Friday, February 06, 2009

California CJP refuses to act

I had sent this complaint to the state CJP. Cmr. Joseph had written a letter to my ex-wife in which he offered her a deal to find me in contempt of court. I just got this reply:
State of California
Commission on Judicial Performance
433 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102 3660
(415) 557 1200
FAX (415) 557 1266
Web Site:

February 3, 2009

Dear Mr. [AngryDad]:

Your complaint dated November 13, 2008, about the conduct of a court commissioner was considered by the Commission on Judicial Performance at its January meeting. At that time, the commission determined not to take further action with respect to your complaint.

Section 18.1 of article VI of the California Constitution gives the commission -- together with the superior courts -- the authority to discipline subordinate judicial officers (court commissioners and referees). After reviewing your complaint, it was concluded that there is an insufficient basis to warrant the exercise of the commission's discretionary jurisdiction with regard to the oversight and discipline of subordinate judicial officers. Therefore, no further action will be taken based on the information you have provided.

The commission acknowledges your interest and concern with respect to the situation that gave rise to this matter. We do appreciate your time and effort in bringing this matter to the commission's attention.

Very truly yours,
Charlene M. Drummer
Staff Counsel

Confidential under California Constitution,
Article VI. Section 18, and Commission Rule 102
It does not appear that the commission did any investigation or even seriously considered my complaint. It does not attempt to justify what Cmr. Irwin Joseph did; it just says that the commission chose not to do anything about it.

It is funny to see the letter say that the matter is "confidential". I have posted all of the relevant paperwork on this blog. I still think that Cmr. Joseph behavior in this matter was completely unethical, illegal, and inappropriate. I cannot see any explanation for it except for personal maliciousness towards me. He should not have been doing his own out-of-court research to initiate an action against me, and then preside as a judge over that action. The action had no legal merit at all.

No comments: