.
BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTY COURT
SYSTEMS SUPERIOR SMALL CLAIMS
UNLIMITED AND LIMITED SUCKS
CIVIL CASES WE'VE ON COVERED
OVER TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS
NEARLY TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS.
IN EMBEZZLED SECURITY.
BECAUSE THESE JUDGES HAVE NOT
INSURED THAT THERE IS A WARRANT
OVERTURNING.
A SECURITY AGREEMENT.
A CONSIGNMENT AGREEMENT.
CERTIFICATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF THE STATE REQUIRED UNDER
TITLE.
TWENTY EIGHT EVIDENCE OF A VALID
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS LICENSE
WHICH IS A MISDEMEANOR FOR ANY
ATTORNEY TO PRACTICE WITHOUT A
VALID FICTITIOUS BUSINESS PARTY.
UP LICENSE.
IS THAT THE REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST IS ACTUALLY BEING
REPRESENTED.
THE AUTHORITY TO TRAFFIC SO
BILLION PERSONS OF INVESTMENT
COMPANIES INTERSTATE FROM
INTRASTATE.
AND THE LACK OF A CREDIBLE
WITNESS BECAUSE WE HAVE SUMMARY
PROCEEDINGS WERE ATTORNEYS ARE
ALLOWED TO TESTIFY. TO REMOVE
HOMEOWNERS IN SUMMARY
PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE ILLEGAL.
YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TRY TITLE
AT A STATE SUPERIOR COURT.
THESE ARE ALL DEBT COLLECTION
ACTIONS WHICH SHOULD BE HELD
UNDER TITLE FIFTEEN SIXTEEN
NINETY TWO IN THE DISTRICT
JUDICIARY COURTS AND THEY ARE
NOT.
SO EVERYONE OF THE JUDGES WERE
FORMER ATTORNEYS SHOULD HAVE
TAKEN THE RESPONSIBILITY TO
ENSURE THAT THERE WAS A SECURITY
AGREEMENT THERE WAS A
CONSIGNMENT AGREEMENT AND THERE
WOULD BE NO NEED FOR US TO HAVE
A JUDICIAL COMMISSION.
BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY
FRAUD TAKING PLACE IN OUR COURT
SYSTEM.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COURT
SYSTEM IS CURRENTLY BEING USED
AS A LEGAL ICE FENCE FOR THE
EXTORTION EMBEZZLEMENT AND
MONITORING OF CASH ITEM
SECURITIES THAT ARE BEING CUT AT
BEING.
A MAN MONEY LAUNDERED BECAUSE
YOU'RE DISGUISING AND HIDING THE
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WAS THE
EMPLOYEES SECURITIES COMPANY NOW
I AM VERY UPSET TODAY AND THE
REASON I'M UPSET BECAUSE ALL
THESE CHAIRS ARE EMPTY.
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PUBLIC
SERVANTS.
THE PUBLIC GOES LAST SO DOES THE
PER PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH MEANS
THAT THEY'RE NOT DOING YOUR DUTY.
WHICH IS ALWAYS INTO US OF THE
SAME THINGS ALL THESE OTHER TO
SO IT DISAPPOINTING I JUST HAD
TO RUN DOWN THE HALL IN ORDER TO
CATCH THE THIS JACKSON BETH
JACKSON.
AND THIS IS RIDICULOUS QUé
PUBLISHES SPEAK FIRST YOU NEED
TO CHANGE YOUR PROCEDURE BECAUSE
HAVING THE PUBLIC SPEAK LAST AND
THEN YOU'RE NOT EVEN HERE TO
HEAR IT.
IT'S JUST A CONTINUATION OF THIS
SERVICE SO WE NEED TO HAVE SOME
THINGS IN PLACE WE NEED TO HAVE
CREDIBLE WITNESSES WE NEED TO
SEE THAT THESE JUDGES HAVE ANTI
BRIBERY STATEMENTS.
THAT THEY HAVE BALLOT FOREIGN
AID YOU AGENT REGISTRATION
STATEMENT AS REQUIRED FOR ALL OF
THEM AND WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF A
BOND BEFORE THEY ACCEPT ANY
FUNDING OF ANY CASE.
IF WE DIDN'T THOSE MINIMUM
THINGS WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE
HERE TODAY.
SO WE WANT TO PROVIDE THIS TO
YOU IN WRITING.
AND WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT LAY
PERSONS SHOULD BE PARTICIPATING
IN THESE HEARINGS THEY SHOULD BE
CIVILIANS ONCE WHO ARE VERSED IN
LAW AND GOVERNMENT WANTS TO KNOW
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL AND
LAW.
YES THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN
FOR STICKING AROUND -- MY NAME
IS KATHLEEN RUSTLING THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER
FOR JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE.
THE AUDITOR'S LONG AWAITED
REPORT IS AN EXCELLENT JOB OF
EXPLAINING JUST HOW FAR
CALIFORNIA'S ONLY JUDICIAL
OVERSIGHT AGENCY HAS DRIFTED.
IN THE PAST SIXTY YEARS FROM
FULFILLINGITS CORE MISSION OF
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC.
FROM JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.
AS THE ORGANIZATION THAT LED THE
THREE YEAR EFFORT TO SECURE THIS
AUDIT THE CENTER FOR JUDICIAL
EXCELLENCE IS NOT AT ALL
SURPRISED BY THESE FINDINGS.
WE'VE BEEN RECEIVING COMPLAINTS
ABOUT THE C. JP'S INCOMPETENCE
FOR MORE THAN THIRTEEN YEARS.
THIS AUDIT REPORT CONFIRMS WHAT
WE'VE KNOWN FOR SOME TIME.
THE C. J. P. AS IN CRISIS AND
THE PUBLIC THAT YOU SERVE NEEDS
THE LEGISLATURE TO PLEASE STEP
IN NOW. TO HOLD THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH ACCOUNTABLE BY
IMPLEMENTING THE AUDITOR'S
NUMEROUS.
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT REQUIRE
LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP AND
INITIATIVE.
THE C. JP'S HARM TO THE PUBLIC
IS WROUGHT THROUGH ITS ONGOING
SECRECY POOR MANAGEMENT LACK OF
STRATEGIES ARE TIME LINES.
INADEQUATE INVESTIGATIONS LACK
OF PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ACCESS
BIAS AGAINST INVESTIGATING
COMPLAINTS FROM THE PUBLIC WASTE
OF UP 240% OF ITS BUDGET ON NON
CORE ACTIVITIES.
AND ITS RESISTANCE TO TRACK
PATTERNS OF CHRONICJUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT BY SPECIFIC JUDGES.
THE AUDITOR FOUND THAT THE CJ
PEAS INTAKE ATTORNEYS DID NOT
IDENTIFY PATTERNS OF ALLEGATIONS
AGAINST SPECIFIC JUDGES.
IN ONE EXAMPLE THE CJ P.
RECEIVED TWELVE COMPLAINTS IN
LESS THAN TEN YEARS ABOUT A
PARTICULAR JUDGES DEMEANOR AND
BIAS ON THE BENCH AND YET.
THOSE COMPLAINTS WERE ALL CLOSED
WITHOUT DISCIPLINE.
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT THE
C. J. P..
HAS EXPRESED RESISTANCE TO
IMPLEMENTING THE AUDITOR'S
CRUCIAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO HOUSE
STAFF DETERMINE BROADER PATTERNS
OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.
BY CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE
HISTORY OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST A
JUDGE ESPECIALLY IN CASES
INVOLVING BIAS AND LEGAL ERROR.
MR DRESSER SITES DUE PROCESS
CONCERNS IN ADOPTING THIS
RECOMMENDATION WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT WHERE IS THE CONCERN FOR
PUBLIC PROTECTION WHY HAVE ONLY
THREE C. J. P. EVENTS OUT OF A
HUNDRED AND TWENTY IN THE PAST
FIVE YEARS.
TARGETED THE PUBLIC IS THE
AUDITOR POINTED OUT WHEN THE CJ
PEACE CORPS MISSION IS
SUPPOSEDLY. TO PROTECT US THE
PUBLIC.
FINALLY THE IN THE OUGHT.
REVIEWED OVER THE PAST FIVE
YEARS ALL BUT TWO OF THE JUDGES
WHO RECEIVE PUBLIC DISCIPLINE.
HAD BEEN THE SUBJECTS OF PRIOR
COMPLAINTS NINE SAW COMPLAINTS
ABOUT THEM CLOSED WITHOUT
DISCIPLINE 58% OF THOSE WHO ARE
PUBLICLY DISCIPLINE HAD
PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED PRIVATE
DISCIPLINE.
CLEARLY.
THE CURRENT DISCIPLINE SYSTEM IS
NOT WORKING WE NEED A WHOLE NEW
CULTURE OF JUDICIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY IN CALIFORNIA BUT
WE CANNOT DO IT WITHOUT THE
LEGISLATURE'S LEADERSHIP WE'RE
HAPPY TO HEAR THAT THIS IS.
SIMPLY THE BEGINNING AND NOT THE
END AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THIS COMMITTEE AND
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ON REFORMING
THE SYSTEM THANK YOU THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT PLEASE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN MY
NAME IS JACQUELINE CARA I HAVE
AN ORGANIZATION CALLED THE
PROTECTIVE MOTHERS OF SOLANO
COUNTY IT'S AN ADVOCACY.
GROUP AND SOLANO COUNTY.
LET ME TELL YOU WHY WE CARE
ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
IN SOLANO COUNTY ALONE AND SHOW
US THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS WE'VE
HAD MULTIPLE DEATHS.
DUE TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS YOU
PROBABLY HEARD ON THE NEWS A
STORY ABOUT CALLIE ANDERSON JUST
LAST YEAR.
SACRAMENTO SHE WAS FOUND IN A
LITTLE GIRL ABOUT THE AGE OF
FIVE FOUND IN A STORAGE LOCKER
IN SACRAMENTO.
A FATHER IN HEAVEN SOLE CUSTODY
AFTER YOU GOT OUT OF JAIL IN A
DRUG REHAB PROGRAM.
THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE HAD A
LONG HISTORY AND PATTERN AND
PRACTICE OF DISMISSING CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE OF ABUSE.
THE CJ P. HAD PRIVATELY ADMONISH
THIS JUDGE.
THERE HAD BEEN TO RECALLS ISSUED
OF THE SAME JUDGE AND NEWSPAPER
ARTICLES TRYING TO DRAW
ATTENTION TO IT.
NOTHING WAS DONE.
AND NOW THIS CHILD DIED THERE
WAS ANOTHER MURDER OF ANOTHER
LITTLE GIRL ANOTHER WOMAN MOTHER
OF OF FOUR CHILDREN CAN YOU
SHOULD JACKSON.
JUST TWO YEARS AGO THERE WAS
AGAIN A CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF
ABUSE THE PUBLIC TRIED TO BRING
ATTENTION TO THE C. J. P. I KNOW
ATTORNEYS HAD REPORTED IT TO THE
C. J. P..
NOTHING WAS DONE THE JUDGE
DISMISSED ALL OF THE CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE OF ABUSE AND SAID.
I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO GRANT THIS
MOTHER A RESTRAINING ORDER I
DON'T THINK HE'S THE MAN'S GOING
TO KILL HER. TWO MONTHS LATER
SHE WAS SHOT AND KILLED IN OUR
OWN HOME IN FRONT OF HER
CHILDREN.
THIS IS JUST A FEW OF THE MANY
CASES THAT WE HAVE WHERE THESE
ARE NOT.
A JUDGE WITH LOTION BLOW BLOOD
SUGAR BEFORE LUNCH.
THESE THIS IS A PATTERN AND
PRACTICE [inaudible]
OF ONE THING THAT THE CDP IT.
IS TO LOOK FOR BIAS THERE ALSO
TAPS WAS LOOKING FOR PERJURY
I'VE WORKED WITH THE FBI PUBLIC
CORRUPTION UNIT THEY'VE ATTENDED
HEARINGS IN SOLANO COUNTY.
THEY'VE SAID TO ME JACQUELINE.
THESE CHILDREN WERE LEGALLY
KIDNAPPED THE JUDGE KNOWINGLY
LIED IN THEIR COURT ORDER TO
COVER UP WHAT THEY DID AND YOU
KNOW THE US ATTORNEY SAID UNLESS
WE CAN PROVE QUID PRO QUO WE
CAN'T GO AFTER THE JUDGE.
WE HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE JUDGE
WAS PAID TO LIE BUT WE CAN'T
PROVE THE JUDGE WAS PAID TO LIE.
ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS
ABSOLUTELY THE ONLY
ACCOUNTABILITY THAT WE HAVE
RIGHT NOW IS THE C. J. P. WE ARE
DEPENDENT UPON THEM TO DO THEIR
JOB WE DON'T NEED ANGER
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.
WE DON'T NEED -- LET'S MAKE SURE
YOU ARE DOING OKAY EMOTIONALLY
TODAY IF YOUR CHILD WAS THE ONE
THAT HAD BEEN MURDERED BECAUSE
OF A JUDGE'S BLATANT DISREGARD
FOR THE LAW YOU WOULD NOT BE
OKAY WITH THAT RESULT.
I LASTLY I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE
FACT.
THAT THE APPELLATE PROCESS DOES
NOT ADDRESS FACTS AND EVIDENCE
WE HEARD A LOT TODAY ABOUT IF
THERE'S LEGAL ERROR THEN TAKE IT
UP WITH THE APPELLATE COURTS
EVERY ATTORNEY KNOWS THAT THE
COURT OF APPEAL DOES NOT
REASSESS FACTS AND EVIDENCE.
SO BUT SAYS EUROPE HAD A FILE.
NO ONE ELSE'S YOUR PET A FILE
THERE ISN'T ONE SHRED OF
EVIDENCE FOR THAT BUT A JUDGE
SAYS IT IN THEIR COURT ORDER.
AND YOU COMPLAIN TO THE C. J. P.
AND SAY HEY THIS JUDGE KNOWINGLY
LIED TO ME THE CJ PEOPLE SAY
TAKE IT UP ON APPEAL.
THE COURT OF APPEAL WILL SAY WE
DON'T REASSESS FACTS AND
EVIDENCE THE PRESIDING WILL
JUDGE WILL SAY WE CAN'T DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT WE DON'T HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE JUDGE.
IF YOU GO TO THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND SAY WE WANT YOU TO
PROSECUTE THE JUDGE FOR PERJURY
THEY'LL SAY THERE'S NO WAY WE'RE
GOING TO DO THAT.
AND WE KNOW AS I SAID WITH THE
FBI UNLESS WE CAN PROVE THE
JUDGE GOT PAID TO LIE THEY CAN'T
DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT EITHER THE
ONLY RECTIFYING PROCESS WE HAVE
RIGHT NOW.
IS THE CJ PIECE SO THANK YOU FOR
DOING THIS AUDIT WE ASK THAT YOU
WOULD CONTINUE WITH THE AUDIT
THAT THERE WOULD BE EVEN MAYBE
WE CAN SCHEDULE IT'S FOR EVERY
COUPLE YEARS.
THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF
HE ICEBERG IN RECTIFYING THIS
PROBLEM BUT THERE'S A LONG WAY
TO GO HERE THANK YOU THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT PLACE.
THANK YOU AN ERROR NO DORY I'M --
MOM FROM SANTA CLARA COUNTY I
SPENT FOUR YEARS IN THE FAMILY
COURT SYSTEM SO UNLIKE MANY OF
THE PEOPLE ON THE PANEL HERE I
ACTUALLY AT FIRST HAND
EXPERIENCE A LOT OF THEM.
SEEM TO THINK.
THEY HAD HAD MISCONCEPTIONS
ABOUT WHAT GOES ON IN FAMILY
COURT -- I WANT TO THINK THE TWO
OF YOU.
THANK YOU I THINK IT'S APPALLING
THAT EVERYBODY GOT UP AND LEFT
AFTER WE WAITED FOR TWO AND A
HALF HOURS. TO MAKE THESE PUBLIC
COMMENTS AND WE WE LISTEN TO
EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE ELSE
HAD TO SAY AND THEN WHEN IT'S
OUR TURN EVERYBODY GETS UP AND
WALKS OUT.
SO.
I I'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT.
MOST OF THESE CASES WERE
DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT I WOULD LIKE
TO SAY IN.
IN TWENTY FOURTEEN I LEFT THE
AND I WAS SENT A COURT ORDER
THAT SAID I WAS EVICTED FROM MY
HOUSE I COULD NOT RETURN HOME I
COULD NOT RETRIEVE ANY MY
PERSONAL BELONGINGS.
AND MY TWO YOUNGEST CHILDREN MY
THE COST I WOULD I WAS REMOVED
FROM BOTH PHYSICAL AND LEGAL
CUSTODY OF THEM.
THIS WAS ALL DONE BASED ON A
PRESUMPTION THAT IS RIGHT MY
CHILDREN WERE TAKEN FROM ME.
BASED ON A PRESUMPTION NOT ON
FACTS IN EVIDENCE NOT ON A TRIAL.
THE LAWMAKERS SHOULD CREATED
THIS LOCK CODE PRESUMED THAT THE
JUDGES WOULD BE ETHICAL ENOUGH
TO GIVE ME A HEARING. TO REBUT
THIS PRESUMPTION.
MY JUDGE DENIED ME A REBUTTAL A
HEARING FOR THREE AND A HALF
YEARS.
SO THE LAWMAKERS ARE NOT IN LINE.
GOING ON IN THE COURTROOM YOU
ARE ASSUMING YOU ARE WORKING
WITH PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE BY US
IN OUR ETHICAL AND WE'LL GIVE
YOU A HEARING IN A TIMELY MANNER
I'M HERE TO TELL YOU.
THIS IS NOT HAPPENING IN OUR
FAMILY COURTS.
CALIFORNIA HAS A STRICT
DIRECTIVE VISITATION WITH THE
PARENT CANNOT BE DENIED UNLESS
THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT
THIS IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST
OF THE CHILD.
I WILL TELL YOU.
I KNOW HUNDREDS OF PARENTS
PERSONALLY WHO ARE DENIED
VISITATION BASED ON NOTHING MORE
THAN A JUDGE'S PERSONAL OPINION.
THIS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS HOW DO YOU PUT THAT INTO
A COMPLAINT HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT
COMPLAINT RELEVANT.
APPARENTLY WERE NOT USING THE
RIGHT SEMANTICS BUT IF YOU THINK
TAKING SOMEONE'S CHILD AND
DENYING VISITATION IS LEGAL IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY TO YOU.
THE US SUPREME COURT HAS
DETERMINED THAT A PARENT COULD
NOT BE STRIPPED OF LEGAL RIGHTS
TO THEIR CHILDREN WITHOUT A
STRICT SCRUTINY HEARING.
WHEN I TOLD MY JUDGE I WANTED A
STRICT SCRUTINY HEARING SHE
LEANED INTO THE MICROPHONE AND
SAID MISS SO DORY STRICT
SCRUTINY DOES NOT APPLY IN MY
COURTROOM?
NOW THIS IS A COURT ROOM STILL
ON WILL.
ON LAND IN THE UNITED.
ERICA SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT
CONCEPT EXCEPT THAT I'M DEALING
WITH THE QUARTERBACK FORTY
INSTEAD OF A COURT OF LAW WHICH
MEANS THAT ALL OF THE DECISIONS
ARE BASED ON HEARSAY RATHER THAN
FACTS OR EVIDENCE.
WHEN THIS PANEL SITS HERE IN
SAYS NEITHER PARTY IS HAPPY IN
COURT OUTCOMES AND LITIGANTS ARE
SIMPLY LOOKING TO BLAME A JUDGE?
IT SHOWS YOU THEIR LACK OF
EDUCATION OR WILL FOR WILLFUL
IGNORANCE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING
IN OUR FAMILY AND JUDICIAL COURT.
WHAT WE ARE PRESENTING TO YOU IN
TRYING TO TELL YOU IS THAT THE
MINUTE YOU WALK INTO FAMILY
COURT?
OR JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT
THERE'S A COMPLETE DISREGARD OF
DUE PROCESS.
THERE'S A BLATANT DISREGARD FOR
THE LIBERTY INTEREST PROTECTED
BY THE US CONSTITUTION.
AND I WILL ARGUE THERE'S A
WILLFUL AND INTENTIONAL
DESTRUCTION OF FAMILIES FOR
PROFIT.
THIS IS NOW A FIFTY TWO BILLION
DOLLAR INDUSTRY. TO THINK THAT
JUDGES ARE NOT GOING TO SUCCUMB
TO COLLUSION AND CORRUPTION IS
ABSURD. TO THINK THAT WE DON'T
NEED A WATCH STAR THAT HAS TEETH
IS ABSURD.
IN FAMILY COURT.
DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO AN
ATTORNEY.
DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A TRIAL
BY JURY.
IT DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A
HEARING IN A MANNER.
AS I MENTIONED I WAS DENIED A
HEARING FOR THREE AND A HALF
YEARS.
NOW IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT THAT
THERE'S AN APPEALS PROCESS WELL
I DID TRY THAT APPEALS PROCESS.
FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS I WAS
DENIED A HEARING FROM MY APPEAL
THEY WAITED UNTIL MY DAUGHTER
AGED OUT OF THE SYSTEM TO HEAR
MY APPEAL AND THEN THEY
DETERMINED IT WAS MOVED.
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT
OUT ABOUT THE APPEALS PROCESS IT
IS VERY EXPENSIVE IT COST
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND THAT.
THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS THERE IS
SUPPOSED TO BE READILY AVAILABLE
THEY ARE IF YOU HAVE THOUSANDS
OF DOLLARS TO PAY FOR THEM.
THIS WHOLE SYSTEM IS RIGGED
AGAINST A PARENT KEEPING CUSTODY
OF THEIR CHILDREN.
IF YOU CAN CONCLUDE PLEASE OKAY.
I'LL WRAP IT UP BUT I WANT TO
SAY SOMETHING HERE FOR YEARS WE
SAID.
THAT THEIR MASS INCARCERATION
WAS NOT INTENTIONAL ON THE PART
OF OUR CRIMINAL COURTS AND NOW
I'M LISTENING HERE AND FOR YEARS
WE'VE BEEN SAYING THAT OUR
FAMILY IN JUVENILE COURT OR NOT
INTENTIONALLY DESTROYING.
FAMILIES I'M HERE TO TO SAY
THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
AND THE TWO THOUSAND CHILDREN
THAT ARE TAKEN FROM THEIR
PARENTS EVERY THREE DAYS IN THE
FAMILY FAMILY AND JUDICIAL COURT.
TENNESSEE COURTS IN THIS COUNTRY.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT PLEASE.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK.
SKEWS ME AND I TOO WOULD LIKE TO
EXPRESS MY DISAPPOINTMENT THAT
ARE.
ELECTED OFFICIALS WOULD RUN OUT
THE DOOR I THANK YOU FOLKS FROM
THE GYM.
THE COUNCIL FOR STATE I REALLY
APPRECIATE.
I'M A BRITISH FITS PATRICK FROM
SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND I
REPRESENT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY'S
INTERESTS.
AND THE INTERESTS OF THE
UNPROTECTED PUBLIC.
THE AUDIT ON THE C. J. P. STATES
IN CHAPTER ONE QUOTE.
FLIES IN THE C. JP'S INTAKE AND
INVESTIGATION PROCESS SEES.
COULD ALLOW JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
TO CONTINUE.
WHICH IMPLIES THAT IT'S ALREADY
GOING ON JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AS
AN HAS OCCURRED.
IN THIS POSSIBLY MOST EVIDENT IN
FAMILY COURT.
THE SEXUAL TORTURE AND MURDER OF
CHILDREN.
HAS BEEN ENABLED.
BY DEEPLY FLAWED TO JUST ALL
DECISIONS OFTEN.
UNBIASED IN INCOMPETENCE.
WHEN I WROTE THE C. J. P. ABOUT
A JUDGE SENDING MY GREAT NIECE?
TO LIVE WITH HER DRUG AND
ALCOHOL ADDICTED.
EX CONVICT MALE PARENT.
WHO IS AWAITING TRIAL FOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
I RECEIVED A LETTER AFTER ABOUT
A YEAR.
TELLING ME THAT THE JUDGE HAD
DONE NOTHING WRONG.
THEY DID NOT ADDRESS MY
COMPLAINTS.
THEY DID NOT EXPLAIN HOW THEY
CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION. NINE
MONTHS AFTER THE MALE PARENT IN
CUSTODY.
AFTER REPEATEDLY DRUGGING AND
SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER.
HER MALE PARENT MURDERED HER.
AND BURIED HER IN THE BACKYARD.
HE PHOTOGRAPHED HIS BEHAVIOR
WITH THOUSANDS OF PICTURES ON
HIS COMPUTER.
THAT TOOK THE FBI TEN MONTHS TO
FINALLY GET.
