| ll |
| ll |
| ... |
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
Michael M. Roddy became executive officer of the Superior Court of
San Diego County in 2006.
In San Diego, the Court Executive Officer is Michael Roddy, who
receives policy and administrative advice and support from the
Executive Team.
The State Court System is governed by a 27-member Judicial
Council led by the State's Supreme Court Chief Justice. The
Judicial Council is the policy-making body of the California Courts
and is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent,
impartial and accessible administration of justice. The
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is the support staff of
the Judicial Council.
San Diego County in 2006.
In San Diego, the Court Executive Officer is Michael Roddy, who
receives policy and administrative advice and support from the
Executive Team.
The State Court System is governed by a 27-member Judicial
Council led by the State's Supreme Court Chief Justice. The
Judicial Council is the policy-making body of the California Courts
and is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent,
impartial and accessible administration of justice. The
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is the support staff of
the Judicial Council.
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
October 23, 2012
Michael Roddy, Executive Officer
Stephen Cascioppo, Assistant Executive Officer, Central Division
220 West Broadway, Third Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Executives of San Diego Superior Court:
Following is not necessarily word-for-word accurate, but all the ideas expressed are accurate. Not
every word spoken is recorded here, but this transcript contains about 80% of what was spoken. Some
parts were repeated.
I spoke to deputy clerk XXX in the Appeals Section on October 22, 2012 about
the fact that all three of the dates she used to justify Defaulting my Appeal
were, in fact, dates on which hearings had occurred.
Ms. XXX went to her computer and checked all three dates, then came back to
me and said, “There were no minute orders on those dates.”
“Were there hearings on those dates?” I asked.
Instead of answering this question, she repeated a couple more times that
there were no minute orders on those dates.
“What if the judge took the matter under submission?” I asked. “There wouldn’t
be any minute order, even though there had been a hearing.”
Ms. XXX told me that her computer does not show whether a hearing has
occurred—unless there was a minute order!!!!
I showed Ms. XXX two Reporter’s Transcript cover sheets for my 2010 appeal in
the same case. I had drawn circles around the three dates in question. Ms. XXX
made copies of the two cover sheets, and said that this cleared up the problem.
I said, “No, it doesn’t. The fact that this happened is a problem. Someone told you to do
this, didn’t they?” She said that no one had told her to do it.
I said, “You’re going to take the fall for this?” I said I didn’t believe she could have
made three mistakes like this, and she didn’t have any motive to sabotage my appeal.
When she went to her desk, her supervisor ZZZ came up to her
and told her she should leave. Then she said, “It’s your break. I’
ll take care of it.”
Then they both came over to where I was sitting, and XXX explained the situation to ZZZ.
ZZZ said to XXX, “Did you look it up on the V3 system?”
XXX said she did. I said, “So the name of the system you use is V3?
ZZZ waved her hand dismissively, ending the gesture with her palm stationary in front of my face, and
said, “It’s nothing for you to worry about.”
I requested that she not stick her hand in my face and asked, “Do you not want me to have information
about what system you use?”
ZZZ said she didn’t mind giving me the information, and said that V3 was the system used by the Court.
“Does it show when a hearing has occurred?” I asked.
“Yes,” ZZZ said.
“That’s interesting. XXX said that it didn’t,” I said.
ZZZ: “No, it doesn’t show hearings. It shows the minute
orders. The minute orders are printed on yellow paper and
placed in the file.”
Maura: “So there’s no record on your computer of
hearings at which no minute order was issued?”
ZZZ said, “Well, yes, there’s a little one line notation
showing that there was a hearing.” She held up her two index fingers,
a short distance apart, to show how small the notation was, apparently to demonstrate
how easily it could be overlooked.
I said, “Someone must have told XXX to do this. Was it you?”
ZZZ said, “No.”
ZZZ turned to XXX and told her to leave.
XXX was obviously uncomfortable to be asked to leave. It was clearly not her normal
break time. I happen to know that clerks sometimes take their breaks at their desks, so it
was not necessary for XXX to leave even if it actually had been her break time. XXX did
not feel good to be told to leave; her facial expression and body movements revealed
that she was unhappy and anxious.
I interpreted the order to leave as ZZZ’s effort to prevent XXX from revealing
that ZZZ had told her to create the Notice of Default. This was quite paranoid of
ZZZ, since XXX was absolutely steadfast in sticking to the story that the Notice
of Default was entirely her own idea.
I asked to speak to Ms. ZZZZ’s supervisor, but Ms. ZZZZ said the supervisor had
her door closed and was in a meeting.
I gave ZZZ my 1-page letter with three attachments, addressed to Mr. Roddy, Mr.
Cascioppo, and XXXX, and she stamped it received and stamped my copy. I went to
Michael Roddy’s office, but it was closed for lunch. I went back and asked ZZZ to put
another copy in Mr. Roddy’s mail box. I saw her put the letter in a mail box on the west
wall.
It’s worse to force a young, vulnerable person to subvert
justice than it is to simply subvert justice oneself. And
whoever pressured ZZZ was worse than ZZZ.
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
Michael Roddy, Executive Officer
Stephen Cascioppo, Assistant Executive Officer, Central Division
220 West Broadway, Third Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Executives of San Diego Superior Court:
Following is not necessarily word-for-word accurate, but all the ideas expressed are accurate. Not
every word spoken is recorded here, but this transcript contains about 80% of what was spoken. Some
parts were repeated.
