7/18/2014 The root of most problems

One observation that I have made which goes a long way toward explaining what is wrong
with the world is this: the strong blame the weak.
If physical tasks are not performed it is blamed upon weakness. If mental problems are not
solved - it must be the result of stupidity. If relationships fail to be fonned the fault lies with the
emotionally weaker partner - since they could not cause the stronger to make an emotional
connection.
Because the strong are the strong, they have gotten away with shifting the blame to weakness
all throughout history; how could the weak stop them?
The time has come to stop shifting the blame to those who are helpless to prevent that shift.
If the problems of the world are the fault of the weak and the stupid, thenl submit that we -
the strong and intelligent - need to start blaming clams for all of humanity's problems; after all,
clams are far weaker and less intelligent than any human I have ever met. If weakness and
stupidity are the cause of the world's problems - surely then clams are far more to blame than
any person!
Hopefully, the basic absurdity of blaming the weak is apparent. If a bridge collapses in St.
Louis the fault most likely lies with the intelligent person who designed the bridge in the rst
place. Who's fault would it be? Perhaps a child playing in China?
The designer says the fault lies with the stupidity of the workman who built the bridge - or the
shoddy workmanship in the parts. But this is a lie: the designer knew that the workman on the
bridge weren't engineers - why didn't the designer take that into account while doing the
design? Why wasn't the quality of the material checked beforehand?
Perhaps the blame could be placed at the feet of the bureaucrats who rode roughshod over
the engineers objections to placing the bridge struts in quick sand. The strength of the
governing body is far greater than that of a designer - here is an appropriate place to shift
blame. If it is to be shifted, then the blame lies at the feet of the strongest and most capable in
the bureaucracy: they were derelict in their duty.
Women have long blamed men for relationship problems - but it is women who study
relationships and who are emotionally strong. Most of the problems of the world ARE the
fault of men - who are physically, and intellectually stronger than women. However, the blame
for most relationship problems lies with women; this is the area of expertise in which women
are stronger.
http //users hal pc.org /~ rcanup/strong .htm|
7/ 18/2014 The root of most problems
There is only one case in which it is appropriate to blame the weak and the sensitive - and that
is in the case of a socially adept psychopath. Such people are sensitive to the cause of trouble
and thus are very powerful at creating it.
But even in that case the blame ultimately lies with the intelligent and the honorable: why
weren't the S.A.P.s detected and dealt with?
If mathematics is screwed up, the fault lies with the most brilliant mathematical minds - not
with someone who is unable to correct the problems. If the world is a screwed up place - and
it is - then the fault lies at the feet of those who have the knowledge and power to change it.
Until the best, the brightest, and the strongest, accept full responsibility for the problems they
have failed to correct - there is little chance of the world becoming a better place in which to
live.
Back to the home page
http //users hal pc.org /~ rcanup/strong .htm|
Why the 2011 Elkin Commission should matter. And apparently why it doesnt
The 2007 Elkins case concluded the courts policies and procedures prohibited the
presentation of information vital to fair administration of justice. This denied the litigants the
right to beheard and to rebut any disputed evidence as part of the record. Elkin Commissions
Task Force 28 member panel of respected law professionals and experts provided insight to the
Commission on Judicial Performanceregarding the Californias Family Court on the rising discord
the public between them and the steady increase in publics disapproval rate of the Judiciary. In
recommendations addressing the courts failureto provide the majority of the public reliable
access to justicein part they concluded the following:
Part I.IncreasingPublic ConfidenceIn Family Court
Leadership,Accountability,and Resources Increasingtheaccountability of family court
professionalsis thesinglemost important changeneeded and would produce far-
reaching,positive changesin all aspectsof family law.Current oversight of family court is
inadequate and ineffective.Appeals are priced out of the ordinary litigants range and trial
court decisions are rarely overruled.
The Elkins recommendations would be greatly strengthened by thefollowingsuggestions:
i. Equipingeach and every family law courtroomwith automated videotaping
equipment toensure that each and every family law proceedingisvideo-recorded,
includingin-chambers communications,would ensure access to justiceand an
affordable record. This is the most efficient, streamlined and effective method toensure
fairness,dueprocess,transparency and intact (non-tampered),reasonably-priced
documentation of hearings
ii. Ensuringaccessto therecord. Access to therecord in family law is seriousaccess-
to-justice issue and must be significantly improved both to ensure that parties
understand and can finalize the courts orders and to ensure that the partiesright to
appeal is protected.Partiescurrent inability to access therecord in their family
law proceedings is an areaof long-standingconcern.Thisinability tohavean
accuraterecord of their family law cases makes theability of family law litigants to
appeal too often illusory.
iii. Family court judges should be rotated out of thefamily court entirely every 2-4 years
to prevent burnout and cronyism (Elkins recommendations page 73 #C).
iv. To assure long-term functionality of an improved family court:
Theimmunity of judgesand court-appointeesneeds tobe limited,particularly
when judicial or administrative proceedingsare instituted within thescopeof their
employment and they act maliciously or without probablecause.





.
" a w e :
9 pg-.
$011: of Ea litoruis
Qla mmissinn c m Zjuhic ia l Ele rforma nc e
455 (5nlbe u (ute \be nue , ,uite 14400
rm glirunrisc u, (I [ ,_ Z\ 9 4102-3560
(415) 557-1200
F A X (415) 557-1266
W e b S ite : httpz l/ e ip.c a .gov
F e brua ry 29 , 2012
Honora ble Edmund G. Brow n, Jr. Honora ble Da rre ll S te inbe rg
Gov e mor, S ta te of Ca lifomia S e na te Pre side nt pro Te m
S ta te Ca pitol S ta te Ca pitol, Room 205
S a c ra me nto, CA 9 5814 S a c ra me nto, CA 9 5814-49 00
Honora ble Ta ni Ca ntil-S a ka uye Honora ble John A . Pre z
Chie f Justic e of Ca lifomia S pe a ke r of the A sse mbly
S upre me Court S ta te Ca pitol
350 Mc A lliste r S tre e t P.O. Box 9 42849
S a n F ra nc isc o, CA 9 4102 S a c ra me nto, CA 9 4249 -0046
De a r Gov e mor Brow n, Chie f Justic e Ca ntil-S a ka uye , S e na tor S te inbe rg, a nd S pe a ke r Pre z :
This le tte r is w ritte n a t the re que st of the Commission on Judic ia l Pe rfonna nc e to a le rt you to a
proble m tha t the c ommission be lie v e s impa irs its a bility to fulll its ma nda te to prote c t the
public , a nd unde rmine s the a dministra tion ofjustic e in c ourt proc e e dings in Ca lifomia . I t
inv olv e s de c re a se d re porting of c ourt proc e e dings in Ca lifomia s c ourts of re c ord. The
c ommission ta ke s no position on how the proble m should be xe d but urge s, for the public s
prote c tion, tha t the proble m be a ddre sse d a nd re solv e d.
I n summa ry:
0 S ome c ourts a re c utting c osts by te rmina ting c ourt re porte rs. Nothing re quire s c om-ts to
re pla c e c ourt re porte rs w ith a nothe r me a ns of re c ording proc e e dings. A s a re sult, the re
a re fe w e r offic ia l re c ords of c ourt proc e e dings in Ca lifomia s c ourts of re c ord.
0 The Conmiission, w hic h is re sponsible for inv e stiga ting a nd disc iplining misc onduc t by
sta te c ourt judge s, is he ld to a c le a r a nd c onv inc ing e v ide nc e sta nda rd in its c a se s.
W ithout a ny re c ord of the proc e e dings, it c a n be difc ult, if not impossible , to e sta blish
w ha t oc c urre d in the c ourtroom, w he re 9 5% of the c ompla ints to the Commission e a c h
Honora ble Edmund G. Brow n, Jr.
Honora ble Ta ni Ca ntil-S a ka uye
Honora ble Da rre ll S te inbe rg
Honora ble John A . Pre z
F e brua ry 29 , 2012
Pa ge 2
ye a r origina te . I n De c e mbe r 201 1, the re w e re tra nsc ripts or re c ordings in only ha lf of the
Commissions pe nding inv e stiga tions tha t inv olv e c ourtroom c onduc t.
0 Ca lifomia , ordina rily a le a de r in the a dministra tion ofjustic e , is fa lling be hind othe r
sta te s in w hic h the public is prote c te d a nd the a dministra tion ofjustic e is pre se rv e d by
re c ording a ll c ourt proc e e dings.
0 A t a minimum, a c tion should be ta ke n to e nsure tha t w he n c ourt re porte rs a re re le a se d,
a nothe r me a ns of c re a ting a n ofc ia l re c ord is prov ide d.
The se points a re a ddre sse d in gre a te r de ta il in the re ma inde r of this le tte r.
A s Ca lifomia s budge t c risis ha s pe rsiste d a nd tria l c ourt funding w a s re duc e d, tria l c ourts
indiv idua lly be ga n to impose me a sure s to a c hie v e c ost re duc tions, inc luding te rmina tion of the
se rv ic e s of c ourt re porte rs. A c c ording to ne w s re ports, in Oc tobe r, 15 c ourt re porte rs w e re la id
off in A la me da County; in Nov e mbe r, S a n F ra nc isc o S upe rior Court la id off 22. The w e bsite of
the Ca lifomia Offic ia l Court Re porte rs A ssoc ia tion sta te s tha t S a nta Cruz County S upe rior Court
pulle d re porte rs from c iv il c ourts in 2010, a nd, a s of Oc tobe r 2011, re porte rs w e re be ing la id off
in Na pa a nd Ma rin, a nd w a mings of immine nt la yoffs w e re be ing ma de in Los A nge le s a nd
Ve ntura .' I n some c ountie s, litiga nts in c iv il proc e e dings a nd the ir c ounse l a re be ing told to
bring the ir ow n re porte rs if the y w a nt a re c ord of the proc e e dings? I f the tre nd c ontinue s
tow a rds de c re a se d re lia nc e upon c ourt re porte rs w ithout the substitution of othe r me a ns of
c re a ting a n offic ia l re c ord, c ourt re porte rs w ill be use d only in the proc e e dings re quire d by la w to
be re porte d, a nd the re w ill be Q ofc ia l re c ord e le c tronic or othe rw ise of a ny othe r c ourt
proc e e dings.
A s you a re a ll a w a re , the Commission on Judic ia l Pe rforma nc e is the body c onstitutiona lly