TO AFTER HE MOVED TO LOS ANGELES
HE CONTINUED HIS PREDATORY
BEHAVIOR.
WITH A SIXTEEN AND AN EIGHT YEAR
OLD.
OLD SINS CAST LONG SHADOWS.
THE JUDGE IS FLAWED DECISION.
WITH PRONOUNCED BIAS AGAINST THE
MOTHER.
HIS DISREGARD OF THE MANY SIGNS
OF DANGER.
ENABLE THE PETA FILE AND
MURDERER. TO IMPRISON.
TORTURE AND MURDER HIS FOURTEEN
YEAR OLD DAUGHTER.
SEVERAL OTHER CHILDREN HAVE MET
A LEASE YOU MYSTERIOUS FATE.
SINCE SHE WAS MURDERED.
AND NOBODY DOES ANYTHING YOU
DON'T CHANGE A LOT YOU DON'T
FIND THE JUDGES AT FAULT.
IT KEEPS GOING ON PLEASE DO YOUR
JOBS.
THEY MAKE THE LAWS SO WE'LL KEEP
OUR CHILDREN SAFE.
THE JUDGES WILL NOT HAVE SO MUCH
DISCRETION THAT THEY CAN IGNORE
EVIDENCE OF ABUSE AND SEND THEM
TO LIVE WITH DANGEROUS PEOPLE.
THANK YOU THANK YOU [inaudible]
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY.
GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS SHARON
KRAMER AND I'M HERE FROM SAN
DIEGO.
CALIFORNIA AND I'M GONNA TRY TO
BE BRIEF MY COMMENTS.
AND I'M A WHISTLEBLOWER JUNK
SCIENCE A US PUBLIC HEALTH
POLICY THAT.
WAS BEING MARKETED TO COMMIT
INSURER FRAUD IN MOLD ISSUE AND
I'VE DONE A LOT OF LOBBYING I'VE
GOTTEN FEDERAL ON SAID.
WASHINGTON DC I JUST BECAUSE THE
NAVY TO RETRACT A NEW PUBLIC
HEALTH ADVICE.
BUT I FIRST READ THIS IN TWO
THOUSAND AND FIVE AND GOVERNOR
SCHWARZENEGGER ENDORSE THE JUNK
SCIENCE AND CALIFORNIA.
HEALTH POLICY SIX MONTHS LATER
IN CALIFORNIA COURT STARTED
FRAMING ME FOR LIBEL FOR
EXPOSING FRAUD WAY BACK
[inaudible]
SO.
I AM FILE MY FIRST COMPLAINT TO
THE C. J. P. IN OCTOBER OF TWO
THOUSAND AND TEN AND ONE OF THE
PEOPLE I COMPLAINED ABOUT WAS
THE CHAIRWOMAN MYTHS AJP.
AND TEN DAYS LATER A SECOND
LAWSUIT WAS FILED TO TRY TO
PERMANENTLY AND JOIN ME.
ON WHAT I COMPLAIN TO THEM ABOUT
WAS SO BORN IN THE PERJURY.
IN THE STRATEGIC LITIGATION Là
TRYING TO SHUT ME UP.
AND IN THE SECOND LAWSUIT I WAS
SENT TO JAIL. FOR REFUSING TO
SIGN A PIECE OF PAPER WHICH SAYS
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE PLAINTIFF
COMMITTED PERJURY.
SO.
THEY LOOK THE ONE OF THE LADIES
MENTIONED THE PERJURY THAT'S
GOING ON PUNISHED AND THE COURTS
AND THE C. J. P. IS NOT
ADDRESSING AT YOU KNOW IT IS
DISRESPECTFUL THAT EVERYBODY
LEFT HERE.
AND THAT YOU'RE CONSTANTLY TALK
ABOUT -- 90% OF THOSE PRO PURRS
DATE THERE'S THERE'S NOTHING TO
IT.
YOU KNOW WE COST.
HIDE IT WE THE PUBLIC THOSE OF
US WHO WORK FOR THIS.
WE'RE NOT STUPID WE KNOW WHAT A
LEGAL ERROR IS WE KNOW WHAT A
LEGAL ERROR OF JUST BIAS THAT
NEEDS A LITTLE.
YOU KNOW LITTLE NUDGE DON'T DO
THAT ANYMORE AND WE ALSO KNOW
WHAT CRIMINAL LEGAL ERRORS ARE
IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
SAID THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU OUT
TO ADDRESS.
THE C. J. P. HAS WRITTEN A ROLE
FOR THEMSELVES.
THAT THEY NAY REPORT CRIMINAL
CONDUCT IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO
THOSE WITH PROSECUTING AUTHORITY
NOT THAT THEY SHALL REPORT THEY
MAY.
SO IF YOU GO TO THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND YOU REPORT
A CRIME OF THE JUDGE.
THEY FLIP YOU OVER TO THIS GO GO
SEE THE C. J. P..
THE C. JP THEY DON'T REPORT
CRIMES TO THOSE ARE PROSECUTING
AUTHORITY.
SIMPLY HAVE ON HOLY RELATIONSHIP
RIGHT NOW BETWEEN OUR ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE AND ARE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE.
AND I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY THE
REAL BOTTLED LACK.
OF ITS BE.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT THAT'S
OCCURRING IN THESE COURTS WITH
THE AND NO ONE'S HOLD THINKING
AND RESPONSIBLE.
AND HERE'S MY LAST COMMENT.
I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS AUDIT
TO COME OUT BECAUSE I WAS HOPING
THAT IT WOULD.
REALLY BRING THIS CRIMINAL
ASPECT TO LIGHT.
I HAVE TO FILE ANOTHER COMPLAINT
WITH THE C. J. P..
I'M AFRAID TO FILE IT BECAUSE
THEY'RE A NOT THERE SEE JAY PEAK
COMMISSIONER HIS ON THE
COMMISSION NOW WHO'S INVOLVED.
EXTENSIVE CASE FIXING.
I'M AFRAID I'M GONNA GET
PHYSICALLY HURT AGAIN IF I FILE
ANOTHER COMPLAINT SO I SENT A
LETTER ASKING WHAT CAN YOU DO TO
PROTECT ME.
AND COMMON I GOT BACK FROM MISS
SONYA SMITH WAS WE CAN'T CONTROL
WHAT THE JUDGES DO.
SO DO I FILE ANOTHER COMPLAINT
TO TRY AND STOP THIS CRIME I DO
I LIVE IN FEAR.
BECAUSE NOBODY'S GOING TO
PROTECT ME FROM RETALIATION.
THAT'S MY PRESENTATION I HOPE
YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION
PLEASE IT'S NOT JUST THEM IT'S
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THANK.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK HERE TODAY.
I SPEAK NOT ONLY FOR MYSELF BUT
FOR DOZENS OF PROTECTIVE PARENTS
SURVIVORS OF HONORABLE JUDGE
BEVERLY WHAT.
MANY.
NOT BE HERETODAY AS THEY HAVE
BEEN FORCED OUT OF WEALTHY MARIN
COUNTY OR INTO HARDSHIP BY JUDGE
WHAT'S PUNITIVE CHILD CUSTODY
AND FINANCIAL ORDERS.
BY THE LUCRATIVE NEEDS COTTAGE
INDUSTRY OF COURT AFFILIATED
PROFESSIONALS SUCH AS
REUNIFICATION THERAPIST AND
SUPERVISED VISIT SUPERVISORS.
MOST IMPORTANTLY I SPEAK FOR MY
PRECIOUS CHILDREN.
IS COMMON SENSE FOR THE CJ T. H.
C. J. P. TO TAKE STEPS TO
IDENTIFY PATTERNS OF COMPLAINTS.
AND INITIATE INVESTIGATIONS WERE
NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ALLEGE
SIMILAR PROBLEMS INVOLVING A
JUDGE.
I HAVE FILED SEVEN COMPLAINTS
WITH THE C. J. P. AND PROVIDED
EVIDENCE THAT ARE JUDGING GAUGES
AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.
AND DOES NOT UPHOLD THE CODES
FOR JUDICIAL CONDUCT SUCH AS SHE
ENGAGES AN EX PARTE
COMMUNICATION WITH MY CHILDREN'S
FATHER.
I INFORM THEM THAT OUR FAMILY
UNDERWENT TO CUSTODY EVALUATIONS
PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING OF BOTH
PARENTS AND SEVEN SAKE C. F. S.
INVESTIGATIONS.
I ALSO SENT TO C. J. P. AUDIO
RECORDINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED
TO THE COURT A FATHER SEVERE
VERBAL ABUSE OF THE CHILDREN.
IT IS UNCLEAR TO ME AT THE C. J.
B. P. READ THE EVALUATIONS
TRANSCRIPTS CFS REPORTS OR
LISTEN TO THE RECORDING.
JUDGE WAS STRIPPED AWAY
PROTECTIONS PREVIOUSLY ORDERED
BY ANOTHER COURT THAT WERE IN
PLACE TO PROTECT US AND PLACE MY
CHILDREN INTO THE PRIMARY CARE
OF THEIR FATHER.
A DOCUMENTED PERPETRATOR OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT HAS A LIFETIME IMPACT
ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EVERY
SINGLE DAY.
OUR CHILDREN LIVED PRIMARILY
WITH THE FATHER THAT INFLICTS
EMOTIONAL TORTURE UPON THEM IN A
SIMILAR MANNER THE TURF AND
CHILDREN WERE TORTURED BY THEIR
PARENTS.
MY CHILDREN'S FATHER IS A DOCTOR.
HE HAS BEEN ENABLED ABUSER
BECAUSE OF JUDGE WHAT.
HE HAD SUPERVISED VISITS FOR TWO
AND A HALF YEARS.
HIS POWER PRIVILEGE AND WEALTH
AFFORDS HIM THE ABILITY TO PAY
FOR EXPENSIVE LAWYERS EXPERTS
AND PROFESSIONALS. TO MY
CHILDREN'S FATHER OR CASSIE
BATTLE IS ABOUT THREE THINGS
WINNING CONTROL AND MONEY.
HE'S MODERATELY GOOD IMAGE
CONTROL AND GIVES THE APPEARANCE
OF BEING A CARING FATHER
ALTHOUGH HIS ACTIONS DO NOT
MATCH HIS WORDS.
I WANT MY CHILDREN TO HAVE THE
SAME HUMAN RIGHTS TO AN ABUSE
FREE CHILDHOOD THE OTHER
CHILDREN HOUSE.
THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO BE ABUSED.
SIMPLY BECAUSE THEIR FATHER IS
AN ABUSER AND THE COURT HAS
ENGAGE IN BIAS MISCONDUCT.
WE NEED TO HAVE AUDIO RECORDINGS
IN TRANSCRIPTS OF ALL FAMILY
COURT PROCEEDINGS IN ALL COURT
ROOMS.
IT TAKES NEAR SUPER HUMAN
ABILITY FOR REPRESENTED MOTHER
OR FATHER TO NAVIGATE THE
APPELLATE PROCESS.
NOT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD AN
APPELLATE ATTORNEY IT FEELS CAN
EASILY COST TWENTY TO NINETY
THOUSAND DOLLARS IN CALIFORNIA.
IS DANGEROUS COMPLAINT IS TO
HAVE THE DETAILS.
A THEIR COMPLAINT DISCLOSED
DIRECTLY TO THE JUDGE THAT
ENGAGES IN JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
DUE TO THE JUDGE.
KNOWING WHO THE COMPLETE MADE
THE COMPLAINT AND RETALIATING.
I AM ONLY HERE TODAY BECAUSE MY
CHILDREN ARE CLOSE TO EIGHTEEN
UP THE SYSTEM.
IF THEY WERE YOUNGER I WOULD BE
TOO AFRAID TO SPEAK.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY
PLEASE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY.
THANK YOU GOOD AFTERNOON.
pBEEN AN ATTORNEY FOR THIRTY FIVE
YEARS.
I HAD OCCASION TO DEAL WITH THE
C. JP ON A CASE OF JUDGE
CORRUPTION. FOR CLIENTS I
REPRESENTED IN THEIRCASE WE
MADE A COMPLAINT TO THE C. J. P.
ABOUT THIS JUDGE'S CRIME.
IN APRIL OF TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN
THE JUICY J. P. HAS NOT
RESPONDED OR DONE ANYTHING FOR
OVER THREE YEARS.
IN THE CASE ADAMS VERSUS C. J.
P. OUR CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
SAID THAT THE C. J. P. IS THE
GOVERNMENT AGENCY CHARGED WITH
THE PROTECTION OF THE POP.