I spoke to deputy clerk XXX in the Appeals Section on October 22, 2012 about
the fact that all three of the dates she used to justify Defaulting my Appeal
were, in fact, dates on which hearings had occurred.
Ms. XXX went to her computer and checked all three dates, then came back to
me and said, “There were no minute orders on those dates.”
“Were there hearings on those dates?” I asked.
Instead of answering this question, she repeated a couple more times that
there were no minute orders on those dates.
“What if the judge took the matter under submission?” I asked. “There wouldn’t
be any minute order, even though there had been a hearing.”
Ms. XXX told me that her computer does not show whether a hearing has
occurred—unless there was a minute order!!!!
I showed Ms. XXX two Reporter’s Transcript cover sheets for my 2010 appeal in
the same case. I had drawn circles around the three dates in question. Ms. XXX
made copies of the two cover sheets, and said that this cleared up the problem.
I said, “No, it doesn’t. The fact that this happened is a problem. Someone told you to do
this, didn’t they?” She said that no one had told her to do it.
I said, “You’re going to take the fall for this?” I said I didn’t believe she could have
made three mistakes like this, and she didn’t have any motive to sabotage my appeal.
When she went to her desk, her supervisor ZZZ came up to her
and told her she should leave. Then she said, “It’s your break. I’
ll take care of it.”
Then they both came over to where I was sitting, and XXX explained the situation to ZZZ.
ZZZ said to XXX, “Did you look it up on the V3 system?”
XXX said she did. I said, “So the name of the system you use is V3?
ZZZ waved her hand dismissively, ending the gesture with her palm stationary in front of my face, and
said, “It’s nothing for you to worry about.”
I requested that she not stick her hand in my face and asked, “Do you not want me to have information
about what system you use?”
ZZZ said she didn’t mind giving me the information, and said that V3 was the system used by the Court.
“Does it show when a hearing has occurred?” I asked.
“Yes,” ZZZ said.
“That’s interesting. XXX said that it didn’t,” I said.
ZZZ: “No, it doesn’t show hearings. It shows the minute
orders. The minute orders are printed on yellow paper and
placed in the file.”
Maura: “So there’s no record on your computer of
hearings at which no minute order was issued?”
ZZZ said, “Well, yes, there’s a little one line notation
showing that there was a hearing.” She held up her two index fingers,
a short distance apart, to show how small the notation was, apparently to demonstrate
how easily it could be overlooked.
I said, “Someone must have told XXX to do this. Was it you?”
ZZZ said, “No.”
ZZZ turned to XXX and told her to leave.
XXX was obviously uncomfortable to be asked to leave. It was clearly not her normal
break time. I happen to know that clerks sometimes take their breaks at their desks, so it
was not necessary for XXX to leave even if it actually had been her break time. XXX did
not feel good to be told to leave; her facial expression and body movements revealed
that she was unhappy and anxious.
I interpreted the order to leave as ZZZ’s effort to prevent XXX from revealing
that ZZZ had told her to create the Notice of Default. This was quite paranoid of
ZZZ, since XXX was absolutely steadfast in sticking to the story that the Notice
of Default was entirely her own idea.
I asked to speak to Ms. ZZZZ’s supervisor, but Ms. ZZZZ said the supervisor had
her door closed and was in a meeting.
I gave ZZZ my 1-page letter with three attachments, addressed to Mr. Roddy, Mr.
Cascioppo, and XXXX, and she stamped it received and stamped my copy. I went to
Michael Roddy’s office, but it was closed for lunch. I went back and asked ZZZ to put
another copy in Mr. Roddy’s mail box. I saw her put the letter in a mail box on the west
wall.
It’s worse to force a young, vulnerable person to subvert
justice than it is to simply subvert justice oneself. And
whoever pressured ZZZ was worse than ZZZ.
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
Michael Roddy,
Executive Officer
Room 3005
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Executive Officer
Room 3005
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Michael Roddy, Executive Officer
San Diego Superior Court
Mr. Roddy is the highest-paid AOC (Administrative
Office of the Courts) employee in San Diego.
San Diego Superior Court
Mr. Roddy is the highest-paid AOC (Administrative
Office of the Courts) employee in San Diego.
October 21, 2012
1935 Autocross CT
El Cajon, CA 92019
Michael Roddy, Executive Officer
Stephen Cascioppo, Assistant Executive Officer, Central Division
XXX, Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court, 3rd Floor, Room 3005
220 West Broadway,
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear San Diego Superior Court:
Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court XXXXXX states in her October 18, 2012 Notice of
Default (attached) that for the dates 4/25/08, 4/03/09 and 3/05/10 “there are no
minutes/hearings for those dates according to our record.”
I can’t begin to imagine how Ms. XXX could come up with not one, but three separate
mistakes of this type. Not only did hearings occur on all three of these dates, but
court reporter Marvie Votaw delivered the transcripts of these three hearings to your
Appeals Section in connection with my March 2010 appeal. I have attached Ms.
Votaw’s cover pages showing that transcripts were prepared for these dates. Also, in
September 2012 the court reporters had no trouble preparing estimates for the cost
of preparing the current record because I obviously designated the record with
adequate specificity.
It is bizarre that the Superior Court would interfere in this way with my appeals
process. If the deputy clerk didn’t have enough time to check carefully, why would
she go out of her way to prepare a Notice of Default? Left to her own devices, she
would have left it alone rather than picking three dates and declaring that hearings
didn’t happen on those days. More likely, someone else picked those three dates
and told Ms. XXXX that no hearings occurred on those days.
I suspect that someone in San Diego Superior Court who wanted to get rid of my
appeal asked XXXX to prepare this Notice of Default.
Please investigate this shocking subversion of the judicial process.
XXX had no motive to do this on her own initiative, but obviously there is at least one
person in San Diego Superior Court who does have a motive. Judge Judith Hayes
almost certainly wants to prevent another ruling by the Court of Appeal that finds one
of her injunctions to be “exceedingly broad.” But Judge Hayes probably didn’t talk
directly to Ms. XXXX. More likely it would have been xxxxxx or xxxxxx.
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
1935 Autocross CT
El Cajon, CA 92019
Michael Roddy, Executive Officer
Stephen Cascioppo, Assistant Executive Officer, Central Division
XXX, Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court, 3rd Floor, Room 3005
220 West Broadway,
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear San Diego Superior Court:
Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court XXXXXX states in her October 18, 2012 Notice of
Default (attached) that for the dates 4/25/08, 4/03/09 and 3/05/10 “there are no
minutes/hearings for those dates according to our record.”
I can’t begin to imagine how Ms. XXX could come up with not one, but three separate
mistakes of this type. Not only did hearings occur on all three of these dates, but
court reporter Marvie Votaw delivered the transcripts of these three hearings to your
Appeals Section in connection with my March 2010 appeal. I have attached Ms.
Votaw’s cover pages showing that transcripts were prepared for these dates. Also, in
September 2012 the court reporters had no trouble preparing estimates for the cost
of preparing the current record because I obviously designated the record with
adequate specificity.
It is bizarre that the Superior Court would interfere in this way with my appeals
process. If the deputy clerk didn’t have enough time to check carefully, why would
she go out of her way to prepare a Notice of Default? Left to her own devices, she
would have left it alone rather than picking three dates and declaring that hearings
didn’t happen on those days. More likely, someone else picked those three dates
and told Ms. XXXX that no hearings occurred on those days.
I suspect that someone in San Diego Superior Court who wanted to get rid of my
appeal asked XXXX to prepare this Notice of Default.
Please investigate this shocking subversion of the judicial process.
XXX had no motive to do this on her own initiative, but obviously there is at least one
person in San Diego Superior Court who does have a motive. Judge Judith Hayes
almost certainly wants to prevent another ruling by the Court of Appeal that finds one
of her injunctions to be “exceedingly broad.” But Judge Hayes probably didn’t talk
directly to Ms. XXXX. More likely it would have been xxxxxx or xxxxxx.
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
Agency that runs
California courts
'dysfunctional,' report
says
The report, ordered by
California Chief Justice Tani
Cantil-Sakauye, could
undermine her attempts to roll
back budget cuts of about $544
million.
May 30, 2012
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times
The agency that runs the
California court system has
become "dysfunctional" and
bloated with high-salaried
bureaucrats and requires a
major overhaul, according to a
report ordered by California
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-
Sakauye.
The 300-page report, which will
be presented to judicial branch
leaders next month, comes as
the courts are trying to stave off
large budget cuts from
Sacramento. Although ordered
by Cantil-Sakauye and written
by a committee she named, the
highly critical evaluation may
undermine the chief jurist's
efforts to roll back projected
budget cuts of about $544
million.
The committee of 11 judges
said the Administrative Office
of the Courts, the San
Francisco-based agency that
runs the court system, is
overstaffed, "top-heavy" and
unwieldy. The office has strayed
from its required task of serving
the courts and become
controlling, deceptive and
secretive, the judges said.
"The top-level decision-making
process of the AOC became
insular, with a top-down
management style limiting input
from those within the
organization," the report said.
The judges cited 17 positions
with maximum annual salaries at
or above $175,000, "numerous
positions" with salaries in
excess of $100,000 and a staff
attorney who was permitted to
telecommute from Switzerland.
The problems occurred during
the tenure of retired Chief
Justice Ronald M. George and
retired administrative office
Director William Vickrey, the
report said. During that time,
new committees, rules and
programs were established at
the behest of the Judicial
Council, the courts' governing
body headed by the chief
justice, the report said. The
council failed to keep a close
eye on management and
bureaucracy as staffing swelled
to 1,100, according to the
analysis.
The report recommends greater
oversight by the Judicial
Council, a restructuring of the
bureaucracy, regular internal
audits, staff cuts and possible
relocation of the Administrative
Office of the Courts from pricey
office space in San Francisco to
Sacramento.
Cantil-Sakauye acknowledged
that the report contains "hard
criticisms" and noted that
downsizing and restructuring
are already occurring. She said
staffing will be down to 860 by
June 30 because of ongoing
layoffs.
The Alliance of California
Judges, a dissenting group that
has complained about the court
bureaucracy, called the
evaluation "an A to Z indictment
of an out-of-control
organization." The group said
the report confirmed what the
Alliance has been saying for
years: "The AOC is broken at its
very core and has been allowed
to run itself … for well over a
decade."
