Monday, January 30, 2012

[Victims of Court Corruption] J.A.I.L. is faulty in a variety of ways - Zena Crenshaw



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:10:20 -0600
From: Zena Crenshaw <zcrenshaw@comcast.net>
To: Jacob <jrogins@va.metrocast.net>
CC: Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org>, Andrew Jackson <dradjackson@yahoo.com>, John Wolfgram <johnwolfgram@hotmail.com>, Dale Nathan <dalenathan@usfamily.net>, Glenn Vickers Bey <glenn_vickers@yahoo.com>, Jon Roland <jon.roland@constitution.org>, "Center for Judicial Accountability,Inc. (CJA)" <elena@judgewatch.org>, gzerman@hotmail.com


Zena Crenshaw wrote:

The writings of professors Drew Lanier and Vincent Johnson, featured in the Fogg symposium report, indicate that certain "structural elements" and "ethical norms" are necessary to ensure judicial independence.  And by "judicial independence", they don't mean 
unrestrained freedom.
  
Lanier explains:
Courts operate within a field of bounded discretion due to pre-existing rules that govern their decision-making. These include procedural and evidentiary rules that limit how and when courts can act and constrain a court's options when issuing a decision.
The “structural elements”required to accomplish this independence are (1). judicial salaries that “cannot be reduced while (recipients are) in office”; (2). “fixed (judicial) tenure”; and (3). judicial selection “through executive appointment that is checked by some other actor or through direct election.”
  
The referenced ethical norms relate to ex parte communications, gifts, political activities, and “certain problematic relationships.”
  
The Fogg report explains:
 
While Professor Johnson appropriately lauds “the ethical standards that prevent or mitigate harm to the exercise of judicial judgment by inappropriate pressures . . .”, attorney Crenshaw-Logal called it ironic “. . . that judges are most buffered from the consequences of disregarding or circumventing ethical norms”.
 . . .
Rather than unethical judges, attorney Crenshaw-Logal cited inadequate transparency, awareness, and education regarding American courts as a main culprit, stating:  “I’d like to propose that at some point America’s legal system began operating in such obscurity that “judicial restraint” became our only hope; I propose that judicial restraint explains America’s seeming reliance on the rule of law more than stare decisis or any self-executing, external constraint.” 
 
By the time I make this point about the obscurity of America's judiciary, we've already learned from Fogg's report that . . .
 
(t)he relative obscurity of American courts was noted in a variety of ways at Fogg’s debut symposium on stare decisis.  The courts were fairly described as obscure based on inadequate major media coverage of their activities; the misunderstandings and misperceptions of their proper function that abound; the disregard of and disinterest in their operations among many Americans; and the nature as well as implications of those activities that are simply unknown by or concealed from most Americans.
 
Here's the point: there is no rule of law if judges are free to violate ethical norms and substantive law with impunity.  There is no rule of law "when judges enforce or disregard precedent at will".  This proposition does not change based on the character of judges.
 
Every judge in America could be brilliant, honest, and incapable of an improper or illegal act.  We would still lack the rule of law if there are no external constraints on their official conduct or the purported constraints are illusory.  Instead we'd have a magnanimous judiciary which, unfortunately, has not been my experience. 
 
Hence, in my view, debates about the extent to which judges are or are not "crooks and scumbags" are tangential, at best.  Our problem also extends beyond the fact that judges have created immunities and other devices to avoid negative consequences of misconduct and are virtually immune to impeachment and criminal prosecution.  Arguably the bigger problem is that these developments and circumstances are pretty much unknown or disregarded by most Americans.
 
In seeking public awareness, NFOJA speaks in terms of imbalance of power, due process, equal protection, vitality of stare decisis, rule of law, fair and impartial administration of justice, etc.  Sometimes, but rarely do we use the phrase judicial corruption.  And we absolutely avoid premising the need for reform on the honesty, dishonesty, and/or similar traits of judges. 
 
I'll continue to develop the theory that citizen oversight such as NFOJA proposes must be part of America's strategy for bringing appropriate judicial scrutiny to bear.  NFOJA is meant to be a composite of best practices drawn from proposed initiatives of multiple grassroots judicial reformers including J.A.I.L. proponents.  I remain willing to expound upon my contention that J.A.I.L. is faulty in a variety of ways.  My schedule should allow me to prepare for that discussion in about 30 days.
 