c ha rge d w ith re sponsibility to inv e stiga te a nd disc ipline misc onduc t by sta te c ourt judge s. Ea c h
ye a r, 9 5 pe rc e nt of the c ompla ints submitte d to the c ommission c onc e m c onduc t by judge s in the
c ourse of pe rforming judic ia l dutie s in c ourt proc e e dings. Be c a use the sta nda rd of proof in
c ommission disc iplina ry proc e e dings is c le a r a nd c onv inc ing e v ide nc e , it c a n be v e ry diffic ult, if
not impossible , to e sta blish w ha t w a s sa id a nd w ha t oc c urre d in the c ourtroom w ithout a ny
re c ord of the proc e e dings. Ov e r the pa st de c a de , the re w e re six c a se s in w hic h judge s w e re
re mov e d 'om offic e for c onduc t inv olv ing c ourtroom proc e e dings. I n v e of those c a se s, the re
w e re tra nsc ripts or re c ordings of the proc e e dings tha t substa ntia te d the c ha rge s of misc onduc t.
S imila rly, ov e r the sa me pe riod, in six of the se v e n c a se s in w hic h judge s w e re c e nsure d for
' http: / / c oc ra .org/
2 (F oste r, La id-Oke porle rs Orga niz e , Ge t Ba c king ofJudge s a nd Ba r, S .F . Re c orde r (Oc t. 5, 201 1).)
Honora ble Edmund G. Brow n, Jr.
Honora ble Ta ni Ca ntil-S a ka uye
Honora ble Da rre ll S te inbe rg
Honora ble John A . Pre z
F e brua ry 29 , 2012
Pa ge 3
c onduc t tha t inv olv e d c ourtroom proc e e dings, the re w e re tra nsc ripts or re c ordings of the
proc e e dings.
A re v ie w of pe nding inv e stiga tions inv olv ing c ourt proc e e dings a t the c ommissions De c e mbe r
2011 me e ting re v e a le d, how e v e r, tha t tra nsc ripts or re c ordings e xist in only ha lf of the c a se s,
w hic h me a ns tha t it ma y not be possible to e sta blish w ith c e rta inty w he the r or not misc onduc t
oc c urre d in ha lf of the c a se s. The a bse nc e of tra nsc ripts or re c ordings thus impe de s the
c ommission in de te rmining tha t misc onduc t ha s oc c urre d a nd in prote c ting the public from
a busiv e judge s. Equa lly importa nt, the a bse nc e of a re c ord of c ourt proc e e dings pre v e nts the
sw ift a nd c omple te e xone ra tion ofjudge s by the c ommission w he n a ppropria te s ln a ddition to
c a using a nxie ty for judge s, prolonge d inv e stiga tions a lso inc re a se the ir de fe nse c osts. F or the
c ommission w hic h ha s ope ra te d for the pa st se v e ra l ye a rs w ith a 25 pe rc e nt re duc tion in
sta ing othe r inv e stiga tions a re ine v ita bly de la ye d, w he n e xte nsiv e inte rv ie w s must be
c onduc te d be c a use a tra nsc ript or re c ording is not a v a ila ble . This situa tion w ill be c ome more
e xtre me if fe w e r c ourt proc e e dings a re re porte d.
I ronic a lly, Ca lifomia , ordina rily a le a de r in the a dministra tion ofjustic e , is fa lling be hind othe r
sta te s in w hic h the public is prote c te d a nd the a dministra tion ofjustic e is pre se rv e d by re c ording
a ll c ourt proc e e dings. S ome might a rgue tha t this is e a sie r to a c c omplish in sma lle r sta te s, ye t in
Ne w York, a jurisdic tion w ith tw ic e a s ma nyjudge s a s Ca lifomia , a ll proc e e dings a re re porte d in
c oruts of re c ord a nd, sinc e 2008, e v e n the 1,200 c ourts tha t a re not c ourts of re c ord ha v e be e n
ma nda te d to a udio re c ord a ll proc e e dings, on e quipme nt fumishe d by the Ofc e of Court
A dministra tion. Tha t offic e a lso prov ide s re mote tra nsc ription a ssista nc e w he n ne c e ssa ry to
ma ke a n a c tua l tra nsc ript. S imila rly, Uta h pa sse d le gisla tion in 2010 re quiring a ll justic e , c ounty
a nd munic ipa l c ourts to a udio re c ord proc e e dings sta rting July 1, 2012. Proc e e dings in a ll Uta h
sta te c ourts - the S upre me Court, Court of A ppe a ls, distric t c ourts a nd juv e nile c ourts a re
a lre a dy re porte d. Court re porte rs a nd v ide o re porting in those c ourts a re be ing pha se d out in
fa v or of a udio re porting. Othe r sta te s in w hic h a ll c ourt proc e e dings a re re c orde d inc lude
A la ska , Ma ryla nd, Ma ssa c huse tts, Missouri, Ne w Ha mpshire a nd Ne w Je rse y. W he re a udio
re c ordings a re e a sily ma de a v a ila ble , our c ounte rpa rts in othe r jurisdic tions re port tha t the y a re
a ble to quic kly obta in a nd re v ie w the re c ordings a nd ma ke a prompt de te rmina tion w he the r a n
inv e stiga tion is ne c e ssa ry, the re by a v oiding unne c e ssa ry a nd prolonge d proc e e dings.