California courts
'dysfunctional,' report
says
The report, ordered by
California Chief Justice Tani
Cantil-Sakauye, could
undermine her attempts to roll
back budget cuts of about $544
million.
May 30, 2012
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times
The agency that runs the
California court system has
become "dysfunctional" and
bloated with high-salaried
bureaucrats and requires a
major overhaul, according to a
report ordered by California
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-
Sakauye.
The 300-page report, which will
be presented to judicial branch
leaders next month, comes as
the courts are trying to stave off
large budget cuts from
Sacramento. Although ordered
by Cantil-Sakauye and written
by a committee she named, the
highly critical evaluation may
undermine the chief jurist's
efforts to roll back projected
budget cuts of about $544
million.
The committee of 11 judges
said the Administrative Office
of the Courts, the San
Francisco-based agency that
runs the court system, is
overstaffed, "top-heavy" and
unwieldy. The office has strayed
from its required task of serving
the courts and become
controlling, deceptive and
secretive, the judges said.
"The top-level decision-making
process of the AOC became
insular, with a top-down
management style limiting input
from those within the
organization," the report said.
The judges cited 17 positions
with maximum annual salaries at
or above $175,000, "numerous
positions" with salaries in
excess of $100,000 and a staff
attorney who was permitted to
telecommute from Switzerland.
The problems occurred during
the tenure of retired Chief
Justice Ronald M. George and
retired administrative office
Director William Vickrey, the
report said. During that time,
new committees, rules and
programs were established at
the behest of the Judicial
Council, the courts' governing
body headed by the chief
justice, the report said. The
council failed to keep a close
eye on management and
bureaucracy as staffing swelled
to 1,100, according to the
analysis.
The report recommends greater
oversight by the Judicial
Council, a restructuring of the
bureaucracy, regular internal
audits, staff cuts and possible
relocation of the Administrative
Office of the Courts from pricey
office space in San Francisco to
Sacramento.
Cantil-Sakauye acknowledged
that the report contains "hard
criticisms" and noted that
downsizing and restructuring
are already occurring. She said
staffing will be down to 860 by
June 30 because of ongoing
layoffs.
The Alliance of California
Judges, a dissenting group that
has complained about the court
bureaucracy, called the
evaluation "an A to Z indictment
of an out-of-control
organization." The group said
the report confirmed what the
Alliance has been saying for
years: "The AOC is broken at its
very core and has been allowed
to run itself … for well over a
decade."
Custody Evaluator
Complaints, Dr.
Stephen Doyne Phd,
CRC 5.225
The Public Court
...The appeal justices’ ruling
stated court-appointed
evaluators such as Adam do
not get “blanket immunity for
all negligenct conduct.” Mark I.
Pinsky, “Court of Appeal
Reverses Verdict in Murder
Case, Los Angeles Times,
June 2, 1992.” This case
answers the question for so
many families caught in the
family court trap, “Can I sue
my custody evaluator?” The
answer in California is, “Yes,
you can, in particularly, for
negligence.”
...Michael M. Roddy,
Court Executive
Officer of San Diego
Superior Court
participated in Judicial
Counsel meetings
where the Rules (CRC
5.225-5.230) pertaining
to these forms were
first introduced, and
then he attended
another Judicial
Counsel meeting and
voted on amending to
them, continuing to
make them more
detailed and important in
protecting the Public from
fraudulent and
unqualified Custody
Evaluators.
However, Mr.
Roddy NEVER
administered the
Rules of Court he
voted on to protect
the Public!
These Rules also protect
Evaluators as well in
substantiating their
background training and
qualifications in order to
perform evaluations or serve
as expert witness of the court,
and they are to be signed
under the penalty of perjury.
Precisely, because these
forms were never filled out
and filed in the time-sensitive,
mandatory 10-day period they
were to be completed by, NOT
a single Evaluator in San
Diego County over several
years were NEVER qualified
to serve as expert witness —
They were UNQUALIFIED!
Stephen Doyne should never
have been granted the Anti-
Slapp ruling precisely
because he never legally
attached to Tadros MD’s
evaluation in the first place.
The Rules are very clear, if
you don’t complete the form
FL-326 then you cannot serve
as expert witness, but they all
have been doing it anyway,
committing to HIPAA
violations in the act, denying
litigants their due process,
and well, essentially being
illegal interlopers in the act of
conducting 730 Custody
Evaluations. These are just
the broad sweeps of what is
at issue, there are many more
details to these Rules of
Court known as CRC 5.225 –
5.230 and how San Diego’s
Custody Evaluators are
conducting themselves.
It is very clear that the
precedents that the
Segaondollar case went
ignored by San Diego County
and it’s corrupt team of so-
called court professionals.
Why did San Diego ignore
these Rules of Court when
every other county in the State
of CA complied with them???
If you really want to know,
follow the money…and good
luck!
Complaints, Dr.
Stephen Doyne Phd,
CRC 5.225
The Public Court
...The appeal justices’ ruling
stated court-appointed
evaluators such as Adam do
not get “blanket immunity for
all negligenct conduct.” Mark I.
Pinsky, “Court of Appeal
Reverses Verdict in Murder
Case, Los Angeles Times,
June 2, 1992.” This case
answers the question for so
many families caught in the
family court trap, “Can I sue
my custody evaluator?” The
answer in California is, “Yes,
you can, in particularly, for
negligence.”