Zena    
 
  
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Jacob <jrogins@va.metrocast.net> wrote:
 
Steve,
 
In my view the root of the problem is deeper.  If you happened to see my yesterday's post in explanation of my rejection of the current Constitution as a guarantee of anything but tyranny, you would see -- and you could have already known this independently -- that one of the articles of George Mason's proposed bill of rights that did not make it into the Bill of Rights was the one that declared emphatically the right of the people to obtain redress for injuries.  I believe the reason this one did not make it is neither the majority of the Framers nor that of the Ratifiers really cared much for each individual having access to justice.   These people really never intended for the Declaration of Independence to be the "heart and mind" of this Constitution, as the Supreme Court would have us believe. 
 
The immunities are part and parcel of how the elites have circled their wagons, and they will not allow you to breach their defenses, as long as they can.  That is the root of the problem.  They will shoot at you from all directions with everything they've got whenever and wherever you try to breach the circle.
 
Jacob
 
 

Wolfgram said:

 

Well, Carl, I've been a general supporter of JAIL for over fifteen years, maybe even from before Ron and Gary finalized the JAIL concept.  But I do agree that it is more an attack on the branches and not the root, and over that time I've chosen more to attack that root of immunity, than its branches.  In doing that I came to realize that the problem is not the judges as people, but the system that has been carved out for them by their predecessors, particularly on the Supreme Court.  A judge today that realy believes in justice, has a real problem.  The system simply won't allow it and the judge, as a person, is forced into negotiating a Hobson's choice of abandoning morality or abdicating judicial responsibility all together.

  

Once you see this, you can see Zena's position.  She is unwilling to admit the corruption of judges generally, as she should and as I do.  Yet, that they are corrupt in a constitutional sense, there can be no doubt ... but it is a collective guilt.  I can understand that and apparently you do.  But Zena has not gotten that far yet.  She simply cannot understand the effect of immunity on the judicial system and especially now that the judiciary has extended the hallmark of corruption to all government functionaries.

  

As you attest, that concept, that immunity as the root of corruption, has more and more taken hold.  I am suggesting that Ron change the nuance of JAIL to attack that root more directly.

  

Wolf

 

 

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Jacob <jrogins@va.metrocast.net> wrote:

 

I do not see anything Pollyannish about Zena's statements,  only wonder what motivates this intelligent woman to spew smoke and incongruities.

 

It is not terribly difficult to prove to an intelligent arbiter that the system is corrupt to the core, and that the judiciary is a class of criminals in America -- not each judge of course, but the majority.  Statistics is a powerful analytical tool, and there are tons of indisputable data to feed a statistical analysis that would dispositively support the claim that the American judiciary is corrupt to the core.    Just one example ...     In 2002 AMOJ pulled over 2,000 docket sheets of pro se litigants suing for violation of Constitutional rights in the Federal District of Maryland,  and we found that not a single case survived the motion to dismiss, and that each of the hundreds of appeals in these cases had the lower court's ruling affirmed by the 4th Circuit.   We also looked at the cases filed in that district by attorneys, and the vast majority of those met the same fate.  What other than consistent obstruction of justice by the federal judiciary in the Fourth Circuit could explain this?    But this of course is only a single datum.  When many are combined, the proof is beyond, beyond, beyond any reasonable doubt.  

 

A much more important issue needs to be addressed with Zena before I would spend any more of my time trying to prove teh obvious to her.  Why would she not offer to us first the benefit of a clear explanation as to a) why the people she admits to rampantly deny access to justice for the ordinary people are not criminals engaged in a recognized type of crime, called "obstruction of justice," b) who exactly is she seeking to convince that the outrageous excesses of power she admits to exist are actually afoot in America, and c) how the convincing she would make would change things for the better?

 

For my part, I will say that there would be no Declaration of Independence if the Founders first sought to convince law professors that the system was broken, or to enlist their help in declaring that it was broken, or by holding law school conferences on the elements of the denial of due process.   I associate such pursuits in intelligent and well educated people like Zena with personal agendas --  agendas having nothing to do with any pursuits of good government and the betterment of society.   I am not yet attributing to Zena in this forum such repugnant ulterior motives, hoping that she will credibly defend her position and thus clear the air.