I n Ca lifornia , w e a re a w a re of nothing tha t re quire s c ourts to re pla c e c ourt re porte rs w ith a ny
othe r me a ns of re porting proc e e dings, unle ss a _ re c ord is pre sc ribe d by la w . W e a re a lso a w a re of
nothing tha t re quire s c onsiste nc y in how tria l c ourts a ddre ss this proble m.
Commissions in sta te s tha t ha v e re porting of a ll proc e e dings, pa rtic ula rly a udio proc e e dings, ge ne ra lly be a r out our
ow n e xpe rie nc e tha t a re c ord of c ourt proc e e dings e xone ra te s the judge more ofte n tha n not.
Honora ble Edmund G. Brow n, Jr.
Honora ble Ta ni Ca ntil-S a ka uye
Honora ble Da rre ll S te inbe rg
Honora ble John A . Pre z
F e brua ry 29 , 2012
Pa ge 4
The e ffe c t on c ommission proc e e dings is obv iously not the only ne ga tiv e impa c t of de c re a se d
re porting of c ourt proc e e dings in Ca lifomia . The e limina tion of re porting of c ourt proc e e dings is
like ly to inc re a se the w orkloa d of the tria l c ourts a nd furthe r de la y both tria l c ourt a nd a ppe lla te
proc e e dings. W ithout a ny ofc ia l re c ord, the tria l c ourts w ill be re quire d to produc e se ttle d
sta te me nts in those c a se s in w hic h a ppe a ls a re ta ke n, a time -c onsuming a nd impre c ise proc e ss a t
be st. The use of priv a te c ourt re porte rs hire d by one pa rty in litiga tion ra ise s nume rous c onc e ms,
inc luding the que stiona ble a dmissibility of the tra nsc ript a s a n ofc ia l c ourt re c ord a nd a c c e ss to
justic e for those w ith limite d na nc ia l me a ns. The public s c onde nc e in the c ourts is a lso _
unde rmine d. F or insta nc e , in a c ompla int submitte d to the c ommission in Oc tobe r 201 l, the
c ompla ina nt w rote : A lso, I fe e l the re s misc onduc t a lso of the c ourt due to, I w a s just infomre d
w he n I w a s trying to ge t a re c ording of tha t he a ring [ ], tha t the re w a s no re c ording nor
tra nsc ripts! W e ll how ha ndy.
This proble m should be a ddre sse d be fore the a dministra tion ofjustic e in Ca lifornia is furthe r
c ompromise d, in the c ommissions c a se s a s w e ll a s in judic ia l proc e e dings. A t a minimum,
a c tion should be ta ke n to e nsure tha t w he n c ourt re porte rs a re re le a se d, a nothe r me a ns of c re a ting
a n offic ia l re c ord is prov ide d.
The c ormnission a ppre c ia te s your c onside ra tion of its c onc e rns a nd w ill prov ide a ny a dditiona l
informa tion tha t might be he lpful to you.
Ve ry truly yours,
\}
Vrc tona B He nle y
Dire c tor-Chie f Counse l
VBH: ng
c c : Jose ph L. Durm, Exe c utiv e Dire c tor
S ta te Ba r of Ca lifomia
Alliance of California
Iudges
The AOC recently puttogether a 21-page spreadsheet listing all that it does. You can read it on the Judicial Branch
website here.
The AOC counts the following among the services it provides:
~ Supportto Civics Education program to improve civic learning and public understanding ofthejudicial branch
including the California Task Force on K-12 Civics Learning.
~ Local Blue Ribbon Commissions training and technical assistance."
~ Managementof contentstrategy, publishing, and metrics evaluation for social media channels including
YouTube and Twitter and consultation with otherjudicial branch entities on their programs.
~ Photographysupportforjudicial council and judicial branch programs, projects, and initiatives.
You may note that the AOC does not perform anyof the following functions:
~ Issue protective orders in domestic violence cases.
~ Sign search warrants.
~ Decide which parent gets custody ofa child.
~ Rule onjuror hardship claims.
~ Set bail.
~ Manage asbestos litigation.
The AOC doesnt do anyof those things. We do. And everydollar that the AOC spends on civics education or
photographysupport or monitoring Twitterfeeds is a dollarthat isntgoing to hire clerks and reporters to work with us
in the trial courts.
This latestdocument is hardlythe defense ofthe AOCthat itwas intended to be. To the contrary: lts an indictment. lts
a handylistofredundantand trivial bureaucratic activities thatdo nothing to improve public access to our courts. If the
AOCwants to know whythe Legislature and the Governor donttake itseriously, it need look no fartherthan its own
website.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Alliance of California Judges
1817 Capitol Ave., Sacramento, CA 95811
lfyou wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, please replyto this email.
Powered by STLI Email Management System

Superior Court of California
County of Orange

CHAMBERS OF 700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST
FREDERICK P. HORN P.O. BOX 1994
J UDGE SANTA ANA, CA 92702-1994
PHONE: (657) 622-5231


J une 5, 2012




Hon. Douglas P. Miller
Associate J ustice of the Court of Appeal,
Fourth Appellate District, Division Two
3389 Twelfth Street
Riverside, California 92501

Re: Final Report of the Court Emergency Response and Security Task Force

Dear J ustice Miller:

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me regarding the recent release of the report of the Strategic
Evaluation Committee (SEC) and how it relates to the work of the Court Emergency Response and
Security Task Force, which I chair. The task force and I wanted to share with you, at the earliest
moment, some background about the task force and the work that the task force has conducted over the
past five years. Our intent is to provide you with preliminary information that may assist you and the
Executive and Planning Committee as you determine the process for the J udicial Councils
consideration of the SECs report and recommendations regarding court security. We look forward to
meeting with you later this month to discuss these important issues, and would also like to offer to you,
the Executive and Planning Committee, and the J udicial Council any assistance the task force can
provide relative to determining how court security should be implemented in the judicial branch.

Background
On August 15, 2007, Chief J ustice Ronald M. George (Ret.) established the J udicial Councils Court
Emergency Response and Security Task Force, appointing me as its chair. In forming the task force, the
Chief J ustice brought together representatives from existing statewide advisory groups that had been
formed to address security and emergency planning in the trial and appellate courts.

The charge of the task force requires it to:

Evaluate emergency planning, continuity of operations, court security, and personal security issues
and develop recommendations for the J udicial Council to manage, maintain, and improve security in
Report totheGeneral Assembly,
Governor EdwardG. Rendell andthe
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
I. IN T RO D U CT IO N
T he Interbranch Commission on JuvenileJusticewas establishedbyAct 32 ofthePennsylvania General Assembly inthe
summer of2009 after unanimous votes bytheHouse andSenate. T he act was signedintolawon August 7, 2009, by
Governor Rendell.
T he commissionwas createdinresponsetoa highlypublicizedjudicial corruption scandal in LuzerneCounty involving
millions ofdollars in allegedpayoffs totwojudges andrights violations ofthousands ofjuveniledefendants inthecounty's
juvenilecourt. T he scandal shockedcitizens ofthecounty andthestate andmadeheadlines aroundtheworld. So
extraordinarywerethecircumstances that theexecutive, legislativeandjudicial branches ofPennsylvania government
agreedtoundertakea noncriminal investigation to determinetheroot causes ofthebreakdown ofLuzerne County's
juvenilejusticesystem andtoproposeremedies.
As statedbyAct 32, theInterbranch Commission on JuvenileJusticewas to determinehowtheLuzerneCountyjuvenile
justicesystemfailed, to restorepublic condenceintheadministration ofjusticeandtoprevent similar events from
occurring inLuzerneCounty or elsewhereintheCommonwealth.
T he commissionwas tohave 1 1 members. T hreeweretobe appointedbythegovernor, four bythechiefjusticeof
Pennsylvania, onebythepresident protemporeoftheSenate, onebytheminorityleader oftheSenate, onebythespeaker
oftheHouseandonebytheminorityleader oftheHouse.
Anexacting timetablewas establishedfor thecommission's work. Act 32 set a deadlineofMay 31 , 201 0, for the
commissiontolea nal report withrecommendations tothegovernor, thechiefjusticeandtheHouse andSenate.
T he members oftheInterbranch Commission on JuvenileJusticemet for therst timefor an organizational Session in
Pittsburgh on August 26-27.
Inthemonths afterward, thecommissioners held 1 1 days ofpublic hearings andheardtestimonyfrommorethan 60
individuals at every level andinevery roleacross thespectrumofthejuvenilejusticesystem. Many moreindividuals, who
didnot testify at public hearings, providedwritten or verbal informationtothecommission. T he recordofthe
commission's hearings is available on theWeb Site ofPennsylvania's U niedJudicial System at:
http://www.pacourts.us/Links/Public/InterbranchCommissionJuvenileJustice.htm
Witnesses whoappearedbeforethecommission includedthepresident judgeofLuzerneCounty, theformer district
attorney, theincumbent district attorney, thecountypublic defender, assistant district attorneys whoappearedinjuvenile
court, assistant public defenders, juvenileprobation ofcials, former juveniledefendants, parents ofjuveniledefendants,
school ofcials, county commissioners, ofcials oftheJudicial Conduct Boardand others.
Withfewexceptions, those askedtotestify didso willinglyandwithout thenecessity ofa subpoena.
T woindividuals whodeclinedto appear wereformer judges Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., andMichael T . Conahan. T hese
menhavebeen chargedwithfederal crimes relating totheallegedreceipt of$2.8 millioninillegal payments fromthe
owners oftwojuveniledetention facilities. Conahan and Ciavarellawere andare at thecenter ofthe"kids for cash" scandal
in LuzerneCountythat, beginning withtheling offederal charges against themon January 26, 2009, released a oodof
negativepublicity on theformer judges themselves andon thejuvenilejusticesystemofLuzerneCounty. Independent of
thefederal criminal charges, Ciavarella, whowas thecounty's juvenilecourt judge, has been foundbythePennsylvania
Supreme Court tohave improperly deniedmorethan 1 ,800 juveniledefendants theconstitutional right to counsel. T hose
5
rights violations wereso extensiveandegregious that theSupreme Court, on O ctober 29, 2009, issuedan unprecedented
order vacating theadjudications ofall juvenilecases Ciavarellahandledfrom2003 to2008 andexpunging therecords of
thecases.
It is plainfromevents over thepast 1 8 months that corruption intheLuzerneCounty courthousehas been deeply
ingrainedfor manyyears. Agraphic illustration oftherelaxedattitudetowardcorruption on thepart ofthejudiciaryis the
fact that Conahan, a former president judge, has been describedin court testimony unrelatedtothefederal criminal case as
having been a closefriendoftheallegedorganizedcrimeleader ofN ortheastern Pennsylvania, William"Big Billy" D 'Elia.
Conahan and Ciavarella are not theonlyLuzerneCountyjudges chargedwithfederal crimes. Athirdjudge - Michael T .
T oole - was chargedinD ecember 2009 withfederal tax andfraudoffenses. T oolepleadedguiltyon D ecember 29, 2009,
andagreedto cooperatewithfederal authorities. T he former court administrator, WilliamT . Sharkey, Sr., Conahan's
cousin, pleadedguilty on February 1 7, 2009, tofederal charges ofembezzling morethan $70,000 in seized gambling
proceeds. T heformer chiefjuvenileprobation ofcer, Sandra Brulo, pleadedguiltyon March 26, 2009, to obstruction of
justicein connectionwithaltering therecordofajuveniledefendant. Former County ProthonotaryJill Moran resigned
fromofcein February 2009 and signed a consent agreement pledging to cooperatewithfederal investigators under
penalty ofa possibleneor imprisonment ifshe fails tofullycomply. Clerk ofCourts Robert Francis Reillywas chargedin
April 201 0 withSoliciting andreceiving $1 ,500 inbribes andgratuities froma courthousehandyman.
Federal authorities havewidenedtheir public corruptionprobebeyondthecounty courthousetobring charges against
school boardmembers, a school superintendent, housing authoritymembers, a former redevelopment authoritydirector, a
county commissioner, theformer director ofcountyhuman resources andothers. Andtheprobecontinues.
Withthis collage ofcorruption as a backdrop, theInterbranch Commission on JuvenileJustice narrowedits attention to
theserious and chronic malfunctions withinLuzerneCounty's juvenilecourt.
T he immediateandmost obvious blamefor failures inthejuvenilejusticesystemcan belaidat thedoor ofMark
Ciavarellawhopresidedfor years as juvenilejudge, even during a periodwhen he servedas president judgeofLuzerne
County's Common Pleas Court. Ciavarellawas a "zero-tolerance" judgewhotook a hardlineonjuvenilecrime-
particularlywhen crimeoccurredinschools. Ciavarella routinely decidedcases ofyouths whowereunrepresentedby
counsel - anddidso in a manner that violatedcourt rules. Far moreoften than most juvenilejudges, he sent youths away
fromhomewhen theygot intotrouble. Juvenilecourt was Ciavarella's domain. Heruledtheresupreme. By some accounts,
he couldShowSympathy, compassion andconcern for youthful defendants whoappearedbeforehim. Moreoften, the
recordshows, his manner was harsh, autocratic andarbitrary. Hejudgedby a formularather thanby individual evaluation.
Ifyou doX, yourpunishment will be Y . I will sendyou away. I am tellingyou aheadoftime. T hat was his method- the
antithesis oftheprocess ofindividual evaluationthat ajudgeshouldapplybefore deciding a case.
But thefailures ofthejuvenilejusticesystemdo not stopwith Ciavarella. T he Interbranch Commission on Juvenile
Justice founda far morecomplex andnuancedpictureinwhichmany individuals maybe seen tohave Sharedthe
responsibility. Silence, inaction, inexperience, ignorance, fear ofretaliation. Greed, ambition, carelessness. All these factors
playeda part inthefailureofthesystem. Prosecutors, defenders andprobation ofcials witnessedandparticipatedin
proceedings in Ciavarella's courtroom. For some, hesitationtoact stemmedfroma quandary: T heywerenot surewhereto
turntoreport concerns. For sometherewas coinciding Skepticism: What goodwouldit do?
T he agency responsiblefor investigating andprosecuting judicial misconduct inPennsylvania is theState Judicial
Conduct Board, a constitutionally establishedpanel of 1 2 members, halfofwhomare appointedbytheSupreme Court and
halfofwhomare appointedbythegovernor.
As part ofits investigationthecommission madeextensiveefforts tolearnwhether theJudicial Conduct Boardhad
received complaints about Ciavarella and Conahan and, ifso, what theboardhaddonetoinvestigatethosecomplaints. N o
public disciplinarycharges wereever ledagainst Ciavarella or Conahan bytheboardin connectionwith any complaint.
Inits hearings, thecommissionheardfromwitnesses whowerereluctant to Submit complaints totheJudicial Conduct
Board. Somewitnesses didnot knowoftheboard's existence. O thers expressed doubt that theboardwouldtakecorrective
6
action ifa complaint was led. All ofthis was ofconcerntothecommission. T he conduct board's handling ofa 2006
complaint against Conahan raisedmajor concerns for thecommissionwhichwill be addressedlater inthis report.
Whilethescope ofthecommission's work focused on LuzerneCounty, it shouldbe statedthat thecorruption and
systemfailures inthat county do not appear tobe representativeofthe Commonwealth as a whole. For a county court
systemtobe shot throughwithcorrupt judges andunderlings is an aberration. U nfortunately, theLuzerneCounty scandal
has caused a taint toseep out andtouch many others. T hese are individuals andinstitutions that have donenothing wrong,
but whoare affectedbecausethey are Pennsylvaniajudges, court employees, or individuals involvedincountyjuvenile
justicesystems throughout Pennsylvania. Innoway, for example, does theLuzerne County scandal reect theperformance
ofjuvenilecourts throughout therest ofthe Commonwealth. Infact, Pennsylvania's juvenilecourt system, inits national
prole, is considereda leader anda model ofhigh standards andbest practices. Regrettably, thescandal in LuzerneCounty
may have doneharmtothereputation ofthat system, as it may have doneharmtotheCommonwealth's judiciary
generally. T here are seven Supreme Court justices, 1 5 judges oftheSuperior Court, ninejudges ofthe Commonwealth
Court, morethan 400 judges oftheCommon Pleas Courts, morethan 500 magisterial district judges, andapproximately
200 senior judges in Pennsylvania. Fewamong themhavebeen citedfor ethical breaches. Fewer still havebeen charged
withcrimes.
T he Interbranch Commission on JuvenileJustice also recognizes thepain and embarrassment thejudicial corruption
scandal has inictedon thecommunity andonthecitizens ofLuzerneCounty. T hewave ofnegativepublicitythat has
continuedfor morethan a year, therepeated "kids for cash" refrain, andthecontinuing disclosures ofnewcorruption cases
has become a drumbeat, almost a daily cavalcadepainful toendure.
T henews media, however, has playedan important role. O ther institutions andindividuals may have failedintheir
roles, but thenewspapers andother mediaofLuzerneCountyhave impressively fullledtheirs. Whilethemediahas
thrivedon thestory it also has done an exemplaryjob ofshining thelight indark corners andkeeping readers, listeners
andviewers informedofunfolding events. T his has been especiallytrueofWilkes-Barre's twocompeting newspapers, the
T imes Leader andtheCitizens Voice, whichhave rootedout andreportedmany important stories, andofa third
newspaper, not traditionallyknown for investigativereporting, theLegal Intelligencer, ofPhiladelphia.
T o restorepublic condenceintheadministration ofjusticeintheface ofcorruptionthat citizens ofLuzerneCounty
havewitnessedseems a formidablechallenge. Y et a number ofthosewhoappearedbeforethecommission spoke ofthe
opportunitypresentedinthis gloomy atmosphere, thepossibilitythat theappalling scope ofthecorruptionmight generate
a catalyst for positivechange. Indeed, much change already has occurredwithinthecourt systemofLuzerneCounty. A
great deal morechange is neededto ensurethat therewill be norepetition ofthepast andthemisdeeds ofvillains whonow
facejusticeare erased. T he commission inthis report will outlinewhat it sees as theneeds andmake recommendations as
tohowto address them.
T his report is presentedinvesections. Following this Introductionis Section II, titledWhat Went Wrong, a narrative
that describes themany elements ofthejudicial scandal andthebreakdown ofthejuvenilejusticesysteminLuzerne
County. Section III, T heProceedings oftheInterbranchCommissiononJuvenileJustice, provides a summary ofthe
commission's investigation followedby segments, organizedin categories that contain detailedndings andtestimony.
Section IV, Recommendations, provides all ofthecommission's recommendations. Section V is thereport's Conclusion.
7
Super i or Cour t of Cal i f or ni a
Count y of Or ange

