Judicial Accountability

The article below is startling in that it is the FIRST-EVER California state audit to hold judges accountable. Judges are human beings and they have their own interests, weaknesses, and biases. They do NOT have any special immunities from accountability in their job performance.

The second article discusses the judiciary’s worn out excuse of “violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” This isn’t about separation of the legislative branch and the judicial branch, this is about checks and balances. The legislature has the right to investigate any branch of government for any reason and We the People need to ensure that this happens in every state of the nation.

First-Ever State Audit Aims to Hold Judges Accountable

Lawmakers have called for an audit of California’s Commission on Judicial Performance for the first time in the agency’s 56-year history.

The commission, which is responsible for disciplining judges, has drawn the ire of activists who say it protects bad jurists and from bench officers who say it over-penalizes them for minor missteps.

A joint audit committee of the California Legislature authorized the review in a unanimous vote this week. The audit will look at 26 issues, including whether the commission upholds due process when looking into allegations against judges and how investigators determine which complaints to dismiss.

In the past decade, the judicial commission has fielded anywhere from 900 to 1,200 complaints about judges each year. But 90 percent of those cases were closed right away, while more resulted in no discipline even after an investigation.

Only 3.4 percent ended in disciplinary action, and less than a percent led to public censure. None of these decisions were transparent.

Critics have demanded accountability for the judicial commission for years, claiming the agency works in secret and gives biased and inept judges a pass. In Santa Clara County, the criticism has largely centered on family court.

Continue Reading

California judicial watchdog agency sues over state audit                                     Greg Moran

The California agency that disciplines judges is suing the state auditor over the scope of an audit ordered this year by the Legislature, saying the probe is too broad and violates the constitutional separation of powers.

The Commission on Judicial Performance filed the suit Oct. 20 in San Francisco Superior Court. The agency contends allowing auditors to pore over its files of complaints and investigations against judges is barred by the constitution.

Continue Reading

State auditor blocked in seeking judicial records

Continue Reading

3 thoughts on “Judicial Accountability

  1. We desparately need to do this here in Minnesota. I.E. Judges, can and will take on the persona of the ‘King, Queen, Prince or Princess’ as in percieving and believing they can do no wrong…Factual, Judge Mary Mahler, Judge Kundrat arbitarily without consent of Records department sent back motions, affidavits, and other in flagarent disregard of MN§485.07 RECORDS TO BE KEPT. (1)(2)(3)(4);
    MINNESOTA COURT RULES§ Rule 8. Inspection, Copying, Bulk Distribution and Remote Access.
    MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH POLICY, POLICY NUMBER: 3.18. Court Employee Code of Ethics, April 21, 2006;
    Deputy Clerk in violation of practicing law contradictory to what is told to the public that use court admin. in filing motions. Using a false Canon that does not exist.

    Judge Davik-Halfen, wings were clipped when she and her court reporter got their hands caught in the cookie-jar…former Chief Judge John Scherer per conversation with former Timonthy Roberts installed in 2014 court room recording system…warning signs posted about speaking of case or cases…Gratitude to the somewhat contentious Attorney General. Court Reporters at the behest of the judge will implement fiction into the transcripts. Court Recording system are legal when it comes to the people exercise the malfeasance of some covert action.


    • In addition; The 7th Judicial District Court, County of Stearns, Minnesota allow their JUDGES to handle a case and in agreeing or denying IFP for people that are on fix incomes, ect. This is CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. Please note…conflict o f roles…i.e. the role of judge, role of signature, if ex-parte communications are detrimental to Neutrality of Judge; how is it neutral when a judge overseering a case that is being challenged per 14th Amendment and petitioner is seeking Appellate review? “[1] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public officer. Secondary interest includes personal benefit and is not limited to only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement, or the wish to do favours for family and friends. These secondary interests are not treated as wrong in and of themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. Conflict of interest rules in the public sphere mainly focus on financial relationships since they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable, and usually involve the political, legal, and medical fields.” PRIMARY INTEREST IS JUDGE RULING COUNTER TO PETITIONER–SECONDARY IS JUDGE DENYING IFP FOR APPELLATE REVIEW…ego EGO


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s