...Michael M. Roddy,
Court Executive
Officer of San Diego
Superior Court
participated in Judicial
Counsel meetings
where the Rules (CRC
5.225-5.230) pertaining
to these forms were
first introduced, and
then he attended
another Judicial
Counsel meeting and
voted on amending to
them, continuing to
make them more
detailed and important in
protecting the Public from
fraudulent and
unqualified Custody
Evaluators.
However, Mr.
Roddy NEVER
administered the
Rules of Court he
voted on to protect
the Public!
These Rules also protect
Evaluators as well in
substantiating their
background training and
qualifications in order to
perform evaluations or serve
as expert witness of the court,
and they are to be signed
under the penalty of perjury.
Precisely, because these
forms were never filled out
and filed in the time-sensitive,
mandatory 10-day period they
were to be completed by, NOT
a single Evaluator in San
Diego County over several
years were NEVER qualified
to serve as expert witness —
They were UNQUALIFIED!
Stephen Doyne should never
have been granted the Anti-
Slapp ruling precisely
because he never legally
attached to Tadros MD’s
evaluation in the first place.
The Rules are very clear, if
you don’t complete the form
FL-326 then you cannot serve
as expert witness, but they all
have been doing it anyway,
committing to HIPAA
violations in the act, denying
litigants their due process,
and well, essentially being
illegal interlopers in the act of
conducting 730 Custody
Evaluations. These are just
the broad sweeps of what is
at issue, there are many more
details to these Rules of
Court known as CRC 5.225 –
5.230 and how San Diego’s
Custody Evaluators are
conducting themselves.
It is very clear that the
precedents that the
Segaondollar case went
ignored by San Diego County
and it’s corrupt team of so-
called court professionals.
Why did San Diego ignore
these Rules of Court when
every other county in the State
of CA complied with them???
If you really want to know,
follow the money…and good
luck!
Completely false
justification for
defaulting appeal
> > >
Items 8a, 8d and 8j
contained correct
dates on which
hearings took place.
In fact, the Appeals
Division had already
received the court
reporter transcripts
for these 3 dates.
Who wanted to get rid
of this appeal?
justification for
defaulting appeal
> > >
Items 8a, 8d and 8j
contained correct
dates on which
hearings took place.
In fact, the Appeals
Division had already
received the court
reporter transcripts
for these 3 dates.
Who wanted to get rid
of this appeal?
Michael Roddy wrote that there is nothing improper when a
clerk perpetrates a hoax to default an appeal (see Mr. Roddy's
email at bottom of this page).
clerk perpetrates a hoax to default an appeal (see Mr. Roddy's
email at bottom of this page).
Maura Larkins' letter to Mr. Roddy
The court corrects the "error."
Dear Ms. Larkins,
The October 2012 inquiries cited in your blog were received and
investigated by the court. After investigating the issues you raised, we
concluded that no improper action has been taken by any court employees
related to your case. The matter has been closed.
Sincerely,
Mike Roddy
Executive Officer
The October 2012 inquiries cited in your blog were received and
investigated by the court. After investigating the issues you raised, we
concluded that no improper action has been taken by any court employees
related to your case. The matter has been closed.
Sincerely,
Mike Roddy
Executive Officer
Mr. Roddy finally responds by email. He didn't respond until
I put the story on my blog. Notice that he refers to the
"inquiries cited in your blog".
I put the story on my blog. Notice that he refers to the
"inquiries cited in your blog".
Three months after the October 2012 events I
discovered that 29 of my exhibits were missing from
the case file. (Somebody really didn't want the Court
of Appeal looking closely at the Stutz v. Larkins case!)
Update: After some difficulty, the missing exhibits
have been replaced.
See judge's ruling.
discovered that 29 of my exhibits were missing from
the case file. (Somebody really didn't want the Court
of Appeal looking closely at the Stutz v. Larkins case!)
Update: After some difficulty, the missing exhibits
have been replaced.
See judge's ruling.
Mr. Roddy is not so much a public servant as a private helper to judges who
want favors.
Katherine Williams
Court Operations Manager at San Diego Superior Court
Interestingly, Kathy Williams, the manager who oversaw Supervisor ZZZ
of the Appeals Division, was transferred to South County after the
bogus default notice above was sent out.
Perhaps Mr. Roddy thought that he'd better rein things in a tiny bit, although he
claims that nothing was amiss.
want favors.
Katherine Williams
Court Operations Manager at San Diego Superior Court
Interestingly, Kathy Williams, the manager who oversaw Supervisor ZZZ
of the Appeals Division, was transferred to South County after the
bogus default notice above was sent out.
Perhaps Mr. Roddy thought that he'd better rein things in a tiny bit, although he
claims that nothing was amiss.