 

Jacob Roginsky

 

[Victims of Court Corruption] The News Behind The News - It's Worse Than You Think!


The News Behind The News
It's Worse Than You Think!

I have just received word from former Attorney Brad Henschel, who covered the word from inside the judicial system on information not revealed within the below news article about the financial situation within the state courts of California. I have known Brad for 33 years.
What's that squawking I hear? Hmmm, I believe it's the sound of vultures gather'n nearby!

Ron Branson


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: The Judicial Ship Taking On Water & Leaning To The Left
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 04:56:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Brad Henschel <crusaderjd@yahoo.com>
To: Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org>


Ron - the situation is far worse than is stated in this article.  I attended a State of the Court event given by the Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding and Asst. Presiding judges.

  They informed me that:

  1.  LA County handles 29% of cases statewide.

   2. LA County Superior Ct. will have to lay off 500-600 employees due to lack of funds.

  3.  LA County Superior Ct. will have to reduce the amount of courtrooms used for limited jurisdiction cases [these are cases over the Small claims amount and under $25K].

  4. IF the tax initiative on the Nov. ballot doesn't pass, more cuts will be needed.

  5.  In Riverside soon no civil cases will be able to be heard due to the criminal caseload, even with the new DA who replaced Pacheco to reduce the flow of criminal cases into court.

6.  The new case management case computer program isn't available and some measures are being used to stopgap IT issues with the court.

7.   I asked why the court doesn't use the same program used in federal courts.  It was claimed that LA County has more cases than all the federal courts and so that program can't handle such a large numbers of cases. [Even though my friend, Asst Presiding Judge David Wesley, said this to me, I just can't believe that is true.]

8.  Things are going to get worse for courts from a funding point of view.

9. Pro pers are pouring into the courts as fewer and fewer attorneys are available, or are affordable to the middle class, especially in bankruptcy and family law,  but are using legal document preparers, but those preparers can't give legal advice, so the paperwork is usually defective and slows the courts down quite a bit.

- Brad Henschel, JD
  

HENSCHEL NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:
This message is private and confidential. It contains  both confidential and privileged information under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, reveal, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal without my consent. Cal. Penal Code 632. 
     "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?   Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."  - Abraham Lincoln



The Judicial Ship Taking On Water
And Leaning To The Left


"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:"  Matthew 12:25

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/29/4221061/bill-by-dissident-judges-overreaches.html

Editorial: Bill by dissident judges overreaches

Published: Sunday, Jan. 29, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 6E
The Legislature should not meddle in the internal affairs of the judiciary. A bill headed to a vote in the Assembly on Monday would do exactly that, and should be rejected.
California's judicial branch has been battered by the recession, like the rest of state government. Trial courts have taken the brunt of the beating. They lost $350 million in the current state budget cycle. This is on top of nearly $300 million in cuts absorbed over the last five years. Courtrooms have been closed temporarily, and hundreds of court employees laid off.
Some beleaguered judges blame the Administrative Office of the Courts, which they see as profligate and out of touch. They also have turned their anger at the Judicial Council, which sets policy for courts statewide.
Assemblyman Charles Calderon, a Whittier Democrat, is pushing a bill, Assembly Bill 1208, on behalf of a secretive group of judges called the Alliance of California Judges and the Service Employees International Union, which represents courthouse employees. Alliance leaders say they represent 400 judges, but won't reveal names, claiming that the jurists might suffer retribution.
Calderon's bill would shift funding authority away from the Judicial Council and require that state funds be allocated by formula to the county trial courts instead. Some of the judges' criticism of the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judicial Council is legitimate, but this measure goes too far.
Fifteen years ago, landmark legislation transformed the judiciary from a county-based system to a statewide system. It was the right thing to do.
A jumble of different procedures and rules that changed from county to county was made uniform. Access to justice became more equal, whether litigants filed their divorce papers in Yolo or San Francisco, or their lawsuit in Sacramento or Riverside, or faced criminal charges in Modoc or Los Angeles counties.
The power of the purse resides with the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, who heads the Judicial Council, most of whose members the chief justice picks.
But critics say that under the new statewide structure, too much money was siphoned from the core functions of the trial courts to pet projects of the Judicial Council.
Dissident judges were particularly incensed when a statewide court computer project ballooned from its original estimate of $290 million to $1.9 billion.
Despite real problems, the overall structure of the court system is fundamentally sound.
To alter it by returning more autonomy to county courts would be a mistake. And most people who practice regularly in California courtrooms know that. Opposition to AB 1208 includes 44 of 58 presiding judges of the county courts.
Defense attorneys oppose the bill, as do plaintiffs' lawyers and an organization that represents big business interests that are targets of lawsuits.
These interests fiercely oppose each other in courtrooms, but are united in their opposition to this bill. Lawmakers must not ignore that.
Calderon introduced his bill as Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye was taking the reins of the state judiciary. She has made an effort to meet with the dissidents – difficult, given the fact that alliance judges chose to keep their membership secret.
Nonetheless, Cantil-Sakauye has placed some alliance judges who have revealed their identities on state court committees. She has surveyed every presiding judge in the state to get feedback on what they think are the problems. She says she is working to implement their recommendations.
Dissident judges need to let those steps take hold. They should not let the Legislature meddle with the judicial branch's independence.