FROM JUDICIAL CORRUPTION.
I DIDN'T HEAR ANYONE MENTION
THAT HERE TODAY.
AND IN FACT THAT'S THE MOST
IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF THE CJ P..
C. J. P..
THE C. JP RECEIVES THREE TYPES
OF COMPLAINTS ONE THAT SOMEBODY
APTLY REFERRED TO THEM AS SOUR
GRAPES PEOPLE ARE ANGRY AT THEIR
JUDGE THEY COMPLAIN TO THE C. J.
P. BUT IT'S REALLY NOT A C. JP
COMPLAINT.
NEXT IS MISCONDUCT AND THERE'S
LOTS OF MISCONDUCT UNFORTUNATELY
RACIAL SLURS WHAT WHAT HAVE YOU.
BUT THOSE THINGS MAY BE CRIMINAL
OR THEY MAY NOT THE THIRD
CATEGORY IS CRIME WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN A PERSON REPORTS TO THE C.
J. P. THAT A JUDGE HAS COMMITTED
A CRIME AND PROVIDES CREDIBLE.
EVIDENCE THIS REALLY UNDENIABLE.
THAT PROVES THAT JUDGE CRIME
WHAT HAPPENS [inaudible]
ANSWER NOTHING.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENS?
IS THAT THE CJ P. SUPPRESSES
THAT EVIDENCE OF JUDGE CRIME IT
DEEP SIX IS THAT.
AND DOESN'T SEND IT TO
PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES THE
RESULT IS THAT IN THIS STATE
TODAY.
BECAUSE OF THE C. JP PRIMARILY.
JUDGES THAT WANT TO COMMIT
CRIMES NO THEY CAN DO SO WITHOUT.
FEAR OF BEING PROSECUTED.
NOW LET ME RELATE THE CASE THAT
LED ME TO THIS CONCLUSION.
I REPRESENTED -- NUMBER OF
SENIORS IN A SENIOR MOBILE HOME
PARK IN SAN CLEMENTE VERY
VALUABLE PIECE OF REAL ESTATE.
THERE WAS CAN THERE WAS
LITIGATION PROBLEMS.
LOS IT WENT ON FOR SEVERAL YEARS
I REPRESENTED SOME OF THEM WE
HAD ONE PARTICULAR JUDGE.
IN THE LAWSUIT WE CAME TO
BELIEVE HE WAS BIASED AGAINST US.
THEN WE LEARNED THAT THE CROOKED
H. O. A PRESIDENT AND OTHERS HAD
ESSENTIALLY RIG THE SALE OF THIS
EXTREMELY VALUABLE MOBILE HOME
PARK. TO IT TO A REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPER THAT THE BROKER NEW.
WHAT WE DO WE FILED ANOTHER
LAWSUIT TO STOP THE SALE?
NOW PROCEDURAL A WHEN YOU FILE A
LAWSUIT IN COURT THAT'S RELATED
TO ANOTHER LAWSUIT.
THE RELATED THE NEW RELATED CASE
GET SENT TO THE SAME JUDGE
THAT'S LOGICAL.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
BUT THEN WE FILED A ONE SEVENTY
POINT SIX PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
TO DISQUALIFY THAT JUDGE HE WAS
DISQUALIFIED ON THE CASE AND A
NEW JUDGE WAS APPOINTED.
HE WAS DISQUALIFIED BY ORDER OF
THE PRESIDING JUDGE THIS IS
STANDARD PROCEDURE. THREE WEEKS
LATER WE LEARNED.
THE CRIMINALS INVOLVED IN
STEALING THIS PROPERTY FROM
THESE ELDERLY PEOPLE THAT THEY
WERE PLANNING TO CLOSE THE SALE
OF THIS OF THIS.
THIS QUIRK AND SALE AT MILLIONS
BELOW MARKET THEY WERE PLANNING
TO DO THAT ONE PARTICULAR DAY.
SO THE DAY BEFORE I WHEN YOU
NEXT PARTY TO STOP THAT SALE TO
OBTAIN A T. RO A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER.
IT WAS THAT THE MATTER WAS
PLACED BEFORE THE NEW JUDGE NOT
OUR FIRST JUDGE THAT WE
DISQUALIFIED BEFORE THE NEW
JUDGE.
THE NEXT DAY WHEN I GOT TO THE
COURTHOUSE I WAS TOLD -- THE NEW
JUDGES ARE GOING TO HEAR THIS
CASE IT'S BEEN SENT BACK TO THE
OLD JUDGE.
AND I WASN'T CLEAR HOW THAT
COULD BE POSSIBLE.
BUT WE WENT TO THAT COURT ROOM.
THEN THE OLD JUDGE WOULD WE JUST
QUOTED WE HAD DISQUALIFIED WAS
NOT THERE AND WE KNEW HE WASN'T
THERE BECAUSE HE HAD STATED ON
THE RECORD IN ANOTHER CASE THAT
HE WOULD BE ON VACATION.
ANYONE BECAUSE HE WASN'T THERE.
WHAT DID HE DO THE FIRST THING
HE DID WAS HE ISSUED AN ORDER TO
STOP MY T. R. O.?
HE'S NOT EVEN THE JUDGE ON THE
CASE.
WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT I GUESS A
SECOND THOUGHT HE ISSUED AN
ORDER?
SHALL FREE QUALIFYING HIMSELF
BACK ON TO THE CASE.
NOW THAT IN SEOUL. TO THE PUBLIC
EVERYONE UNDERSTAND YOU'RE
DISQUALIFIED WHETHER YOU'RE AN
ATHLETE A JUDGE AND JURY YOU'RE
DISQUALIFIED.
YOU'RE OFF THE TEAM AND YOU
DON'T GET TO SELF RE QUALIFY I
HEREBY RE QUALIFY MYSELF.
NO.
THE JUDGE CELL FREE QUALIFIED
STOP THE T. R. O. HE'S NOT EVEN
THERE IS ON VACATION. FOUR HOURS
LATER THE DEED FOR THE CROOKED
MULTI MILLION DOLLAR RIP OFF
SALE THE SENIORS RECORDED THAT
SAME AFTERNOON.
SO I ASKED THE JUDGE.
REPORT PROCESS ESSENTIALLY.
YOU KNOW HOW THIS HAPPENED.
OBVIOUSLY JUDGE YOU KNOW YOU
WERE ON VACATION SOMEBODY CALLED
YOU AND SAID YOU KNOW PLEASE FIX
THIS FOR US PLEASE DO THE FIX.
THE JUDGE SAYS NO I DIDN'T HAVE
ANY.
X. PARTY CONTACT WOW IS THAT
POSSIBLE.
YOU WERE ON VACATION THE CASE
ISN'T IN YOUR COURT YOU ARE
DISQUALIFIED ON THE CASE UNDER
CAñADA MEDIC THREE BE YOU CAN'T
EVEN TOUCH THE CASE.
YET YOU CALLED IN AT JUST THE
RIGHT TIME. TO TO FIX IT SO THAT
THE CROOKED SALE COULD CLOSE.
THE COMPLAINT WITH THE C. J. P.
WAS EXTREMELY.
COLLUSION SO WE CAN ALLOW
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY AS WELL
THANK YOU.
AND THE STAFF OF THE DID THEIR
JOB INITIALLY THEY ASK FOR MORE
INFORMATION THEN IT WAS DEEP.
SIX THE LADY EARLIER MENTIONED
THE PROBLEM WITH THE C. J. P..
IF YOU LOOK AT IT SEE JP RULE
ONE OH TWO G. AND POLICY
DECLARATION FOUR POINT.
TO THE C. J. P. SAYS IT MAY
REFER JUDGE CLOCK CRIME TO A
PROSCAR MAYBE IT WILL AND MAYBE
IT WON'T HOW CAN THAT BE.
HOW CAN IT NOT BE THAT THE C. J.
P. MUST REPORT THE JUDGE CRIME
IN MY FINAL POINT?
IN THE FACEOF THIS CRITICISM.
TO THE C. J. P. DOES NOT REFER
JUDGE CRIME.
IN IN TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN THE
C. J. P. SAID IN ITS RULE
AMENDMENT REPORT.
THAT THAT ACCUSATION WAS FALSE
THAT IN FACT THE C. J. P. HAS
REFERRED JUDGE CRIME ON MULTIPLE
OCCASIONS.
SO IN MY LAWSUIT AGAINST A CJ P.
I. ONE AFTER MY SAID FINE.
FILL OUT THIS FORM SHOW US HOW
MANY TIMES YOU REFER JUDGE CRIME
WE CAN ONLY FIND ONE EXAMPLE
SEARCHING HIGH AND LOW AND WHAT
TO THE C. J. P. SAY I'LL SAY.
THAT SECRET INFORMATION.
THAT SECRET WE'RE NOT GOING TO
TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES ON THOSE
MULTIPLE OCCASIONS WE REFERRED
[inaudible]
NOW [inaudible]
THE INFORMATION.
SECRECY IS JUST.
BECAUSE I TRULY BELIEVE THAT
WHAT THE C. J. P. SAID TO THE
PUBLIC THAT WE REFER JUDGE CRIME
ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS THAT THAT
IS NOT TRUE.
AND IT IS DISAPPOINTING TO SEE
MOST OF THAT MOST OF OUR
REPRESENTATIVES NOT HERE AS THE
PUBLIC SPEAKS BECAUSE I THINK
THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE IS THE
IS THE C. J. P. THE LEGISLATURE
EVERYONE IS IGNORING THE PUBLIC.
GIVE THE PUBLIC SOME CREDIT YOU
KNOW I I HEAR CONSTANT CRITICISM
OF THE PUBLIC ARE THEY SENDING
COMPLAINTS TO THE C. J. P. THEY
DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
PEOPLE KNOW -- UNDERSTAND.
THE PROBLEM HERE IS NOT THE
PEOPLE THE PROBLEM IS A TRULY
BROKEN C. J. P. THE NEEDS TO BE
JUNKED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND
REINVENTED.
THIS THAT THE WISE OF PEOPLE OF
THIS STATE TWICE HAVE REVAMPED
THE CJ P. BECAUSE THEY
UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF LAW
THEY'VE DONE THAT TWICE.
NOW WE'RE AT THE THIRD TIME IN
AS WE ALL KNOW THEY SAY THE
THIRD TIME'S THE CHARM SO NOW
I'M GONNA DO ALL I CAN AS AN
OFFICER OF THE COURT.
HAVING SWORN TO UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION I'M TO DO ALL I CAN
TO MAKE THAT THIRD TIME.
THE CHARM WE'RE GOING TO GET IT
RIGHT THANK YOU THANK YOU.
PLEASE LET'S PROCEED WITH PUBLIC
COMMENT [inaudible]
WELL.
OUR I WOULD DONE. TO MY
COLLEAGUES STATEMENT ABOUT
CORRUPTION -- I A START UP WITH
TWO THINGS WITH MY EXPERIENCE
WITH THE JP.
THEY DON'T TELL THE TRUTH AND
THEY DON'T GIVE EXPLANATIONS.
AND SENSE -- THE HIGHEST
CRITERION OF BEING A JUDGE IS
TELLING THE TRUTH.
THE DISCIPLINARIAN SHOULD ALSO
TELL THE TRUTH.
AND THEY SAY THEY THEY WRITTEN
IS RULE FOR THEMSELVES THAT THEY
CAN'T EXPLAIN EVERYTHING
ANYTHING BUT CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE SIX I THINK IT'S
PARAGRAPH AM IN THERE.
AND THEIR AUTHORIZATION SAYS.
THE THE COMMISSION MAY MAKE
EXPLANATIONS THAT'S ONE OF THE
HANDFUL OF POWER SIX OR SEVEN
POWERS AT THEIR GIVEN BY THE
CONSTITUTION.
AND THEY'VE WRITTEN A RULE BY
WHICH THEY SAY WE DON'T HAVE WE
CANNOT TELL YOU ANYTHING SO YOU
GET THESE DECISIONS FROM THEM I
ONLY DID IT ONCE.
THAT ARE COMPLETELY OFF THE WALL
HAVE NO RELATION TO THE FACTS OR
THE LAW.
AND WE HAD A BIG THING EARLIER
WELL IT WAS ON THE TRANSCRIPT
WHITED TAKEN YEARS AND YEARS.
AW IT'S ON THE TRANSCRIPT HERE.
THE JUDGE SAYING.
I DECIDED THIS CASE ON EX PARTE
COMMUNICATION I DID NOT READ
WHAT YOU FILED.