Michael Roddy,
Executive Officer
Downloaded March 16, 2013
Assistant Executive Officers
Stephen Cascioppo,
Downtown, Central Division
Harold Kosakoff, East County
Division
Nancy Eberhardt, North County
Division
Harold Kosakoff, South County
Division
Executive Team
Karen Dalton, Public Affairs
Officer
Kristine Nesthus, Director,
Legal Services
Lyn Bell, Director, Human
Resources
Celeste Schwartz, Chief
Information Officer
Executive Officer
Downloaded March 16, 2013
Assistant Executive Officers
Stephen Cascioppo,
Downtown, Central Division
Harold Kosakoff, East County
Division
Nancy Eberhardt, North County
Division
Harold Kosakoff, South County
Division
Executive Team
Karen Dalton, Public Affairs
Officer
Kristine Nesthus, Director,
Legal Services
Lyn Bell, Director, Human
Resources
Celeste Schwartz, Chief
Information Officer
Michael Roddy appointed to
Judicial Council
Judicial Council of
California press
release:
June 4, 2009
Chief Justice Announces New
Judicial Council Members
San Francisco
Chief Justice Ronald M. George
today announced the
appointment of
eight members to the Judicial
Council of California, the
constitutionally mandated
policymaking body of the
California courts.
Six appointees
were named to three
-year terms effective September
15, 2009.
They are
Judge David S. Wesley, of the
Superior Court of Los
Angeles County;
Judge Erica R. Yew, of the Super
ior Court of Santa Clara County;
Frederick K. Ohlrich, Clerk
/Administrator
of the Supreme
Court of California;
Executive Officer
Kim Turner, of the Superior
Court of Marin County;
and
Miriam Aroni Krinsky, a
public advocate for
juvenile justice.
Presiding
Judge Kenneth K. So, of the
Superior Court of
San Diego
County, was reappointed
to a three
-year term
.
Executive
Officer Michael M.
Roddy, of the Superior
Court of San Diego
County, was
reappointed to a two
-year term.
In addition, the new
chair of the Trial
Court Presiding Judges Advisory
Committee is
Presiding Judge
Mary Ann O’Malley, of the
Superior Court
of
Contra Costa County.
She will serve
a one
-
year term
as an advisory
member.
Chaired by the Chief Justice, the
Judicial Council consists of 14
judicial
members appointed by the Chief
Justice, 4 attorney members
appointed
by the State Bar Board of
Governors, 1 member from each
house of the
Legislature, and
7 advisory members.
The Administrative Director of the
Courts serves as secretary to
the council
.
Established by the state
Constitution in 1926, the
28-member
Judicial
Council is responsible for
ensuring the consistent,
independent, impartial,
and accessible administration of
justice in the nation’s largest
court
system.
A summary of the appointme
nts follows.
2 Presiding
Judge Kenneth K. So,
of the Superior Court of San
Diego County
,
began his
judicial career as a San Diego
Municipal Court judge in
1994 and
was appointed to the
superior
court in 1998...
Before
joining the
municipal court,
he prosecuted criminal cases for
the San Diego City A
ttorney’s Office...
Judge So is now
an advisory member of the
Judicial Council
and chairs the council’s
Trial
Court Presiding Judges Advisory
Committee.
His council experience
also includes
membership on the
Executive and Planning
Committee and
the Trial Court Budget Working
Group.
Judge So’s new appointment
to the council is for a three
-year term as a voting
member
...Michael M. Roddy
became executive officer of the
Superior Court of San Diego
County in
2006, after extensive expe
rience in both county and
statewide court administration.
From 2001–2006, he was one
of the first regional
administrative directors of
the Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC)
and established a new regional
office for the AOC’s
Northern/Central Region.
He was executive officer of the
Superior Court of Sacramento
County (1994
–2001) and assistant executive
officer of the Superior Court of
San Diego County (1989
–1994).
In 2001, Mr. Roddy received the
Judicial Council’s Distinguished
Service Award and in 1996 was
honored by the Consumer
Attorneys of California as
Outstanding Court Administrator
of the Year.
Mr. Roddy participates on the
council’s Policy Coordination and
Liaison Committee
and Litigation Management
Committee.
He is also a member of the C
ourt Executives Advisory
Committee, the Emergency
Response and Security Task
Force, and the Trial Court Budget
Working Group.
In addition, he serves on
the Commission for
Impartial Courts’
Steering Committee.
[Maura Larkins' comment:
Well, this explains a lot.]
He is a former member of the
Judicial Council’s
Task Force on
Jury System
Improvements, Probation
Services Task Force,
and Ad Hoc Committee on
Court Security
.
Mr. Roddy’s new appointment
is for a two-year term as an
advisory member.
Commission for Impartial
Courts Steering Committee
As of January 16, 2009
(Expires November 30, 2009)
...Mr. Michael M. Roddy
Executive Officer
Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego...
Judicial Council
Judicial Council of
California press
release:
June 4, 2009
Chief Justice Announces New
Judicial Council Members
San Francisco
Chief Justice Ronald M. George
today announced the
appointment of
eight members to the Judicial
Council of California, the
constitutionally mandated
policymaking body of the
California courts.
Six appointees
were named to three
-year terms effective September
15, 2009.
They are
Judge David S. Wesley, of the
Superior Court of Los
Angeles County;
Judge Erica R. Yew, of the Super
ior Court of Santa Clara County;
Frederick K. Ohlrich, Clerk
/Administrator
of the Supreme
Court of California;
Executive Officer
Kim Turner, of the Superior
Court of Marin County;
and
Miriam Aroni Krinsky, a
public advocate for
juvenile justice.
Presiding
Judge Kenneth K. So, of the
Superior Court of
San Diego
County, was reappointed
to a three
-year term
.
Executive
Officer Michael M.
Roddy, of the Superior
Court of San Diego
County, was
reappointed to a two
-year term.
