Commission on Judicial Performance is an independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity and for disciplining state judges (see article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution).
The commission has authority to impose certain discipline on former judges and has shared authority with local courts over court commissioners and referees (see article VI, section 18.1 of the California Constitution).
The commission does not have authority over temporary judges (also called judges pro tem) or private judges. All commission proceedings are required to be public after formal charges are filed.
Under article VI, section 18(d) of the California Constitution, the commission may
The commission is composed of 11 members: 3 judges appointed by the California Supreme Court, 4 members appointed by the Governor (2 attorneys and 2 nonattorney public members), 2 public members appointed by the Assembly Speaker, and 2 public members appointed by the Senate Rules Committee. Appointments are for four-year terms.
State of California Commission on Judicial Performance - Commission Rules
Article VI, section 18(i) of the Constitution authorizes the commission to make rules for conducting investigations and formal proceedings. The Rules of the Commission on Judicial Performance, rules 101 through 138, were adopted by the commission on October 24, 1996, and took effect December 1, 1996. The rules have been amended periodically thereafter.
State of California Commission on Judicial Performance - Policy Declarations
The Policy Declarations of the Commission on Judicial Performance detail the commission's internal procedures and existing policies. A Code of Ethics for Commission Members is set forth in Division VI of the policy declarations.
Under article VI, section 18(d) of the California Constitution, the commission may
- Remove a judge or censure a judge or former judge for action that constitutes willful misconduct in office, persistent failure or inability to perform the judge's duties, habitual intemperance in the use of intoxicants or drugs, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute;
- Publicly or privately admonish a judge or former judge found to have engaged in improper action or dereliction of duty; and
- Retire a judge for disability that seriously interferes with the performance of the judge's duties and is or is likely to become permanent.
The commission is composed of 11 members: 3 judges appointed by the California Supreme Court, 4 members appointed by the Governor (2 attorneys and 2 nonattorney public members), 2 public members appointed by the Assembly Speaker, and 2 public members appointed by the Senate Rules Committee. Appointments are for four-year terms.
State of California Commission on Judicial Performance - Commission Rules
Article VI, section 18(i) of the Constitution authorizes the commission to make rules for conducting investigations and formal proceedings. The Rules of the Commission on Judicial Performance, rules 101 through 138, were adopted by the commission on October 24, 1996, and took effect December 1, 1996. The rules have been amended periodically thereafter.
State of California Commission on Judicial Performance - Policy Declarations
The Policy Declarations of the Commission on Judicial Performance detail the commission's internal procedures and existing policies. A Code of Ethics for Commission Members is set forth in Division VI of the policy declarations.
Related articles and resources:
- Commission on Judicial Performance posts at Tumblr: click here and here.
- Commission on Judicial Performance reviews at Yelp.
- CJP Director Victoria Henley articles on the Web, and at Tumblr.
2 comments:
Marin Court Executive Kim Turner and AOC instructed Marin Court Mediator Supervisor “Leo Terbieten” and all court mediators: Gloria Wu, Meredith Braden and Christine Definbach to destroy the pending cases working files during State Auditor audited Marin Family Court. It was an organized crime.
Marin Court Mediator “Gloria Wu” PSY 16785 testified under cross examination on August 17 and 20, 2007 admitted she was not aware any local rules, Family Code Section and laws to perform the most basic of her duties.
Dr. Gloria Wu had an Ex Parte Communication with the court appointed minor counsel “Scott Lueders” in violation of PC 216 (a)(b). Marin Family Court Presiding Judge Verna Adams commented Dr. Gloria Wu’s malpractice was fair and appropriate in FL 995107 James Heierle and Yupa
Attorney Barbara Kauffman: are you aware of any rule, or procedure, document issued by Family Court Services that lets the parents who come through your office know that their attorneys are allowed to send documents to you?
Marin Court Mediator "Gloria Wu": I–I don’t know.
Attorney: Could you tell me what the best interest factors are in Family code section 3011?
Gloria Wu: I’m unable to do that for you.
Attorney: How about child sexual abused and domestic violence. Is there any relationship there?
Gloria Wu: I–I don’t know that so–
Attorney: You haven’t been trained in that?
Gloria Wu: I–I am unable to answer that questions.
Attorney: I’m asking you right now, are you aware that a CLET restraining order was issued in this case?
Gloria Wu: I don’t-I don’t know.
Attorney: James’reaction with our son very inappropriate, He plays with our son very roughly, roughly that our son, when he was two and a half years gets bruises and often ends up crying. James got very angry and slapped him on the face. I got very upset at James and told him not to discipline him that way. James then slapped our son twice on the face. Although there was no bruise, you could see finger marks. Does this concern you?
Gloria Wu: Yes, that concerns me.
Attorney: It’s document called 2005 rules of court excerpts, 2006 trial excerpts of Dr. Wu filed on March 9, 2007. Did you ever read that?
Gloria Wu: NO.
Attorney: So this is a new fact for you, Jonathan telling that his dad hit him?
Gloria Wu: Yes.
Attorney: Do you know whether a police report made?
Gloria Wu: No, I don’t know.
Attorney: Did you read the doctor’s reports attached Exhibit O?
Gloria Wu: No, I did not read this.
Attorney: Did you talk to his doctors?
Gloria Wu: No, I did not.
Attorney: Did you talk to his teacher?
Gloria Wu: NO, I did not.
Attorney: Did you talk to child therapist?
Gloria Wu: No, I did not.
Attorney: Now, do you know-do you have any idea of how frequently Mr. Heierle has used gone on PORNOGRAPHY websites?
Gloria Wu: I don’t know.
Attorney: Now, Do you see he changed his testimony from two or three times a month to possibly 20 times per month?
Gloria Wu: Well, he’s saying that that’s possible, that-that he doesn’t keep track of the times.
Attorney: Have you review the files?
Gloria Wu: No. Attorney: Are you have no doubt that this child is very, very connected to his mother, do you?
Gloria Wu: Sure
Attorney: And he loves his mother a lot?
Gloria Wu: Yes. Marin Family Court Presiding Judge Verna Adams, Court Mediator Gloria Wu and Court appointed Minor Counsel “Scott Lueders” gave the sole custody to the batterer pervert father “James Heierle” after Court mediator Gloria Wu admitted she did not read a single of working files and my pleading. APPLE SAVE KIDS documented child became physical violence during the visits after the batterer pervert father "James Heierle" hired his lawyer teenager son, "Zach Ostiller" to get involve with the custody mess and intentionally dropped off child late multiple times at APPLE SAVE KIDs. The batterer father instructed APPLE SAVE KIDs supervisor not allow child to have any drink or foods during two hours visitations and set up miserable visits for our minor son.
FL 995107, my attorney and I filed appeals and complaint up to Supreme Court how corrupt Marin Family Court from top to bottom with many court transcripts memorialized Marin Presiding Judge Verna Adams gave the sole legal custody to the batterer pervert father (he did not ask for the sole legal custody). Marin Court Mediator Gloria Wu testified and admitted that she did not read the case working pleading, did not read a single of mother's motion but she read all the batterer pervert father's pleading and admitted that she did not know the most basic local rules and procedure how to perform her basic duties. Her supervisor "Leo Terbieten" was rude, hostile and disrepesctful toward the protective mother who is an honor nurse and her attorney "Barbara Kauffman". He threw a pen on the table when the mother asked to borrow a pen in his office. This was the only case assigned to 3 court mediators during Marin Family Court budget cut.
Post a Comment