THE JUDGE SAYS IT NOT NOT MANY
WORDS BUT HE ADMITS IT ON THE
RECORD WHEN DID YOU READ MY
MISSION.
NO I DON'T THINK YOU FILED.
HE WAS THERE IN THE COURT'S FILE --
SO.
MY FEELING AFTER BEING THROUGH
THIS NO EXPLANATION [inaudible]
COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL.
FALSE EXPERT DECISIONS.
I SUSPECT THAT.
A COMPLAINT TO THE C. J. P. AT
THE INTAKE LEVEL THESE THINGS
MAY BE SORTED.
AND IT'S A CHANCE FOR SOME ROGUE
ELEMENTS. TO RECRUIT THE JUDGES
IN.
TWO SOME COSA NOSTRA -- THE
THING ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPT THAT
SHOULD BE DEFINITIVE.
WELL.
I ADDRESS GOOD IN THIS CASE AND
THE DIRECTOR REVIEW THE CASE AND
SAID THERE'S NO BASIS FOR ACTION.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT TAKES
THERE'S CRIME GOING ON IT COULD
BE A RICO CASE I CAN INVESTIGATE.
ON MY POWER -- THAT YOU COULD
THIS IS THE CASE IT NEEDS AN
AUDIT.
I'VE TOLD US SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ABOUT IT THEY'VE BEEN
BRIEFED ON IT -- WELL WITH.
YOUR OWN SO THERE'S A THERE'S A
BIG.
LOOPHOLE.
THIS CONTROLLED BY THE CJ P.
HELLO PAUL AS EVERYTHING SEEMS.
AND WE WE DUMP THIS CASE IN THAT
WHOLE NOBODY EVER SEES IT WE
DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE IT IT DOESN'T
EXIST.
AND I THINK A REALLY DEEP AUDIT
NOT THIRTY CASES I THINK YOU
NEED TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS
THAT ARE ALLEGEDLY NO BASIS FOR
ACTION AND I HAVE ONE FOR YOU.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE -- I
HAVE.
STUDIED THE ROBERTS RULES OF
ORDER I ASSUME THAT THIS
COMMITTEE RUNS ON A SIMILAR FORM
SO IF IT'S POSSIBLE I'D LIKE.
TO EXECUTE A QUORUM CALL -- WE
WILL BE DOING THAT THIS TIME
THIS IS NOT ENOUGH.
OKAY WELL INITIAL POLICY BUT
OKAY PLEASE PROCEED WITHOUT
COMMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WE ALL UNDERSTAND
THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO PETITION
THE GOVERNMENT.
THAT DOESN'T GIVE US A RIGHT TO
GO TO THE PRESIDENT AND PRESENT
A PETITION BUT IT GIVES US A
RIGHT. TO PETITION SOME ENTITY
IN GOVERNMENT OKAY THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION IS
DIFFERENT WE NOT ONLY HAVE A
RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT
BUT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO INSTRUCT.
THE GOVERNMENT AND SO I'M HERE
TO INSTRUCT THIS COMMITTEE.
AND THE ASSEMBLY ON WHAT I'M
ABOUT TO DISCUSS SO MAY I
ARRANGE A TIME WHERE I MADE A
FULL COMMITTEE IT CAN BE IN
SEVERAL MONTHS OR WHATEVER BUT I
WANT.
TO BE ABLE. TO UNDER DUE PROCESS
OF LAW TO PRESENT THE ISSUES
THAT I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY
ADDRESS TODAY CAN WE MAKE THAT
TIME WE CAN DO IT OFF THE RECORD
SO YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME --
TO PRESENT YOUR COMMENTS TODAY
YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO
SUBMIT. TO THE COMMITTEE WHICH
WE CAN RELATE TO EACH OF THE
MEMBERS -- WHAT I DO WANT FOLKS
TO UNDERSTAND ALSO IS DURING
THIS PUBLIC COMMENT EVEN THOUGH
YOU MIGHT NOT SEE SOME OF THE
THE MEMBERS HERE IS EACH OF THEM
ARE PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ACTUALLY GO BACK?
AND REVIEW THIS AS WE ARCHIVE
THIS -- THROUGH OUR ARCHIVES SO
THEY CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE VIDEO
IT AND GET THE TRANSCRIPT AS
WELL OKAY BUT WHAT IS THE
PROBABILITY THAT THEY WERE
ACTUALLY LOOK.
AT THE A VIDEO RECORDING OF WHAT
I'M ABOUT TO PRESENT.
ALL YOU TYPICALLY THE STAFF AT
EACH OF THE OFFICES ARE
MONITORING ALL THE COMMITTEES
THAT THEIR MEMBERS SERVE ON SO --
I WOULD SAY FOLLOW UP WITH EACH
INDIVIDUAL OFFICE BUT IF YOU
SUBMIT SOMETHING WE'RE MORE THAN
HAPPY TO GET THAT EACH OF THEM
OKAY COMMITTEE THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
I'M NOT TIME I'M JUST BEGINNING
BUT I I'D LIKE TO COMMEND YOUR
POLITICAL SKILLS FOR NOT
ANSWERING MY QUESTION -- AS TO
THE RECOGNITION.
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION CITIZENS HAVE A
RIGHT TO INSTRUCT THE GOVERNMENT
NO ONE HAS EXPLAINED WHAT THAT
MEANS [inaudible]
OKAY. TO ME AGAIN.
I WAS SO THIS TO THE
PHOTOGRAPHER IF HE COULD TAKE A
PICTURE OF IT.
THIS IS A PICTURE.
OF THE HIGHEST JUDICIAL OFFICER
IN THE CALIFORNIA JUDICIARY.
SHE IS ENDORSING THE PUBLIC THE
PRIVATE -- PRIVATE JUDGING
BUSINESS OF I'M NOT GONNA
MENTION HIS NAME AND I'M NOT
GOING TO MENTION HER NAME
BECAUSE I CAN'T PRONOUNCE IT.
BUT THIS OKAY YOU'RE LOOKING FOR
CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
INVESTIGATE THIS HERE WE HAVE
THE HIGHEST JUDICIAL OFFICER
ENDORSING THE PRIVATE BUSINESS
OF A NON ATTORNEY.
NOW THE NON ATTORNEY CONDUCTS A
WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS A LAWYER
REFERRAL SERVICE.
HE'S NOT A LAWYER HE DOESN'T
HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE SUPREME
COURT TO CONDUCT A LAWYER
REFERRAL SERVICE.
SO UNDER NO CONCEPTION CAM A NON
ATTORNEY REFER AT LEGAL CASE.
ANYWHERE AND CERTAINLY NOT FOR A
FEE BUT YET MR RECORD CENTER BY
VANCE DOES EXACTLY THIS WITH THE
THE CONSENT AND ENDORSEMENT OF
THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
OF THE CALIFORNIA.
AND FOR THE RECORD I'M GOING TO
PRESENT THIS WOOD SIDING
COLLUDED A COMPLAINT TO THE TO
THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE BUT THEY ARE
IGNORING IT.
NOW I THINK UNDER ANY CONCEPTION
OF DUE PROCESS IGNORING A
COMPLAINT NO MATTER HOW
REPETITIOUS PEOPLE THINK OF IT
IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION ALL
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVE TO
GIVE AN EXPLANATION OF ALL OF
THEIR DECISIONS.
SALTAR LATE I BELIEVE THAT THE
COUNCIL THE COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE.
PASS ANSWER MY COMPLAINT AND
EXPLAIN HOW THEY CAN POSSIBLY
CONDUCT AN IMPARTIAL
INVESTIGATION OF THE CHIEF
JUSTICE OF THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT WHO HAS A PUBLIC
REVIEW.
AND SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION
OVER ALL OF THEIR ACTIONS.
OKAY NOW THE THIRD ASPECT OF
WHEN I JUST PRESENTED IT'S
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS CODE.
SIXTY ONE FIFTY ONE WHICH IS
WHICH PROHIBITS RUNNING AND
CAPPING OPERATION NOW A RELATIVE
OF THE WHO WAS HELP ME PREPARE
FOR THIS SAID.
GREGORY DO NOT USE A SLANG TERM
WHEN YOU READ JESSE AN AUGUST
BODY SUCH AS THE JOINT COMMITTEE
ON JESUS SO. FOR YOURSELVES WELL
THE MEMBER AND CHAIRMAN THANK
YOU VERY MUCH OKAY. SIXTY ONE
FIFTY ONE PROHIBITS EXACTLY WHAT
IS GOING ON IS PETER ACCURATE
SAID SOLICITS REFERRALS OF CASES
FROM CIVIL COURTS.
AND JUDGES JHANSI CANALIS ON
JUNE TENTH AND JUNE -- JANUARY
TENTH AND JANUARY SEVENTEENTH
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN REFERRED
MY CASE. TO PETER ADKISON
[inaudible]
NOW.
GONNA LIE I ASSUME DIDN'T
RECEIVE A FEE [inaudible]
BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO PROVE THAT.
OKAY BUT THEN PETER RECORDS.
REFERRED MY CIVIL CASE WHICH IS
A DIVORCE CASE TWO IBM'S
RETAINED.
ATTORNEYS SOME OF WHOM ARE
RETIRED QUOTE UNQUOTE RETIRED
JUDGES.
AND I HAVE TO NOTE THAT UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
RETIRED JUDGES DO NOT HAVE ANY
STATUS.
OKAY NOW ON THIS NIGHT MY FIRST
RECOMMENDATION OR REQUEST IS TO
GET A SOLID RESPONSE TO MY
CLAIMS OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
OKAY MY SECOND REQUEST IS.
TENSION I CAN GIVE YOU A COPY OF
THE PICTURE IF YOU LIKE IT I
GIVE TO THE SERGEANT AT ARMS.
THINK ABOUT THIS.
IF YOU CAN CONCLUDE YOUR REMARKS
WE HAVE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
COMMENT AS WELL.
OKAY I HAVE SPENT THREE DAYS
COMING HERE IN PREPARATION FOR
THIS AND I'M GETTING SHORT
SHAFTED BECAUSE NO OTHER MEMBERS
ARE HERE BUT I AM NOW.
PRESENTING A PETITION TO THE
GOVERNMENT.
IT'S BEEN A LONG ISSUE SO I
THINK I USED TO BE GIVEN MORE
TIME [inaudible]
NOW.
PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS ARE VERY
IMPORTANT HERE.
JUDGES ARE DISQUALIFIED.
IF THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
I DO THAT PICTURE AND PRESENTING
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CONCLUSIVELY
DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS A
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
HERE.
BECAUSE THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS
ENDORSING.
RECORDS AND MARTHA BALLENGER WHO
IS A TEMPORARY JUDGE.
AND I ADVANCE.
OKAY.
WHEN THERE IS A TEMPORARY JUDGE
THERE HAS TO BE A STIPULATION?
I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ENFORCE
A STIPULATION TO USE MARTHA
BALLENGER AS A TEMPORARY JUDGE.
I HAVE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER
PRESENTS AT AN INVESTIGATION
OKAY NOW I DON'T PRESENTED.
AS A CURIOUS QUIRK OF THE
SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE
INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES INCLUDING
THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THIS CASE.
CAN DIVERT DISMISS OR REFER A
WRIT OF MANDATE BACK TO THE
APPELLATE COURTS AND HAVE THEM
DEAL WITH IT BUT GUESS WHAT THEY
THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THIS CASE
DIDN'T HAVE TO PRODUCE A RECORD.
SHE ACTED ON THEIR OWN.
BUT THE CONFLICT IS THE WRIT OF
MANDATE THAT I FILED TWICE. TO
ENFORCE A STIPULATION WHAT TO
USE A TEMPRARY JUDGE MARTHA
BALLENGER.
SHE DIVERTED TO READ TO MANDATE
ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS
WITHOUT CAN BE EATING EVEN A
CORE OF WHAT WHAT WHAT IS IT.
THREE JUDGES PERHAPS IT MIGHT BE
EASIER FOR THE SERVICE TALKING
ABOUT SPECIFICS TO THE CASE SOME
OF THE GENERAL PARAMETERS OF
WHAT WE SPOKE WITH ABOUT THE
HEARING HERE. FOR YOUR THE
SPECIFICS IN THE CASE YOU BRING
UP PERHAPS WE CAN SPEAK AFTER IS
TO ALLOW OTHER FOLKS.
TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT
MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE YOU SIT
WITH THE STAFF AS WELL TO GO
THROUGH -- ANY PARTICULAR
GRIEVANCE OR AWAY IN YOUR
PARTICULAR CASE THAT WE CAN HELP
ADDRESS THE IN.