In addition, the new
chair of the Trial
Court Presiding Judges Advisory
Committee is
Presiding Judge
Mary Ann O’Malley, of the
Superior Court
of
Contra Costa County.
She will serve
a one
-
year term
as an advisory
member.
Chaired by the Chief Justice, the
Judicial Council consists of 14
judicial
members appointed by the Chief
Justice, 4 attorney members
appointed
by the State Bar Board of
Governors, 1 member from each
house of the
Legislature, and
7 advisory members.
The Administrative Director of the
Courts serves as secretary to
the council
.
Established by the state
Constitution in 1926, the
28-member
Judicial
Council is responsible for
ensuring the consistent,
independent, impartial,
and accessible administration of
justice in the nation’s largest
court
system.
A summary of the appointme
nts follows.
2 Presiding
Judge Kenneth K. So,
of the Superior Court of San
Diego County
,
began his
judicial career as a San Diego
Municipal Court judge in
1994 and
was appointed to the
superior
court in 1998...
Before
joining the
municipal court,
he prosecuted criminal cases for
the San Diego City A
ttorney’s Office...
Judge So is now
an advisory member of the
Judicial Council
and chairs the council’s
Trial
Court Presiding Judges Advisory
Committee.
His council experience
also includes
membership on the
Executive and Planning
Committee and
the Trial Court Budget Working
Group.
Judge So’s new appointment
to the council is for a three
-year term as a voting
member
...Michael M. Roddy
became executive officer of the
Superior Court of San Diego
County in
2006, after extensive expe
rience in both county and
statewide court administration.
From 2001–2006, he was one
of the first regional
administrative directors of
the Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC)
and established a new regional
office for the AOC’s
Northern/Central Region.
He was executive officer of the
Superior Court of Sacramento
County (1994
–2001) and assistant executive
officer of the Superior Court of
San Diego County (1989
–1994).
In 2001, Mr. Roddy received the
Judicial Council’s Distinguished
Service Award and in 1996 was
honored by the Consumer
Attorneys of California as
Outstanding Court Administrator
of the Year.
Mr. Roddy participates on the
council’s Policy Coordination and
Liaison Committee
and Litigation Management
Committee.
He is also a member of the C
ourt Executives Advisory
Committee, the Emergency
Response and Security Task
Force, and the Trial Court Budget
Working Group.
In addition, he serves on
the Commission for
Impartial Courts’
Steering Committee.
[Maura Larkins' comment:
Well, this explains a lot.]
He is a former member of the
Judicial Council’s
Task Force on
Jury System
Improvements, Probation
Services Task Force,
and Ad Hoc Committee on
Court Security
.
Mr. Roddy’s new appointment
is for a two-year term as an
advisory member.
Commission for Impartial
Courts Steering Committee
As of January 16, 2009
(Expires November 30, 2009)
...Mr. Michael M. Roddy
Executive Officer
Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego...
Blog posts re AOC
(Administrative Office of the Courts)
(Administrative Office of the Courts)
| See opening brief in Stutz v. Larkins appeal (to be argued on May 16, 2014 in the Court of Appeal.) |
Michael Roddy isn't the only
Court CEO accused of
misbehavior:
June 2014 Complaint Filed
Against Marin County
Superior Court Family Law
Judge Bev Wood & Court
CEO Kim Turner for Evidence
Tampering
Court CEO accused of
misbehavior:
June 2014 Complaint Filed
Against Marin County
Superior Court Family Law
Judge Bev Wood & Court
CEO Kim Turner for Evidence
Tampering
| News, information and ideas about our education system by Maura Larkins |
Clerks also seem to have falsified court records in
Orange County, California
Forgeries, fake plea deals, phony jail time: FBI re-
examining about 600 DUI, traffic cases in Orange
County, some may be retried
June 15, 2015
BY TONY SAAVEDRA and KELLY PUENTE
OC Register
The probe allegedly centers on a court employee suspected of falsifying records to
benefit defendants, recording dismissals where there were none, reducing charges
and, in at least one case, making it appear a defendant served jail time.
...FBI agents chased down defendants outside the courtroom, questioning them and
showing DMV photos. Later, the FBI and the Orange County District Attorney’s Office
declined to comment.
Though Borris originally referred to the inconsistencies as “errors,” he referred on
the bench to a document being “dummied up.”
Many of the lawyers appearing Friday told the judge that although they were listed as
the attorney of record, they had never represented the defendants. They did not
know how their names got on the records...
600 court cases under review in California
corruption probe
By the Associated Press
June 15, 2015
“There has been a clerk somewhere that was entering false information … getting
cash in exchange for making stuff disappear...”
"SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) — Hundreds of Orange County court cases are being
scrutinized amid suspicions that someone was paid to fix DUI and other traffic
violations by falsifying court records.
The FBI and county prosecutors are investigating, and about 600 Superior Court
cases, some dating to 2006, are going before a judge this month to determine
whether they should be reheard, the Orange County Register reported (http://bit.
ly/1B8TvRo).
The probe involves suspicions that some employees recorded fake sentence
reductions and dismissals for drunken driving and misdemeanor traffic cases and in
at least one case, falsely made it appear a defendant had served jail time, the
Register reported.
No arrests have been made. Representatives for the FBI, the court and the county
district attorney’s office declined to comment.
On Friday, 110 attorneys and former criminal defendants were summoned to the
courtroom of Judge Thomas Borris and told there were errors in the court records.
“You are here to convince me there is not a mistake in your case,” Borris said.
“There has been a clerk somewhere that was entering false information … getting
cash in exchange for making stuff disappear,” said Sheny Gutierrez, one of the
attorneys who appeared.
Ramon Vasquez said he was given a work program in 2012 after pleading guilty to
driving on a suspended license. The judge said the case would be undone unless he
produced documents, the Register said.
“I think it’s injustice,” Vasquez said. “If there’s a flaw in the court system, it’s on them,
it’s not on us.”
Borris eventually reversed settlements in about a dozen cases. The defendants were
given the options of negotiating with a prosecutor or the judge or hiring a private
attorney.
Jesus Sanchez, 29, drove from Arizona to appear. His misdemeanor charge of driving
on a suspended license was dismissed in 2012. After appearing before the judge, he
agreed to plead guilty to the misdemeanor and pay a fine.
FBI agents waited in the hall outside of the courtroom to question defendants and
show them mug shots, the Register reported.
The judge also ordered the immediate arrest of Harania Farias, who had said she
had served three months in a private jail in La Verne on a 2013 DUI charge. She was
taken into custody in court and held without bail, the newspaper reported.
Not only did the private jail confirm Farias never was there, documents showing that
she was allowed to serve time there appeared to be forged, and Lolita Kirk, the
attorney who supposedly submitted the documents, told the Register she never had
represented the woman.
Other lawyers listed as attorneys of record told the judge that they had never
represented the defendants. Attorney Charmaine Druyor said that, in the courthouse
on Friday, she met the person she supposedly had defended and realized that she
had never represented him.
“It’s very odd, everything going on here today. It’s just bizarre,” she said."
___
Information from: The Orange County Register, http://www.ocregister.com
Orange County, California
Forgeries, fake plea deals, phony jail time: FBI re-
examining about 600 DUI, traffic cases in Orange
County, some may be retried
June 15, 2015
BY TONY SAAVEDRA and KELLY PUENTE
OC Register
The probe allegedly centers on a court employee suspected of falsifying records to
benefit defendants, recording dismissals where there were none, reducing charges
and, in at least one case, making it appear a defendant served jail time.
...FBI agents chased down defendants outside the courtroom, questioning them and
showing DMV photos. Later, the FBI and the Orange County District Attorney’s Office
declined to comment.
Though Borris originally referred to the inconsistencies as “errors,” he referred on
the bench to a document being “dummied up.”
Many of the lawyers appearing Friday told the judge that although they were listed as
the attorney of record, they had never represented the defendants. They did not
know how their names got on the records...
600 court cases under review in California
corruption probe
By the Associated Press
June 15, 2015
“There has been a clerk somewhere that was entering false information … getting
cash in exchange for making stuff disappear...”
"SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) — Hundreds of Orange County court cases are being
scrutinized amid suspicions that someone was paid to fix DUI and other traffic
violations by falsifying court records.
The FBI and county prosecutors are investigating, and about 600 Superior Court
cases, some dating to 2006, are going before a judge this month to determine
whether they should be reheard, the Orange County Register reported (http://bit.
ly/1B8TvRo).
The probe involves suspicions that some employees recorded fake sentence
reductions and dismissals for drunken driving and misdemeanor traffic cases and in
at least one case, falsely made it appear a defendant had served jail time, the
Register reported.
No arrests have been made. Representatives for the FBI, the court and the county
district attorney’s office declined to comment.
On Friday, 110 attorneys and former criminal defendants were summoned to the
courtroom of Judge Thomas Borris and told there were errors in the court records.
“You are here to convince me there is not a mistake in your case,” Borris said.
“There has been a clerk somewhere that was entering false information … getting
cash in exchange for making stuff disappear,” said Sheny Gutierrez, one of the
attorneys who appeared.
Ramon Vasquez said he was given a work program in 2012 after pleading guilty to
driving on a suspended license. The judge said the case would be undone unless he
produced documents, the Register said.
“I think it’s injustice,” Vasquez said. “If there’s a flaw in the court system, it’s on them,
it’s not on us.”
Borris eventually reversed settlements in about a dozen cases. The defendants were
given the options of negotiating with a prosecutor or the judge or hiring a private
attorney.
Jesus Sanchez, 29, drove from Arizona to appear. His misdemeanor charge of driving
on a suspended license was dismissed in 2012. After appearing before the judge, he
agreed to plead guilty to the misdemeanor and pay a fine.
FBI agents waited in the hall outside of the courtroom to question defendants and
show them mug shots, the Register reported.
The judge also ordered the immediate arrest of Harania Farias, who had said she
had served three months in a private jail in La Verne on a 2013 DUI charge. She was
taken into custody in court and held without bail, the newspaper reported.
Not only did the private jail confirm Farias never was there, documents showing that
she was allowed to serve time there appeared to be forged, and Lolita Kirk, the
attorney who supposedly submitted the documents, told the Register she never had
represented the woman.
Other lawyers listed as attorneys of record told the judge that they had never
represented the defendants. Attorney Charmaine Druyor said that, in the courthouse
on Friday, she met the person she supposedly had defended and realized that she
had never represented him.
“It’s very odd, everything going on here today. It’s just bizarre,” she said."
___
Information from: The Orange County Register, http://www.ocregister.com