Capitol Weekly Features Clark Kelso

I know that Clark Kelso has been discussed in some detail here on the AOC Watcher blog.  He has his fans and his critics.  So I thought that AOC Watcher readers might want to take a look at a feature that the Capitol Weekly wrote about the man.  He’s as controversial in the article as he has been here in the comments section.  Although there was one passage in the article I thought was interesting.

Transparency has been another issue Kelso has pursued in his writing, arguing that the courts system should be far more open to outside scrutiny.

I wonder if that belief in transparency translates to the AOC and Judicial Council.  I’m just saying.

13 responses to “Capitol Weekly Features Clark Kelso

  1. Name Withheld

    All you need to know about Clark Kelso:

    He defended CCMS when the 2004 LAO report came out

    He defended CCMS in 2009 when the press began asking questions and negative articles started to appear

    He probably won’t be asked back to host any Judicial Council event

  2. Nathaniel Woodhull

    Why does the public need a “scholar in residence” at the AOC and how much do people deemed as such cost the taxpayefs???

  3. I have no idea what the financial arrangement is with Roger Warren. One would think there would be some appearance issues if he is paid by the AOC and the NCSC/Deloitte, but I honestly have no idea what the $ arrangement is, if any. There is very little transparency regarding the role of Roger Warren.

  4. Real Party in Interest

    Marlboro mystery man Roger Warren is the Chairman of the Board at Justice at Stake:

  5. I do not believe Mr. Warren receives a salary from Justice at Stake. He is also not listed in the data base of California state employees that is run by the Sacramento Bee. This begs the question, who is paying this man and how is he able to head up large programs (such as parole courts) with no apparent salary? Is he paid by federal funds? By the NCSC as a president emeritus? By the AOC via a special contract? Is he a volunteer? This should be easily accessible information, so I would ask Judge Dredd to find out by whom and how Roger Warren is paid, and report back.

  6. Real Party in Interest

    I have a question for the judges:

    If you see posts regarding matters that you know are being investigated and/or litigation is pending, does (or should) the judicial code of ethics require you to request that the blog master (more prominently) inform people that matters regarding potentially related litigation is discussed herein? I mean this in all seriousness.

    • AllianceSupporter

      Canon 3B(9) of the Code of Judicial Ethics prohibits a judge from publicly commenting on a “pending or impending proceeding in any court.” Exceptions to this rule permit commentary concerning public information on the procedures of the court or litigation in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity. Judges may also make statements in the course of their official duties as well as discussion of cases (not those in which the judge is presiding or has presided) in legal education programs.
      The Ethics Committee of the California Judges Association, in Formal Opinion 57 (2006), has provided some guidance in this area: “The prohibition against commenting on pending cases extends to comments that are not directly about a pending case but, because of the circumstances, might reasonably be construed to be about a pendig case.”

  7. Real Party in Interest:

    I am not sure I understand your question.

    I do not know, and I do not know anyone who knows, who might be the AOC Watcher.

    As judges we are not permitted to discuss any case which is pending….so I should not discuss a case in, for example, Davenport, Iowa that is pending. Pending means that it is in litigation or is on appeal.

    If the blog master is a judge should that person inform people that matters in litigation are being discussed by a judge such as myself? As judges we have an obligation to take corrective action anytime we feel that a fellow judge ( and that includes the Justices above us) is in violation of our code of ethics.

    So, if I discuss a case which is pending and the blog master is a judge should he or she take some type of corrective action?I think the answer is “ÿes” This could mean a warning to me to stop the discussion, a report to my PJ, or a report to the CJP.

    We do not surrender all of our Constitutional Rights when we become judges so we should be free to tell anyone, including the Çhief Justice, when we feel that the judicial branch is not being run correctly. We in the ACJ have done this and it is driving him nuts from what I am told. He is not used to anyone telling him that he is wrong.

    I am no expert in Judicial Ethics so if I am incorrect in any of this information I trust someone will correct me.

    I hope this answers your question.

    • AllianceSupporter

      Judge Maino – The Code forbids public comment on IMPENDING cases as well as pending cases, in ANY court. Thus a judge may not make a public comment about the case currently filed by the Attorney General re. Jacobs. Furthermore, if a judge has reason to believe that a case or controversy is under investigation to the extent that litigation will be filed, a judge should refrain from public commentary on that topic.
      Real Party in Interest – There is no ethical requirement that a judge reading a blog comment or post that concerns a pending or impending case notify the anonymous poster, blogger or commentator that the matter involves such a potential court proceeding. The only time such a situation would arise would be when a judge (Judge 1), aware that the topic under consideration involves a pending or impending case, reads a blog post and notes that another identified judge (Judge 2) has made public statement on the topic. In that case, Canon 3D(1) requires taking “appropriate corrective action” against the judge doing the post, since Judge 1 now has “reliable information”that Judge 2 has violated Canon 3B(9). Since J2 may be totally unaware that the commentary has involved a pending case, I would posit that initial corrective action would be to so notify Judge 2.

  8. Real Party In Interest: Judges read about cases all the time–newspapers. We see things about pending cases all the time–t.v. This is, of course, fine. What judges can’t do is make public comments about cases. So my answer to your question is NO, there is no requirement that someone READING something ask for a pre-warning of some sort, assuming I’m understanding your question.

  9. Thank you Judge Horan and Alliance Supporter.

    I forgot about the “impending case” restriction.

    I may have been tired and not understood the question by Real Party In Interest.

    Now how do we keep the courts open?

    • By not retaining Ronald George as the Chief Justice of the California Judicial Branch. Until/unless that happens, nothing is going to materially change in the Branch or the AOC.

  10. Real Party in Interest

    Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate that you can clarify matters regarding pending or impending litigation for members of the bench.