Part 1 of JNC CABAL, please see @:
Alliance of California Judges on Secrecy Surrounding Judicial Council of California
Dear Members and Others,
We attach articles by Cheryl Miller of the Recorder and Maria Dinzeo of the Courthouse News.
Cheryl Miller’s article details the secrecy surrounding many important decisions made by branch leaders. She points out the obvious disconnect between the courts’ consistent enforcement of the constitutional mandate favoring disclosure and the continued lack of access to Judicial Council decision making.
In that regard, several months ago the Alliance requested that Justice Douglas Miller, Chairman of the powerful Judicial Council Rules Committee, open up the proceedings wherein recommendations from the Chief Justice’s Strategic Evaluation Committee were to be discussed and voted on. Of course our request was denied and what we believed would happen has occurred. While the Council appeared to “adopt” all recommendations, the report’s recommendations are on a slow track to nowhere. Because of this cloak of secrecy surrounding Justice Miller’s committee we are left to speculate as to what did or did not occur.
Maria Dinzeo’s article highlights the wisdom of allowing our local court experts to come up with a common sense and cost effective solution to the need for case management computer programs. Rather than reinventing the wheel, these competent IT professionals have identified three vendors who can provide courts with off-the-shelf computer programs that best fit their needs.
Meanwhile the Judicial Council has gathered many of the same folks involved in the disastrous half-billion dollar CCMS project to make recommendations on court technology. Rest assured that the Alliance and the Legislature will carefully monitor Council involvement in IT projects and insist that no more precious court dollars be wasted on unreliable, untested and expensive technology that the courts do not want or need.
Lastly, for those of you attending this coming weekend’s educational conference in Palo Alto, we look forward to seeing you and hearing what your thoughts are on the issues affecting our branch. We also wish to thank those of you who have voluntarily contributed to the Alliance. We are gratified to inform you that we have sufficient funding to lease office space and pay for clerical support for this year’s legislative session.
Alliance of California Judges
Please continue @:
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA V. CLINT PARISH
There’s a lot going on in California in terms of preparation by various parties for fast approaching adversarial legal proceedings involving California State Bar Court Judge Patrice McElroy.
First, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned that the frivolous and politically motivated prosecution by the State Bar of California against former Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Clint Parish has been assigned to be adjudicated by Judge McElroy.
Case Name: Parish, Clinton Edward
Case Number: 12-O-15242
Member #: 211982
Case Filed: 02/12/2013
Counsel: Pro Per
Deputy Trial Counsel: Robert A. Henderson
Assigned Judge: Patrice McElroy
Next Scheduled Event: Status Conference 03/25/2013
The State Bar of California maintains that “Parish’s campaign materials falsely asserted, among other things, that his opponent was “involved in a sordid case of corporate fraud that involved payment of bribes in Russia.” Parish’s campaign website erroneously claimed that he had been endorsed by the Winters Police Department and his yard signs gave the false impression that he had judicial experience. ”
According to Yolo County-based Rabbi (“YR”), he is “shocked and disappointed” by the prosecution of Clint Parish and surrounding circumstances.
YR stated: “As a resident of Yolo County, I was exposed to the campaign material of both Parish and Judge Dan Maguire — who is by all accounts, a gentleman.”
“The circulated political propaganda made it very clear that Parish is a prosecutor and not a judge, and as such, I was never led to believe that Parish had prior judicial experience, as the State Bar falsely alleges. Any other unfortunate alleged misstatements concerning Judge Maguire were the fault of Parish’s campaign manager, and once those alleged inaccuracies were brought to the attention of Parish, he immidetly disavowed them,” YR continued.
“At the risk of sounding kitschy, everyone needs to remember that we don’t live in an error-free world, and I call on the person who filed the complaint against Clint Parish with the State Bar of California to withdraw it — be it, as I speculate, Judge Dave Rosenberg or our spineless DA Jeff Reisig,” YR concluded.
Pictured above is Judge McElroy, who is either unwilling or unable to recognize the seriousness of her anti-social behaviour. Her involvement in the “Bribing Pat” saga alerted TLR, McElroy’s integrity is amiss. (Photo: Courtesy of Bar Journal.)
Second, at least two (2) other planned adversarial proceedings relating to Judge McElroy’s misconduct as it relates to Ronald Gottschalk – Thomas Girardi’s former co-counsel in class-action litigation and current nemesis – will be addressed in a Kastigar Evidentiary Hearing/ Brady Evidence, as well as a separate civil suit naming Judge McElroy and alleged cousin, Leslie McElroy.
As was previously reported, Mr. Ronald Gottschalk and Girardi & Keese’s Thomas Girardi (husband of singer Erika Jayne aka Erika Girardi) were co-counsel representing plaintiffs in various actions. Once a dispute erupted between Gottschalk and Girardi, the State Bar of California came knocking on Gottschalk’s door.
Gottschalk’s lawyer– Mr. Stanley Arouty– submitted a sworn statement to the California Supreme Court accusing McElroy of intentionally destroying an audio tape which serves as the official court record.
(See excerpts from Arouty’s declaration above)
The State Bar of California, realizing that the evidence against Gottschalk is weak and not credible at the extreme, obtained a default judgment against Gottschalk during a time period which the State Bar knew Mr. Gottschalk was unavailable. Participating in the scheme against Gottschalk were Mr. Paul O’Brien from the Office of Chief Trial Counsel and Judge Patrice McElroy.
In another instance, during a hearing presided over by Judge McElroy, she disclosed that Peter G. Keane — who was then Dean of Golden Gate University School of Law and was representing an adverse witness (Ms. Sara E. Raymond) — had been her supervisor when she was previously employed as an assistant Public Defender.
However, Judge McElroy failed to disclose that at or about the time the hearing in question was taking place, she accepted as a gift from Mr. Keane an overseas trip.
Even more troubling is the fact that at or about the time the trip took place, Golden Gate University and the student in question were in the midst of litigating a civil case the student had filed in San Francisco Superior Court.
In yet another instance, McElroy’s penchant for destroying the official records of her own courtroom also manifested itself during the proceedings against Respondent Khanna.
Please continue @: