March 23, 2017 (Request to the Comm on Judicial Appointments & Judicial Council for documents from 2/09 Hearing; and Request to CA Chief Justice for a copy of the webcast in its entirety in pdf form HERE)
Dear Ms. Kim and PAJAR Staff,
RE: Records request of Commission hearing/swearing-in Feb. 9, 2017 (hereafter referred to as “Hearing’)
Please confirm receipt of this email. This request is easiest-read electronically. There are working links in the footnotes. It may be read online at the blog “Veritox Means Truth-Poison” under the title of “Request for Public Records of Justice Dato’s Appt to Cal 4th/1st”. The short-link is: http://wp.me/p7Yx8Q-4p
As you are aware via our prior email and verbal communications, I am seeking some of the records from the Hearing. Primarily I want an accurate verbatim record along with the “official record” of the Hearing; and a copy of Justice Dato’s response to my pre-provided-documentation and testimony at the Hearing.
There seems to be confusion as to what records exist, where they are held, and how to obtain them.  According to the Commission Guidelines  and Title Ten Rules of the Court (“CRC”)  there should be records of the actual Hearing-day in addition to the Commission-held video of the webcast.
I suspect that some of the confusion is because I am a novice at making this type of records request; and because some of the Commission’s work is performed by the Council’s staff. It is unclear to me who is responsible to acknowledge various records’ existence and make copies upon requests – the Commission or PAJAR of the Council/Judicial branch.
Additionally, my March 15, 2017 records request  did not include the records held by the Fourth District Division One Court of Appeals (hereafter referred to as “Court”) This is a more detailed request to the Commission and PAJAR, made simultaneously for your joint-convenience of locating the records. It is a request for records held by the Commission, Council and/or Court.
Ms. Kim, as per your direction I am attaching my request to Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, for you to give to her, to release a video-copy of the Hearing’s webcast to me.
 Submitted 2/2/17 Kramer objection to Dato’s appointment to the 4th/1st https://veritoxmeanstruthpoison.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/17-02-02-final-to-comm-jud-app-re-dato.pdf
Request to speak: https://veritoxmeanstruthpoison.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/17-02-02-final-request-to-speak-at-cja-meeting-dato.pdf
Request to Governor Brown to withdraw the Dato nomination. https://veritoxmeanstruthpoison.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/17-02-02-final-to-brown-re-dato-appt.pdf
 Email correspondences from PAJAR: 3/16 “The Council does not have any judicial administrative records responsive to your request” 3/20 “Your request (attached) was reviewed pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 10.500, ‘public access to judicial administrative records.’ We have determined that there are records responsive to your request. As stipulated in the Commission on Judicial Appointment’s Guidelines and consistent with rule 10.500, the process for inspecting and, when applicable, copying of records is outlined in their enclosed guidelines. As such, you will need to contact the Commission on Judicial Appointments directly”
 GUIDELINES FOR THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/guidelinescja.pdf
 CRC rule 10.500. Public access to judicial administrative records http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500
 Kramer’s March 15, 2017 Request for Administrative Records: http://freepdfhosting.com/b7699c797f.pdf
 CRC rule 1.150.(b)(3) “Court’ means the courtroom at issue, the courthouse, and its entrances and exits.”
 Attachment, Request to Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye to release a video-copy of the webcasted-Hearing http://freepdfhosting.com/742d965703.pdf
What is the cost to obtain the record, if existent, of each of the following – preferably electronically sent?
The “Official record” “minutes” of the Hearing. Guideline 5(h) states: “(h) [Official record] The commission’s minutes shall be the official record of the hearing.”
Any request received or directive issued by the Commission, Council or Court to broadcast, photograph, or record the Hearing. Guideline 5(f) states: “(f) [Public attendance and broadcasting] The hearing shall be open to the public and to the media. Any request to broadcast, photograph, or record the hearing requires the approval of the chairperson, upon written application received no later than 5:00 p.m. on the second court day before the hearing. The request, as well as the broadcasting, photographing, and recording, shall comply with the provisions of California Rules of Court [CRC], rules 1.150  and 2.954 , where applicable.”
Guideline 5(e) states, “(e) [Record of hearing] The hearing proceedings shall be recorded by audio or video recorder, court reporter, or any other means appropriate for preserving the testimony. A nominee who wishes to make his or her own arrangements to record the hearing by video recorder or other means shall notify the commission in writing. This notice must be received by the commission no later than 5:00 p.m. on the second court day before the hearing.”
The name and position held by the Judicial branch personnel or contracted Person who could be heard on the webcast, typing during portions of the Hearing.
The names of any individuals or organizations, sans those who testified , that have submitted written communications to the Commission concerning Justice William S. Dato (hereafter referred to as “Nominee”). Guideline 4(c) states, “(c) [Communications with the commission] All communications regarding a nominee must be made in writing to the commission and/or by testimony at the hearing.”
Guideline 4 (h) states, “(h) [Release of lists of speakers and communications] No later than 2:00 p.m. on the second court day before the scheduled hearing, the commission shall release to the public the following: …(2) the names of any individuals or organizations that have submitted written communications to the commission; (3) correspondence and public reports received by the commission concerning the nominee’s qualifications, including any reports submitted by JNE pursuant to paragraph (b), and the nominee’s Personal Data Questionnaire submitted by the Governor to the commission….The written material released shall be made available for copying at the requesting party’s expense.”