THE ENTIRE.
OKAY SO MY THIRD RECOMMENDATION
IS. FIFTY OR SIXTY YEARS THE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE HAS STATED THAT IT
DOES NOT.
REVIEW THE ACTIONS OF RETIRED
JUDGES.
OKAY NOW THAT MIGHT THAT MIGHT
BE SOLID REASONS FOR THAT BUT
THE MINUTE BUT THESE THREE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
USE THAT TO ABDICATE THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW THE
ACTIONS OF ALL JUDGES UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ALL
JUDGES YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES
THE TERM JUDGES OR JUDGE IS USE
OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.
I'LL TELL YOU IT'S NINETY NINE
FOR MORE THAN MARTIN LUTHER'S
THESIS. ONE OF THOSE JUDGES IS A
TEMPORARY JUDGE.
NOW TEMPORARY JOBS IT'S NOT A
TEMPORAL ASSIGNMENT IT DOESN'T
REFER TO ALL THIS JUDGE IS ON
THIS CASE ON A TEMPORARY BASIS.
TEMPORARY JOBS IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE.
MEANING AND I WANTED TO ADDRESS
MISTER ALLEN'S COMMENTS WHEN HE
ASKS -- EDGES OFFICER WHO IS
ELECTED OR DULY APPOINTED.
I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE FACT
THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE JUDGMENT
ON THAT PACKAGE.
MARTHA BALLENGER IS LISTED AS A
JUDICIAL OFFICER.
THAT IS DIRTY POOL THAT IS
JUDICIAL FROG SHE IS NOT A
JUDICIAL OFFICER.
HE IS MERELY A RETIRED JUDGE HE
HAS NOT WON AN ELECTION SHE HAS
NOT BEEN DULY APPOINTED BY THE
GOVERNOR.
BUT I HAVE THREE PRESIDING
JUDGES JOHN C. VINEYARD.
HAROLD W. HOP AND BECKY L. DUGAN.
ALL THREE PRESIDING JUDGES HAVE
BEEN DOORS.
JUDGE HARMON'S.
DESIGNATION OF A NOBODY AS A
JUDICIAL OFFICER.
SO I WANT I CALL FOR AN
INVESTIGATION ON THAT.
AND ALSO THE COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE SHOULD.
OKAY THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF
DISCRETION.
THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE HAS A MANDATORY DUTY
TO WRITE RULES TO INVESTIGATE
ALL JUDGES.
NOW JUDGES REFERS TO THE CHIEF
JUSTICE WELL I'M CALLING FOR AN
INVESTIGATION ON WHAT THE CHIEF
JUSTICE DOES.
BUT FOR THREE YEARS NOW THE
COMMISSION HAS IGNORED MY
COMPLAINTS ABOUT WANT TO BALANCE
HER.
AND I'LL TELL YOU THE REASON
AFTER I SUM UP.
THEY HAVE IGNORED BY COMPLAINTS
AGAINST BECAUSE THEY SAY WELL WE
DON'T INVESTIGATE RETIRED JUDGE
RETIRED JUDGES I'M NOT ASKING
THEM TO INVESTIGATE A RETIRED
JUDGE.
I'M ASKING THEM TO THANK YOU FOR
COMMENTS YEAR NOW I SEVEN TIMES
LONGER THAN WHAT WAS ALLOTTED.
I ASKED FOR TWO MINUTES TO SUM
UP.
OKAY. FOR THREE YEARS THEY HAVE
IGNORED MY REQUEST TO
INVESTIGATE MARTHA BALLENGER.
BUT THEY HAVE A MANDATORY
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO
INVESTIGATE HER AS AN ACTIVE.
TEMPORARY JUDGE.
AND I THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS OF
THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE ADVOCATES ITS
RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE SITTING
JUDGES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
MOTHER BALLENGER'S THE GRAVEST
CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR.
SHE DID NOT TAKE HER OATH OF
OFFICE.
AND SO I WANTED TO ADDRESS
SENATOR ALLEN'S POINT IS.
THIS IS NOT A JUDICIAL OFFICER
SEES NOT DULY SWORN.
IF YOU WANT TO BE A TEMPORARY
JUDGE THE CONSTITUTION MANDATES
THAT SEE TAKE ITS OF CHARTER
OATH OF OFFICE.
HE DIDN'T DO IT.
AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR A BIG
INVESTIGATION HOW LONG WOULD IT
TAKE FOR THE COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TO
DETERMINE THE MOTHER BALANCER
DIDN'T TAKE ROTH OF OFFICE.
IT WOULDN'T TAKE MORE THAN ONE
OR TWO MINUTES.
BUT HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN TO TAKE
ME TO GET IN FRONT OF A BODY
LIKE THIS AND NOW YOU'RE CUTTING
ME OFF I UNDERSTAND WHY THIS
LIMITED TIME BUT TELL US.
BUT I ASSURE YOU I'M GOING TO
VISIT EACH ONE OF YOU IN
CHAMBERS IS HOW COULD IT
POSSIBLY BE.
THE RETIRED JUDGE WHO'S OATH OF
OFFICE BY THE DETERMINATION AND
HOLDINGS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
WHAT'S AT RISK A JUDGE RETIRES
OATH OF OFFICE IS NO LONGER
VALID.
SO WE HAVE AN UNSWORN TEMPORARY
JUDGE WITH YOU INDIVIDUALLY AND
LOTS OF OKAY.
WHO SAID THAT?
WHO ARE YOU?
OTHER OUR PUBLIC AND I'M TALKING.
THANK YOU ADDITIONAL.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT THANK
YOU.
THE NAME IS BARBARA RICHARD TO
THEM FROM FIRST CALIFORNIA -- IN
SUPPORT OF THE PREVIOUS VERSION
THE TRIAL JUDGE'S THREATENED HIM
WITH IMPRISONMENT IF HE DID THAT
SAID THE TRANSFER DADE.
IT IS NOT IN THE RECORD BECAUSE
THE TRIAL JUDGE ISSUED THE
THREAT AFTER THE HEARING WAS
CLOSED.
ITEM TO THIS TEMPORARY JUDGE
ASSUMED THAT.
THIS PERSON WAS A BENEFICIARY OF
A SIGNIFICANT.
FAMILY TRUST FUND WITH ACCESS TO
OVER TWO BILLION DOLLARS OF SHE
REFUSED. TO FILE OR ORDERS OR
ENTER ORDERS OF THERE'S NO
RECORD OF THIS THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE YOUR ADDITIONAL
PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU THANK YOU MY NAME IS
PAMELA NUDELMAN.
I WAS MARRIED TO A SANTA CLARA
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR
TWENTY FOUR AND A HALF YEARS.
DURING.
OUR HIS TIME AS A G. A..
HE FILED ARE CHARGES AGAINST
POLICE OFFICERS.
JOE MACNAMARA PAID A VISIT TO MY
HUSBAND'S OFFICE.
AND HE SAID.
DON'T FILE DROPPED THE CHARGES.
AND MY HUSBAND SAID THAT TIME MY
HUSBAND SAID NOW I'M FILING.
WERE UPON JONES MCNAMARA TOLD MY
HUSBAND.
WE TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN.
HE LEFT THE DA'S OFFICE.
BECAUSE THEY SET HIM UP.
THEY KNEW HE LIKED IT TO BUY
ANTIQUES AND THE INTRODUCED HIM.
TO AND THE STATE LIQUIDATOR WHO
HAPPENED TO BE A NARCOTICS --
SNITCH FOR CENTER FOR SAN JOSE
POLICE DEPARTMENT I'M ONLY
TELLING YOU THIS NOW BECAUSE JOE
MACNAMARA IS DEAD.
I THOUGHT MY HUSBAND WAS.
A GOOD MAN I WAS PROUD OF HIM.
I'M JUST A FOR SUNSET AYE AYE
REYES. FOR CHILDREN ONE THREE
BOYS AND A GIRL.
AND WHEN OUR YOUNGEST SON TURNED
FOURTEEN HE DECIDED HE DIDN'T
NEED A A MOM.
I WAS A MARY POPPINS GIFTS FOR
OUR CHILDREN I TOOK CARE OF
EVERYTHING IN THE HOUSE -- HE
FILED FOR DIVORCE AND DON.
HE SCARED ME OUT OF OUR HOME I
FLY TO OUR OFFICE BUILDING WERE
I HAD.
MOVED MY STAGING INVENTORY FOR
PANACEA HOME STAGING THE NAME OF
OUR OFFICE BUILDING WAS PANACEA.
HE HIRED BRED BOSS.
I HAD -- HE HAD A YOU TOLD ME.
WHEN HE?
I'M SORRY TO GO BACK TO WHEN HE
LEFT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE HE WENT INTO PRIVATE
PRACTICE.
AND I SAID WELL WHY DON'T YOU DO
DIVORCES AND HE SAID NO IT'S
REALLY DIRTY BUSINESS A LOT OF
MONEY EXCHANGES HANDS.
AND I FOUND THAT TO BE TRUE.
OUR I WAS ULTIMATELY KICKED OUT
OF OUR OFFICE BUILDING THERE WAS
A SECRET DEAL.
AND I WAS PUT OUT ONTO THE
STREET I WENT TO HOMELESS
SHELTERS I WAS TURNED AWAY THEY
SAID YOU'RE WEALTHY WOMAN.
LET ME DOORS ALL THE RENT CHECKS
THEY GAVE ALL THE MONEY TO MY
HUSBAND AND BRAD BAUGH INTO ITS
TRUST FUND WHICH I NEVER GOT AN
ACCOUNTING I HAVE A FILED THIS
THICK.
ON BRED BOTS TRUST FUND.
ARE THEY ALSO GAVE HIM MY
PORTION OF THE PENSION OUT FOR
FOUR AND A HALF YEARS WHICH THAT
HE POCKETED I NEVER GOT -- THANK
HAD NO MONEY -- JUDGE MARGARET
JOHNSON HAD A STAKE OUT OF FOUR
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR.
LOAN.
ON OUR OFFICE BUILDING THAT WE
OWN FREE AND CLEAR IT WAS
COMMUNITY PROPERTY SHE GAVE
SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS OF IT TWO
COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEYS NET
HILLS AND JIM ****.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO REMEMBER THOSE
NAMES.
ARE THEY DID NOTHING.
I WAS ORDERED JOB -- I DID ALL
THE WORK ON THE BUILDING I HAVE
PAGES OF THE WORK THAT I DID
MAINTAINING THAT BUILDING --
THEY GOT RID OF THE RENT PAYING
TENANTS ARE THEY MADE SECRET
DEALS -- THEY DIDN'T BOTHER TO
COLLECT THE MONEY FROM -- AN
ATTORNEY THAT WAS ONE OF OUR
TENANTS ARE THEY LEFT THE
BUILDING FALLS INTO DISREPAIR.
OKAY.
THEN THEY MANEUVER TO SELL IT
SAYING.
TRANSCRIBING HE WON'T RENEW IT
BECAUSE IT'S NOW VACANT AND IN
DISREPAIR.
THEY WERE TRYING TO SELL.
OUR BUILDING OUT FROM UNDER US
THEY PUT IN STATE ON MY ON MY
DISCOVERY NOT MY HUSBAND'S.
ARM HE PROPOUNDED I THINK SIX
SETS OF DISCOVERY I ANSWERED
EVERY SINGLE ONE IN OUR REMEMBER
MY HUSBAND TELLING ME.
YOU KNOW HOW WE CAN WIN A TRIAL
IS THERE'S A SUBSCRIBER LOOPHOLE.
YOU KNOW IF IF THEY DON'T COMPLY
WITH DISCOVERY THEN THEY LOSE
THE WHOLE CASE SO I MADE SURE
THAT I ANSWERED EVERY SINGLE
QUESTION AND I EVEN FILED.
MY RESPONSES.
ARE WHEN I WAS OUT ON A PRE
TRIAL.
FOR A TIME I WAS IN PRO PER.
AND I WENT PREPARED I HAD MY
SETTLEMENT STATEMENT WITH ALL
THE PROOFS OF FOR MY ENTIRE CASE
I PREPARED MYSELF.
AND IT WAS ABOUT THAT THANK.
AND I GAVE IT TO COMMISSIONER
SCHROEDER I FILED IT.
HE TOOK IT AND HE THREW IT ON
THE SIDE OF HIS DESK ALONG THE
SIDE OF HIS DESK AND SAT I'M NOT
READING THIS CRAP.