[Victims of Court Corruption] The Judicial Ship Taking On Water & Leaning To The Left


The Judicial Ship Taking On Water
And Leaning To The Left


"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:"  Matthew 12:25

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/29/4221061/bill-by-dissident-judges-overreaches.html

Editorial: Bill by dissident judges overreaches

Published: Sunday, Jan. 29, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 6E

The Legislature should not meddle in the internal affairs of the judiciary. A bill headed to a vote in the Assembly on Monday would do exactly that, and should be rejected.

California's judicial branch has been battered by the recession, like the rest of state government. Trial courts have taken the brunt of the beating. They lost $350 million in the current state budget cycle. This is on top of nearly $300 million in cuts absorbed over the last five years. Courtrooms have been closed temporarily, and hundreds of court employees laid off.

Some beleaguered judges blame the Administrative Office of the Courts, which they see as profligate and out of touch. They also have turned their anger at the Judicial Council, which sets policy for courts statewide.

Assemblyman Charles Calderon, a Whittier Democrat, is pushing a bill, Assembly Bill 1208, on behalf of a secretive group of judges called the Alliance of California Judges and the Service Employees International Union, which represents courthouse employees. Alliance leaders say they represent 400 judges, but won't reveal names, claiming that the jurists might suffer retribution.

Calderon's bill would shift funding authority away from the Judicial Council and require that state funds be allocated by formula to the county trial courts instead. Some of the judges' criticism of the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judicial Council is legitimate, but this measure goes too far.

Fifteen years ago, landmark legislation transformed the judiciary from a county-based system to a statewide system. It was the right thing to do.

A jumble of different procedures and rules that changed from county to county was made uniform. Access to justice became more equal, whether litigants filed their divorce papers in Yolo or San Francisco, or their lawsuit in Sacramento or Riverside, or faced criminal charges in Modoc or Los Angeles counties.

The power of the purse resides with the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, who heads the Judicial Council, most of whose members the chief justice picks.

But critics say that under the new statewide structure, too much money was siphoned from the core functions of the trial courts to pet projects of the Judicial Council.

Dissident judges were particularly incensed when a statewide court computer project ballooned from its original estimate of $290 million to $1.9 billion.

Despite real problems, the overall structure of the court system is fundamentally sound.

To alter it by returning more autonomy to county courts would be a mistake. And most people who practice regularly in California courtrooms know that. Opposition to AB 1208 includes 44 of 58 presiding judges of the county courts.

Defense attorneys oppose the bill, as do plaintiffs' lawyers and an organization that represents big business interests that are targets of lawsuits.

These interests fiercely oppose each other in courtrooms, but are united in their opposition to this bill. Lawmakers must not ignore that.

Calderon introduced his bill as Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye was taking the reins of the state judiciary. She has made an effort to meet with the dissidents – difficult, given the fact that alliance judges chose to keep their membership secret.

Nonetheless, Cantil-Sakauye has placed some alliance judges who have revealed their identities on state court committees. She has surveyed every presiding judge in the state to get feedback on what they think are the problems. She says she is working to implement their recommendations.

Dissident judges need to let those steps take hold. They should not let the Legislature meddle with the judicial branch's independence.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.