The Commission’s notice to Nominee of Sharon Kramer’s presentations and request to testify that was received by the Commission prior to the Hearing.(See fn.1) Guideline 4(f) states, “(f) [Notice to nominee] The commission promptly shall provide the nominee with a copy of all the written presentations or requests to testify it receives and shall afford the nominee an opportunity to refute, clarify, or comment, either at the hearing or before the hearing in writing, or both. Similarly, if the commission receives any record, public or private, or any other communication relating to the nominee’s qualifications, it promptly shall provide the nominee with a copy thereof, and afford the nominee an opportunity to refute, clarify, or comment on that record or communication (consistent with the provisions of Cal. Const. art., VI, § 18.5). All written responses by the nominee must be received by the commission no later than 5:00 p.m. on the third court day before the hearing.”
The documentation of Nominee refuting, clarifying, or commenting on the communication from Sharon Kramer that was sent to Nominee by the Commission prior to the Hearing. (To my knowledge Nominee made no oral mention of the Kramer documentation at the Hearing)
Any and all Hearing-day memorialization of any kind and in any form, formal or informal, via writing, video, audio, report, and/or court reporter transcript that has ever been in the possession of the Commission, Judicial Branch Entity, Judicial Branch Personnel and/or Person(s) contracted by the Judicial Branch Entity or Commission – including, but not limited to, Security Personnel/Persons
Guideline 3. “Commission chairperson” states: “(a) [Chairperson] The Chief Justice (or Acting Chief Justice) shall serve as chairperson of the commission. (b) [Powers] The chairperson shall preside at the confirmation hearing. The chairperson also is authorized to: (1) act on behalf of the commission in all matters arising between hearings;…(4) at the hearing, limit or terminate a witness’s testimony…and (6) make security arrangements for the confirmation hearing.”
Guideline 6 “Staff to the commission” states, “The chairperson of the commission may designate a person to act as secretary to the commission and one or more persons to act as assistant secretaries. The secretary shall maintain custody of the commission’s files. The Administrative Office of the Court [aka, Judicial Branch Personnel and/or contracted Person(s)], at the chairperson’s direction, shall provide additional staff and financial support as necessary to enable the commission to perform its duties”
Guideline 7(a) “Post-hearing procedures” states, “(a) [Access to the commission’s files] Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this guideline, after the conclusion of any nomination proceedings of the commission subject to these guidelines, a person, agency, or organization, upon written request to the commission’s secretary, may obtain access to the public portions of the commission’s files, as defined in guideline 4(h), as well as any transcript of the hearing prepared by a court reporter as a record of those proceedings pursuant to guideline 5(e), for inspection and copying at the requesting party’s expense.”
 CRC rule 1.150. “ Photographing, recording, and broadcasting in court” http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=one&linkid=rule1_150
 CRC rule 2.954. “Specifications for electronic recording equipment” http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=two&linkid=rule2_954
 On February 9, 2017, Leonard Simon, Judge Joel Pressman, Justice Howard Weiner & Jody Nunez testified in support of Nominee’s appointment. Sharon Kramer testified in opposition.
California Rules of the Court, Rule 10.500 states:
(c) Definitions As used in this rule: (1)”Adjudicative record” means any writing prepared for or filed or used in a court proceeding, the judicial deliberation process, or the assignment or reassignment of cases and of justices, judges (including temporary and assigned judges), and subordinate judicial officers, or of counsel appointed or employed by the court.
(2)”Judicial administrative record” means any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the people’s business that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by a judicial branch entity regardless of the writing’s physical form or characteristics, except an adjudicative record. The term “judicial administrative record” does not include records of a personal nature that are not used in or do not relate to the people’s business, such as personal notes, memoranda, electronic mail, calendar entries, and records of Internet use.
(3)”Judicial branch entity” means the Supreme Court, each Court of Appeal, each superior court, and the Judicial Council.
(4)”Judicial branch personnel” means justices, judges (including temporary and assigned judges), subordinate judicial officers, members of the Judicial Council and its advisory bodies, and directors, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents of a judicial branch entity.
(5)”Person” means any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, or association.
(6)”Writing” means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photographing, photocopying, electronic mail, fax, and every other means of recording on any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, symbols, or combinations, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.
(e)Public access (9)Reasonable efforts, (A) On receipt of a request to inspect or obtain a copy of a judicial administrative record, a judicial branch entity, in order to assist the requester in making a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable judicial administrative record, must do all of the following to the extent reasonable under the circumstances:
(i)Assist the requester in identifying records and information responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated;
(ii)Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist; and
(iii)Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying inspection or copying of the records or information sought.
Thank you for your help with this matter. Please let me know if you need clarification of the documentation I seek.
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye,
Re: Request for a video-copy of the Commission February 9, 2017 Hearing.
Per Ms. Kim’s direction I am sending this email to her, to give to you. I would like your permission for me to be sent a copy of the Commission’s webcasted-Hearing of February 9, 2017, which took place in the Fourth District Division One Court of Appeals (hereafter referred to as the “Court”).
As you are aware, I spoke at the Hearing in opposition of William S. Dato’s appointment to be an Associate Justice in the Court. Unfortunately, I had to leave shortly after the Commissioners’ unanimous votes and comments to appoint Justice Dato. As a result, I was unable to see the swearing-in aspect of the Hearing.
I am seeking the verbatim record of the Hearing in its entirety, including my own testimony. My intended usage of the webcast-copy is in the public’s best interest and is three-fold:
To submit it and/or transcription of it to the California Bureau of the State Auditor (BSA).
To submit it and/or transcription of it as part of an investigation of Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) unpunished-crime.
To submit portions and/or transcription of it to government actors as part of a collaborative effort by many to encourage that state-agency policies, which are in place to protect the public’s best interest and integrity in our courts, are being adhered to.