LET ME SEE YOUR SPREAD. THREE
PAGES.
SOME HE READ HIS HE TOLD ME YOU
DON'T BACK HERE UNTIL YOU GET AN
ATTORNEY JUDGE SOUND.
DON'T COME BACK HERE I'M GOING
HAVE YOU BE IN PRO PER
[inaudible]
SAU [inaudible]
OUR WHEN.
AT THE PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE --
JUDGE.
ARE COMMISSIONER SCHROEDER.
ASK ME THREE QUESTIONS I
ANSWERED EACH ONE AND THEN HE
SAID TO THE COURT REPORTER.
STOP RECORDING AND HE SAID
BAILIFF.
TAKE AROUND THE HALLWAY SHE SAYS
ONE WORD THROWER IN JAIL.
WHILE I STOOD OUT IN THAT
HALLWAY -- THEY DISCOVERED BRED
BALL TOLD THE JUDGE THAT I
FAILED TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY
I HAD NO IDEA.
ARE MORE IMPORTANTLY MY ATTORNEY
WAS ON LIMITED SCOPE I WAS IN
PRO PER FOR DISCOVERY
[inaudible]
OUR I SHOULD BEEN PRESENT SO
WHILE E WAS SAYING THAT.
THE OTHER RETURNING DIDN'T SAY
ANYTHING BECAUSE HE WAS ON
LIMITED SCOPE.
AND WHEN I RETURNED TO THE COURT
ROOM I HAD NO IDEA CHRIS WHAT
HAPPENED AND COMMISSIONER
SCHROEDER.
WHO WAS ALSO HE ALSO SIGNED THE
DOCUMENT AS THE DISCOVERY MASTER?
SO HE WILL IN MY DISCOVERY
ANSWERS AND THEY WERE ALSO FILED
IN ON HIS DESK SO HE KNEW THAT I
ANSWERED THAT DISCOVERY.
I THINK THAT'S FRAUD CAN YOU GO
BACK AND DEFINITELY WITH FRAUD --
HE SAID HE WAS WRITING A LETTER
TO THE TRIAL JUDGE JUDGE WOULD
HOUSE WHO IS NOW DECEASED.
THAT I WAS TO LOSE AND HAVE TO
PAY MY HUSBAND'S ATTORNEY'S FEES
WERE CHORE OPERATIVE.
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND WHICH
COINCIDENTALLY EQUAL OF HALF OF
THE THE ART OF PRAISE UNDER
APPRAISED VALUE OF OUR OFFICE
BUILDING I CAN UNDERSTANDWHY
THE A PRICE OUR OFFICE BUILDING
SO LOW.
WELL THEY DID IT SO THAT THE UP
TO HALF THE OFFICE BUILDING AND
WE CAN INSURE SO NOW WE HAVE TO
SELL IT IN YOUR COULD LOSE A
TRIAL SO GUESS WHAT BRED BALK AT
YOUR HALF OF THE OFFICE BUILDING.
IF YOU CAN I AM CONDITIONING I
WAS WRITTEN OFF OF OUR FOUR
MILLION DOLLAR HOME.
AND WAS GIVEN THE OFFICE
BUILDING THAT WAS APPRAISED
ABOUT SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
PLUS THE FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLAR LOAN THEY HAD A SUPPORT
AGAINST.
AS I WAS LEAVING THE COURTROOM I
WAS HANDED A PRIOR DISCOVERY
ORDER WHICH SAID.
THERE WAS A PRIOR TELEPHONIC
CONFERENCE WERE IN THE COURT
ORDERED I BEAT WAS BASICALLY
PRECLUDED FROM.
ON MY ENTIRE CASE I WAS STUNNED
I HAD NO IDEA -- THE I ANSWERED
EVERY DISCOVERED FOR QUESTION MY
HUSBAND.
HAD NOT.
HE WOULDN'T LET ME HAVE
APPRAISALS ALL OF HIS DISCOVERY
ANSWERS.
WERE WERE NON ANSWERS -- THEY
DIDN'T APPRAISE OUR OUR VINTAGE
CAR COLLECTION THE RARE BOOK
COLLECTION THE INKWELL
COLLECTION AND THE I BRONZE
COLLECTIONS -- I HAD WRITTEN TO
THE PRESIDING JUDGE ARM COUNCIL
A JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE -- MORE
THAN ONCE -- I WAS ICE FILE FOR
A SET ASIDE MOTION I WAS DENIED
AND I WAS ORDERED TO PAY
THIRTEEN THOUSAND INTERNET SPEED
SITE PAID IMMEDIATELY.
BUT THEY STILL WILL NOT RELEASE.
THE LEAN MY HUSBAND LIVES STILL
LIVES IN OUR TWENTY THREE ROOM
HOUSE AND I'M SIXTY NINE YEARS
OLD I STILL DRIVE A TRUCK AND
MOVE FURNITURE STAGING HOUSES.
I LIVE IN THE BACK OF MY
WAREHOUSE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME PLEASE
DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO OTHER
PEOPLE.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND FIRST OF ALL I WOULD LIKE TO
PUT IN THE RECORD THAT THERE ARE
A NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE HERE IF
YOU GUYS COULD JUST STAY FOR A
MINUTE.
BE BACK AFTER THIS -- I'M A
PUBLISHER MY NAME IS SUSAN BASSY
AND I'M THE ONLY PERSON IN THE
STATE PUBLISHING INFORMATION ON
OUR FAMILY COURT -- I HAVE.
INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT'S
GOING ON IN THE C. J. P. I'VE
WORKED DIRECTLY WITH MISS
DRIVERS.
I WORKED WITH MR DRESSER WHEN HE
WAS AT THE STATE BAR AND I
BELIEVE HIM TO BE A LIAR.
I ANSWER TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC
OPINION.
AND AS PUBLISHERS OF DONE
RECENTLY WE HAVEN'T DONE OUR JOB
VERY WELL WE HAVE ENGAGE THOSE
USE BACK THERE.
THEY'RE READING INSTAGRAM
FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE THEY'RE NOT
READING PRINT PUBLICATIONS THE
DAILY JOURNAL ISN'T EVEN A
CONCEPT TO THEM.
AND YET THE LAWYERS AND THE
JUDGES ARE ALL TALKING AMONG
THEMSELVES AND DECIDING HOW TO
RULE OUR COURTS.
I'M A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.
AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT
MEANS YOU GUYS CAN LOOK IT UP I
KNOW YOU HAVE PHONE OUT TO YOU
CAN LOOK IT UP.
THE LAWYERS IN THE ROOM WILL
KNOW WHAT A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
IS.
WHEN I WAS MEETING WITH THE NEW
YORK TIMES ON A COLLABORATION ON
PRIVATE JUDGING STORY?
I ASKED THE REPORTER IF HE KNEW
WHAT A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT WAS
AND HE TOLD ME NOW.
HE'S MARRIED HE JUST HAD HIS
FIRST BABY.
AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING FOR SIX
MONTHS ON AN INVESTIGATION.
WORKING ON WITH MY ASSOCIATES IN
THE MEDIA FOR FIVE YEARS WERE
BETTER THAN THE C. J. P. AT
INVESTIGATING.
THEY WILL TELL YOU AND THEY WILL
COME FOR YOU THAT THEY
INVESTIGATE THEIR COMPLAINTS
THEY DO NOT LOOK AT PATTERNS
THERE IS A RULE IN THE C. J. P.
ONE ONE ONE POINT.
FOR THE SAYS THEY ARE SUPPOSED
TO LOOK AT THE PATTERNS IN THE
PRACTICES OF THE JUDGES.
MISTER MOORE I JUST SAW YOUR
FACE WHEN YOU HEARD MISS NEWMAN
SPEAK.
I HAVE COMPLAINED TO THE C. J.
P. ABOUT SEVEN JUDGES.
EACH OF YOU GOT THIS REPORT ON
YOUR DESK THIS IS GONNA BE OVER
YOUR HEAD.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA UNDERSTAND WHAT
THIS MEANS WHAT THIS MEANS IS
THE JUDGES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY.
WILLIAM DANCER WAS INDICTED IN
TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE JUDGE
PERSKY WAS RECALLED IN TWO
THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN WE ARE A
COUNTY THE ONCE ACCOUNTABILITY
AND TRANSPARENCY OF OUR JUDGES
AND WHEN THE CJ P. DOESN'T DO
THEIR JOB.
WHICH THEY DID NOT ON BUILDING
ANSWER THE PUBLIC TOOK CARE OF
IT A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION
INDICTED BILL DANCER.
THIS REPORT IS FIVE YEARS WORTH
OF WORK.
THIS TALKS ABOUT THE PATTERN AND
PRACTICE AND HOW VERY SLOWLY
JUDGES BEGAN SHIFTING THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY TO ATTORNEYS TO
DO THEIR JOBS.
THEY'RE CALLED REFEREES SPECIAL
MASTERS PRO TEM JUDGES PRIVATE
JUDGES PRIVATELY COMPENSATED
JUDGES AND IT IS FOUND IN THE
CIVIL CODE OF PROCEDURE SECTION
SIX THIRTY EIGHT AND SIX THIRTY
NINE NOW MOST OF US GET IN THE
FAMILY COURT.
AND WE HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE
LAW.
WE SPEND OUR LIVES IN PUBLISHING
OR FARMING OR HOME STAGING OR
HOME CARE FOR OUR CHILDREN.
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE ARE
EXPECTED TO KNOW THE LAW.
MISS NOODLE MAN HAD BEEN MARRIED
TO A PROSECUTOR.
WHILE SHE WAS MARRIED.
HE SECRETLY RECORDED CRIMINAL
HEARINGS AND MADE HER
TRANSCRIBED THEM AT NIGHT
WANTING TO GET A JUMP ON THE
TRANSCRIPT.
THE OFFICE WHERE HE WORKED WAS
KNOWN FOR PROSECUTORIAL
MISCONDUCT.
AND WIN EIGHT INVESTIGATIVE
STORY CAME OUT ABOUT THAT
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.
THE ONE OF THE PROSECUTORS
STARTED WORKING WITH THEM TO
POINT THEM TO WEAR THAT WOULD BE.
AND A LAWYER FROM OUR COUNTY
WHEN I BECAME THE CHIEF TRIAL
COUNSEL OF THE STATE BAR.
MR DRESSER GOT A COMPLAINT ABOUT
NOT HAILS.
WHEN HE WAS WORKING FOR THE
STATE BAR?
NOT HILLS WAS A REFEREE IN PAM
NEWMAN'S CASE.
NOT HILLS GOT CONFIDENTIAL
DISCIPLINE. FOR FAILING TO
COMPLY WITH THE CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS.
DOES AND PROFESSIONS CODE.
HE MADE A HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS IN MY CASE HE MADE OVER
TWO MILLION DOLLARS IN OTHER
CASES.
AND HE NEVER COMPLIED WITH THE
LAW FILING HIS OATH OR EVEN
POSTING THE MOST BASIC OF NOTICE
SO THAT WE COULD FIND HIS CASES.
THERE'S A REALLY SIMPLE LAW.
CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT TWO
POINT.
EIGHT THREE FOUR IT ASSURES THE
PROCEEDINGS ARE OPEN.
AND IT REQUIRES THE COURT CLERK
IN EVERY COUNTY TO POST A LIST
OF THE PRIVATE JUDGING CASES IN
THE COUNTY.
MISS NEWMAN'S CASE BEFORE JAMES
**** WAS NOT POSTED ON THE LIST.
YEAH HILLS IS CASES WERE NOT
POSTED ON THE LIST.
I'VE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET
RECORDS I OBTAINED FROM SEVERAL
COUNTIES.
AND IN THESE COUNTIES TWENTY
SEVEN WHERE I HAVE DONE PUBLIC
RECORDS REQUESTS UNDER RULE TEN
POINT.
FIVE OH OH THEY ALL SAID THEY
DON'T KEEP THE LIST.
THESE ARE SECRET PROCEEDINGS.
WHO IS USING THEM?
THE FOUNDER OF GOOGLE SERGEI
BRENT GOT PRIVATE JUDGING.
HIS NAME WAS NOT ON THE LIST
WHEN I WAS LOOKING FOR WHO ELSE
MIGHT HAVE JUDGES SIMILARLY
APPOINTED.
IT WAS POSTED YEARS LATER BY
SHARON ROPER AFTER HIS DIVORCE
WAS DONE.
THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE
SANTA CLARA COUNTY COURT LISA
HERRICK HER JUDGE WAS HER BEFORE
PRIVATE JUDGE.
