Family Court ‘Expose’ On The Big Screen

January 16, 2014 By
 
 
Photo: www.divorcecorp.com

Photo: www.divorcecorp.co


That new “Divorce Corp.” documentary by Joe Sorge continues to make waves, with Variety saying that its director “… depicts the family court itself as an untrustworthy, user-unfriendly system of so-called justice. Here, they claim, divorcing couples are placed at the mercy of judges who are frequently irresponsible in their judgment; intolerant of those who attempt to navigate the courts without counsel (there are no court-appointed attorneys); and prejudiced in favor of lawyers who ply them with campaign contributions.”
 
The trade journal also calls the film a “vigorous but clumsily argued expose of the corrupt family-court practices that have turned one of life’s more painful experiences into a $50 billion-a-year industry.” The movie is in limited theatrical release now and Los Angeles is one of the cities where you can find a showing. Check out the Variety piece for showtimes and the rest of the review here.
 

 

Filed Under: Community, National Tagged With: , , , ,

Chief Justice: Justice Rationing Is A Civil Rights Issue

January 15, 2014 By
 
The real battle over Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2014-15 budget plans got under way this week with California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye saying that budget cuts are not just a fiscal problem but a civil rights problem. Her comments at a Tuesday press conference and in related interviews indicate that the “civil rights issue” will likely highlight this year’s argument for more courts funding. Last year, cuts in Los Angeles County brought threats of legal action based largely on access issues.
 
The chief justice told the Los Angeles Times that the governor’s spending plan probably would trigger more courthouse closures and layoffs and increase delays for trials and divorce and custody matters. Brown’s plan includes an “additional” $105 million for the courts in 2014-15, but Cantil-Sakauye wants a three-year plan with much more spending. “We are rationing justice, and it has become more than a fiscal problem,” Cantil-Sakauye told reporters. “It is, in my view, it is now a civil rights problem. … We know we are denying the protections of an American democracy.”

You can read the L.A. Times story here.

 
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , ,

Long Beach Facing High-Profile Judge Race

January 14, 2014 By
 
By Los Angeles Superior Court judicial election standards, it seems Long Beach is approaching a knock-down, drag-out election. The Metropolitan News-Enterprise, a legal newspaper known for its judicial election coverage, is reporting that L.A. County Deputy District Attorney Carol Najera is running for the Los Angeles Superior Court.  
Carol Najera, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney (Photo from a report by Metropolitan News-Enterprise)

Carol Najera, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney (Photo from a report by Metropolitan News-Enterprise)

That would be a challenge to incumbent Judge James Pierce, who sits in Long Beach. The report cited a judge “… who knows both Najera and Pierce, and who asked not to be named” as explaining that Najera “hates” the incumbent and “thinks he’s a terrible judge.” Najera, who was not available for comment for the report, is also connected to the high-profile Menendez brothers trail. She was on team that convicted the brothers of murdering their parents. That conviction came after an earlier trial ended with a hung jury.

The report also said the apparent candidate “… recently tweeted that she will kick off her campaign at an event in Long Beach Jan. 23.” Judge Pierce was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989 and has previously served as a Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner.
 

Check out the story here. 

Filed Under: Community Tagged With: , , ,

New Divorce Documentary Is ‘Takedown’ Of System

January 13, 2014 By
Photo: www.divorcecorp.com

Photo: www.divorcecorp.com


Reviews are pouring in for the new “Divorce Corp.” documentary by Joseph Sorge, which opens this month and paints a very dark picture of family law courts. While the film is national in scope, it focuses on California and its most interesting character is a private investigator in the Golden State. Accounts are of a “system” with little oversight, complete with conflicts of interest and judges beyond belief. It should be noted that the longtime television producer got the idea for the film from his own divorce. 
 
You can find plenty of online info, but one of the better reviews is from Paste Magazine” “Narrated by Dr. Drew Pinsky, Divorce Corp.unfolds as a methodological case study, and a shrewd takedown of a legal system in which more money passes through family law court than all others combined. Using their increasingly dexterous talents to manipulate a system of at least partially manufactured dissent, lawyers have driven up the national average in divorce fees to a bewildering $50,000, which is more money than a lot of folks make in a year. Litigants, we’re told and shown, are little more than grist for the mill.”
 
The movie’s website is here.
The Paste review is here.
Filed Under: National Tagged With: , , , ,

Court Budget Hike Tied To Pension, Other Changes

January 10, 2014 By
 
Gov. Brown’s new budget proposal includes $3.2 billion for the state’s courts, an increase of $105 million from last year, but also eliminates local trial court reserve funds in favor of a a large “rainy day” fund in control of the Judicial Council. It also takes aim at forcing court workers to contribute more to their pension funds, according to coverage in The Courthouse News Service.
 
“There is a longstanding disparity in trial court employees in terms of how much they pay into their pensions,” said Department of Finance Director Michael Cohen, as quoted in CNS. “There are some employees in the court system that still pay nothing into their pensions. We need to move toward employees paying into roughly half the cost of their pensions.”
 
The CNS also offered this: “Though pressed by reporters, Cohen declined to say whether the pension mandate will apply to employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the judiciary’s administrative agency based in San Francisco. The top 30 administrators in the AOC enjoyed a top-loaded pension perk where the taxpayers contributed 22 percent on top of salary to the administrators’ pension accounts without any matching contribution from the individual administrator.”
 
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Chief Justice, Budget Plans Sketched In Report

January 7, 2014 By

One of those end-of-year “people to watch” features is hardly the stuff of investigative journalism, but a piece in The Tribune newspaper in San Luis Obispo outlines at least part of the upcoming judicial budget battles. The feature on California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is mostly glowing, but is among the few to note that early budget drafts exclude court budget increases.

The story is also one of the few that notes a specific number that the chief justice will seek from the legislature, although it is an indirect reference: “With those priorities in mind, Cantil-Sakauye is making a serious push for increased funding in the next fiscal year: another $472 million, which is about how much has cumulatively been cut from the judiciary’s budget since 2008.”

That report adds that “… that could be an uphill battle: Assembly Speaker John A. Perez released a blueprint budget plan earlier this month that included no new appropriations for the judiciary…” Read more here. 
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , ,

More Judges, Court Staff Eyed, If There’s More Money

December 19, 2013 By
Nobody is saying there will be funding to expand California’s court capacity, but the California Judicial Council has voted that some of any new money will go to provide new judges in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Both communities have been identified as among the state’s very worst in terms of justice access and have, of course, been hard-hit by the half-decade of court budget cutting
 
The Press-Enterprise newspaper has a good story on the decision by the Judicial Council, the courts administrative branch, and noting that lines outside courthouses are going around the block. The newspaper reports that “…additionally, several years of statewide budget cuts resulted in hundreds of staff reductions for both courts, causing shuttering or reduction of services at courthouses, and redirecting the type of cases some courts can handle… [the] cases affected by the pressure of too few judges include civil and family law courts, where decisions are made about critical issues of custody and child support.

The report cites a significant “new assessment” approved in 2012 that changed the official “judicial needs” for several counties, and Contra Costa County gave up a promised judicial position because of Riverside County’s shortage. The paper also recalls that money-dependent legislation “… originally provided for 150 new judges statewide, in three rollouts of 50 judges each. The first was completed, but the next two were stalled as state funds for the courts were severely cut in the succeeding years… the 2012 assessment says Riverside County has 76 judges, but needs 138. San Bernardino County has 84, but needs 156.

The next-biggest judicial shortage is in Los Angeles County, which needs 41. The P-E also breaks down the money: “Funding for a judgeship includes not just the judge’s salary but also money for court room personnel such as clerks, secretaries and sheriff’s deputies for security. A new judicial position is estimated to cost $1.65 million for the first year, which usually involves establishment of chambers and other one-time costs, and about $909,000 per year thereafter. A beginning judge’s annual salary is $181,292.”

 
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Early Budget Advice: No More Cash For Courts

December 18, 2013 By
Anyone hoping the next state budget surplus might reverse years of court funding cuts might be disappointed with early advice being offered to lawmakers. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the “nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature” is setting the anticipated courts increase at zero.
 
The LAO fall forecast and report documents a solid financial footing, saying that “the state’s budgetary condition is stronger than at any time in the past decade. The state’s structural deficit—in which ongoing spending commitments were greater than projected revenues—is no more.” The report also says that “… the Legislature will make decisions about the state’s 2014–15 budget in the coming months… assuming no change to current law and policy, we project that the state would have a $5.6 billion General Fund reserve at the end of the 2014–15 fiscal year.” 
 
Despite those billions, the LAO anticipates no budget increase for courts, reporting that while lawmakers “… could decide to provide additional General Fund support in the future to offset [court[ reductions” the actual forecast “assumes that General Fund spending on the judicial branch will remain roughly flat at about $1.2 billion over the forecast period.” 
 
This is not a trivial group. The LAO reports directly to the 16-member state Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC). The LAO website says the office currently has a staff of 43 analysts and approximately 13 support staff. Thus, they are the early-early drafters of what will become the state budget discussion. Check out how taxpayer money might be spent in the coming years here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , ,

‘King George’ Could Have Gone Federal? Historic Implications Abound

December 12, 2013 By
Most of our discussion over former Chief Justice Ronald George’s recent memoir “Chief” has focused on his relentless quest for power. But S.F. Gate in the Bay Area has an interesting alternative take, pointing out that many of California’s same-sex marriage rulings might have gone another way if “King George” had accepted a federal judgeship that was offered shortly after he’d accepted an appeal court position.
 
That move, of course, set up an appointment to the state high court by Gov. Wilson. But S.F. Gate has this bit of insight: “If Wilson had appointed someone else instead of George in 1991, there’s a fair chance that some of the court’s later 4-3 decisions would have turned out differently — such as the May 2008 ruling, written by the chief justice, that legalized same-sex marriage in California. That ruling stayed in effect for less than six months before the voters outlawed same-sex marriage by passing Proposition 8, which ultimately was overturned by the federal courts. But George’s ruling allowed 18,000 gay and lesbian couples to marry…”
 
There are other milestones, but clearly it’s a take on the Justice George story we’ve not seen. You can see it here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Chief Justice Favors Transparency She Controls

December 11, 2013 By
 
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Photo: California Courts)

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Photo: California Courts)


The Courthouse News has some of the better coverage from a year-end press meeting with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, who still says she favors court transparency despite having led the successful effort to remove open-meeting requirements from legislation. Apparently she supports the rule if judges write it, with TCN reporting that “… while the chief justice lobbied against a bill requiring open meetings by Judicial Council committees, she said she always supported the idea but wanted the judiciary to have control over the language in the rule.”
 
She explained that: “Because I think there are different considerations with judges who are on the advisory committees that draft the proposals for council to consider. In the process of drafting those proposals and deciding if a proposal should even come to council, judges still in their judicial role speak about substantive issues of law…  we have a concern about the code of judicial ethics and what judges can and cannot say in the process of a heated argument in the development of a proposal versus what they can and should be saying publicly.” 
 
And of course she noted “… a new long-term fiscal plan for the courts that she hopes will persuade the governor to restore $1 billion in funding to the judicial branch over five years.” Read more here.
Filed Under: Community, Courts Budget Tagged With: , , , ,
«Older Posts
Newer Posts»