Page 3

J une 5, 2012
techniques. Physical security recommendations, building design, threat assessments, and privacy
protection techniques should appropriately remain the responsibility of OERS.

Unlike virtually any other institution in our society, the judicial branch has the authority to compel
citizens to attend court, involuntarily, as jurors, witnesses, or parties in connection with civil, family,
criminal, dependency, or other cases that are pending. The task force submits that with this authority
comes a moral responsibility to provide a civilized environment uncorrupted by threats and avoidable
risks to those who enter the courthouse. In the view of the task force, a stand-alone OERS appropriately
placed within the organizational structure is crucial to optimizing the delivery of a secure environment.

Recommendation No. 7-55: The SEC suggests that the functions of the OERS should be refocused and
limited to those reasonably required by statute or by rules of court. At this time, without addressing the
suggestion to limit the functions of OERS, the task force respectfully agrees that OERS should continue
the most important core functions of assisting in the preparation and review of court security plans for
new and existing facilities; emergency plans; and continuity of operations plans; as well as providing
support concerning court security equipment, if requested by the courts.

Recommendation No. 7-56: The SEC recommends elimination of online protection functions. The
task force respectfully disagrees.

In the highly specialized world of dignitary protection and threat assessment, experts agree that privacy
protection, namely the ability to hide in plain sight, is the first line of defense for judicial officers.
J udicial threat assessment studies undertaken by the U.S. Marshals Service and others make it clear that
judges are most vulnerable away from the courthouses where their security provider is located. Once a
judge leaves the building, he or she is not normally assigned a protective detail.

To put this in historical context, in the last century, 34 judges were killed by non-family members, 13
were killed at the courthouse (most of which were killed before weapon screening procedures were
instituted), another 21 were killed away from the courthouse. Of the judges killed away from the
courthouse 10 were killed in transit and 11 were killed at home. In addition, 4 spouses were also killed.
It is beyond dispute that judges are most vulnerable at home.

Protecting home address information has become critical to improving a judges safety. The California
Legislature has specifically recognized that danger and provided California Public Safety Officials with
home address privacy protection tools not generally available to other members of the public. (See Gov.
Code sections 6254.21 and 6254.24; Elections Code section 2166.7; Vehicle Code sections 1808.2,
1808.4, and 1808.6)).

One of the collateral impacts of an effective entry weapons screening program is that it forces potential
stalkers and attackers to focus their efforts to attack judges away from the courthouse. In the Internet
age, obtaining home address information online can be very easy IF the judge does not take early
affirmative steps to block or mask that information.
Century=100 yrs, 10 in transit is average of 1 every 10 years.
Realistic non-specific threat risk
(1/1700 = .058%)/10 = .006%
**Most Judges make $+18K/mo and live primarily in gated and secure areas with full time monitoring