AND THAT WAS JAMES **** AND HIS
NAME WAS NOT ON THE LIST YOUR
COME TO CONCLUDE I'M GONNA COME
DOING POLLUTION IN A MINUTE.
THESE JUDGES HAVE BEEN SHIFTING
THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND
CLAIMING THEY WANT INDEPENDENCE
THEY'VE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENT
THEY'VE EEN INFLUENCED BY
ATTORNEYS WHO ARE CORRUPT AND
ATTORNEYS WERE GETTING BENEFITS
OF APPOINTMENTS.
THE WORST IS HEATHER ALLEN.
THE WOMAN WHO SPOKE EARLIER TO
YOU TODAY HAD HEATHER ALLEN
APPOINTED IN HER CASE I HAVE
FOLLOWED FIFTEEN CASES INVOLVING
HEATHER ALLEN AND LEASE MITCHELL.
NONE OF THEM MET THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY NEEDED TO
MEET TO BE ABLE TO BE APPOINTED
TO REPRESENT CHILDREN AND THEIR
PARENTS DIVORCE CASES.
MISS ALLEN HAS TOLD ONE MOTHER
WHO WAS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE HER HUSBAND HAD FELONY
CONVICTIONS FOR DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE.
MISS ALLEN SAID SHE THOUGHT THE%
MOTHER MIGHT BE ALIENATING THE
CHILD FROM THE CHILDREN AND SHE
TOOK THE CHILDREN.
THESE LAWYERS ARE IN VIOLATION
OF THE LAW.
THE SICK PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN
SECRETIVE.
AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SELF
REPRESENTED HAVE BEEN PUNISHED.
I WAS SANCTIONED.
IN TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR
REPORTING MY PRIVATE JUDGE TO
THE BAR.
THE BAR WHEN INVESTIGATING HIM
CALLED ME UP AND ASKED IF I HAD
BEEN DECLARED VEXATIOUS YET.
THEY WANT ME QUIET I'M A
PUBLISHER AND I'M NOT GONNA BE
QUIET THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET
THIS IS BEFORE THE STATE AUDITOR
I'VE MADE WHISTLE BLOWER
COMPLAINTS THE CJ P. IS NOT
DOING THEIR JOB.
GREG DRESSER DIDN'T DO HIS JOB
WHEN HE WAS AT THE STATE BAR SO
TO EXPECT HE WOULD DO IT LOOKING
AT JUDGES WOULD BE NAIVE AND
WOULD BE COMPLICIT.
WE INTEND TO DO OUR JOB BECAUSE
WE CAN PUBLISH THIS.
OUR BAR IS LOWER AND THE COURT
OF PUBLIC OPINION IS STRONGER IT
RECALLS JUDGES IT RECALLS PUBLIC
OFFICIALS ELECTED OFFICIALS.
AND WE WILL HAVE OUR SAY IN THE
COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION WHERE
WE'VE BEEN LOCKED OUT OF THE
COURTS THANK YOU THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK WERE NEARLY COMING UP ON A
OUT ALMOST AN HOUR OF PUBLIC
COMMENT.
THANK YOU I AM KATHERINE
CAMPBELL WITH CALIFORNIA
PROTECTIVE PARENTS ASSOCIATION --
WE'RE HERE TODAY FOR OVER THREE
YEARS AGO WE CAME TO ASK. FOR AN
AUDIT FOR IN FAMILY COURT ABUSE
CASES WERE BEING DISMISSED.
THERE WAS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.
VALID COMPLAINTS TO THE C. J. P.
WERE ALSO BEING DISMISSED.
ADVOCATES FOR JUDGES -- DURING
WHETHER WE WOULD GET AND NOT IT
WE'RE SAYING WE'RE JUST DESCRIBE
LITIGANTS.
BUT NOW WE HAVE THE ON IT AND WE
CAN SEE.
THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM AND
THERE IS A PROBLEM.
WE KNOW THE AUDIT SHOWS MAJOR
FLAWS IN AT LEAST ONE THIRD OF
ALL CASES REVIEWED.
THE TIME FOR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
JUDGES IS NOW.
CALIFORNIA DESERVES COURTS THAT
PROTECT THE PUBLIC.
AND THE C. J. P. WAS NOT
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC NOR HAVE
OUR FAMILY COURTS PAN.
I CALIFORNIA PROTECT PARENTS
ASSOCIATION WE REQUEST THAT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY OUR
STATE AUDITOR BE ACCEPTED AND
IMPLEMENTED.
WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT ANY
PERSON WHO SITS ON A BENCH BE
UNDER REVIEW FOR THE C. JP
INCLUDING COMMISSIONERS.
AND PRO TEM JUDGES.
AND AND I SHOULD JUST MENTION
NOT IN THE EXAMPLE THAT WAS
SHOWN ABOUT THEY EIGHT TIMES.
SOMEONE WAS ON REFERRED WE KNOW
THAT -- IF THEY DECIDED TO
RESIGN WHICH HAPPEN AND I THINK
BELIEVE THIS CASE.
THEY COULD THEN BE A PRO TIME
TOUCH.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
ANYONE WHO SITS ON THE BENCH CAN
ACTUALLY.
ACCOUNT ABOUT BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE.
AND WE ALSO ARE SUGGESTING THAT
THERE ARE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATIONS AS WE'VE SEEN IN
COLORADO -- I THINK.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE C. JP I
MEAN I THINK THE AUDIT SAYS WE
ALL SHOULD BE AND I APPRECIATE
THAT THEY'RE HERE.
AND THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT
IMPLEMENTING THESE -- I'M
CONCERNED BECAUSE IN THE LETTER
IT SAID.
THE RESPONSE LETTER IN THE AUDIT
IT SAID THEY WERE BEING
UNCOOPERATIVE.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE SUING THE
AUDITOR BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING
THAT THE CLIP COMPLAINTS ARE
VALID -- CONFIDENTIAL.
IS BEING COOPERATIVE I AM TODAY
THEY SAID THEY WERE BEING
COOPERATIVE AFTER.
THERE ARE AFTER THEIR LAWSUIT.
WAS SETTLED.
SO I THINK WHAT I'M SEEING IS
IT'S TAKING TIME TO DIGEST.
WHAT WE'VE HEARD IN THIS AUDIT
AND THERE HAS BEEN NO OVERSIGHT?
REALLY FAR JUDGES.
I HEARD TODAY -- SENATOR HANNAH
BETH JACKSON SAID THAT SHE WAS
OF THAT SHE IS CONCERNED THAT
PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO SERVE
JUSTICE.
AND HER COMMENT REALLY WAS.
AT THIS WAS DUE TO WHAT THE
OVERSIGHT WOULD DO ANYTHING THAT
HAPPENS WITH TO SEE JP.
MY TAKE ON IT IS THAT WE HAVE
JUDGES WHO ARE NOT DOING.
WHAT IS RIGHT -- BECAUSE WE HAVE
A CULTURE THAT DISMISSES ABUSE.
AND IF THEY TRY TO DO WHAT'S
RIGHT.
THEY WILL NO LONGER HAVE THEIR
JOBS.
I'M WE HAVE HAD A COMPLAINT --
SOMEONE IN LOS ANGELES CALL
TODAY THEY HAD FILED A COMPLAINT
WITH THE CJ BE A YEAR AGO.
AND THAT COMPLAINT WAS.
ENTERED INTO INVESTIGATION FACE
SO IT COMPLIED WITH WHAT WAS
NEEDED.
AND THAT'S GREAT ON JUST AFTER
THE AUDIT THAT WAS DISMISSED
EVEN THAT WAS A VALID COMPLAINT.
WE ARE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
VALID COMPLAINTS ACTUALLY MAKE
THEM ALL THE WAY THROUGH --
REGARDLESS OF THIS -- YOU KNOW
IT'S 50% LESS LIKELY THAT.
PUBLIC WILL BE HEARD BY THE SEA
JP.
WHEN YOU SEE THAT I GET
EVERYTHING I JUST -- I ALSO
HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS TODAY
ABOUT.
BEHAVIORAL CLASSES -- WE WE DEAL
WITH A LOT WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE
MARRIED ABUSERS -- MURDERED
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT RECEIVING
THE PROTECTION AND THOSE JUDGES.
CONTINUE ON THE BENCH.
THANK YOU AND SO I JUST FINISHED
THANK YOU SO I I JUST THINK.
THAT ACCOUNTABILITY COMES.
WITH BOUNDARIES AND ONE JUDGES
ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND WE
HAVEN'T SEEN THAT YET -- IT'S
TIME TO END THE DISMISSAL OF
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AND OTHER
FORMS OF ABUSE TO CHILDREN IN
OUR FAMILY COURTS.
IT'S TIME FOR US TO HAVE
INSTITUTIONAL COURAGE.
AND I WANT TO THANK JAY LACK FOR
PROVING THE AUDIT FOR HAVING
THIS IS A BEGINNING POINT A
STARTING POINT.
AND I APPRECIATE EVERYONE WHO
WORKS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR OUR
LAWS AND THE CODE OF ETHICS
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
AND THAT WILL CONCLUDE THE
PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.
AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT
WE SPENT ALMOST AN HOUR ON
PUBLIC COMMENTS -- AS WE
CONCLUDE TODAY'S HEARING -- I DO
SEE THIS AS A BEGINNING OF A
LONGER DISCUSSION NOT AS AN AND
BY ANY MEANS ORANY STRETCH OF
OF THAT -- I AM I BELIEVE THAT'S
WHAT YOU HEARD FROM MEMBERS OF
THE DIFFERENT COMMITTEES AS WELL --
YOU KNOW THIS IS THE FIRST
COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT THAT'S BEEN
DONE IN FIFTY SIX YEARS.
IT TOOK US A COUPLE OF YEARS TO
GET TO THIS.
I DON'T SEETHIS AS AN ENDING
BUT RATHER A BEGINNINGAS WE
LOOK.
TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED IN THE
AUDIT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
WERE OUTLINED.
IT SEEMED IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT
AS WELL WERE IN ALIGNMENT WITH
WHAT SOME OF THE AUDIT FINDINGS
WERE AS WELL.
SO -- WITH THAT YOU KNOW IT'S
ONE OF THINGS THAT WE WE DID
HEAR FROM EVEN.
THE PANELISTS WAS.
PERHAPS THE NEED FOR MORE TEETH
[inaudible]
IN THE FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR
CORRECTIVE ACTION -- FOR JUDGES
AT THAT NEED THAT ACTION.
AND SO WILL DEFINITELY LOOK INTO
THAT WE OBVIOUSLY LOOKED INTO
THE IDEA OF A BICAMERAL
SEPARATING THOSE POWERS OUT SO
THAT THERE'S MORE ACCOUNTABILITY
AND TRANSPARENCY.
WE KNOW THAT THE PUBLIC DESERVES.
DESERVES SUCH THEY DESERVE
ACCOUNTABILITY DO DESERVE DUE
PROCESS.
THAT AND THEY DESERVE
TRANSPARENCY AND WE SHOULD KNOW
THAT THIS IS DONE IN A PUBLIC
BANNER IN AN OPEN MANNER.
AND THAT THOSE MEETINGS ARE
PUBLICLY HELD AND AND THAT WE
HAD HERE TO ALL THE RULES.
I GUIDING SUCH ACTION.
SO WITH THAT I DO WANT TO THANK
EVERYBODY FOR BEING HERE -- FOR
THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
COMMITTEE WHICH JOINT COMMITTEE
BETWEEN THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE
AUDIT COMMITTEE THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THE ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
THIS IS THE HEARING ODD THE
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE WEEK THIS AND IT'S
OVERSIGHT.
HAVE CREATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT TO PERSIST
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE MEMBERS
THAT WERE HERE SIMPLY WOMAN
BURNER **** BATH ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ASH KALRA.
SENATOR BOB WHITE CASKEY CENTER
BEEN ALLEN SENATOR BILL MINING.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER RANDY VOEPEL
SENATOR BRIAN JONES SENATOR
HANNAH BETH JACKSON SENATOR.
A MARK UP ASSEMBLY MEMBER MARK
STONE ASSEMBLY MEMBER GOMEZ ROY.
GOMEZ RAY AS SENATOR CAFIERO
SENATOR TO RASO ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GALLAGHER SENATOR ON BURKE AND
SENATOR MORLOCK QUALITATIVE
TODAY'S HEARING AND WITH THAT WE
WILL CONCLUDE AT BY THE TIME IS
ONE THIRTY TWO THANK YOU