9th Circuit: "Creativity In New Articulation Of The Item" - A New Concept Of Stealin' - The Real Story Of The Foreign, Privatized Wall

Wait.....

The U.S. is arguing that the Department of Defense money to contract to building of the wall was just a line item transfer.

I swear I am not lying! 🤣

The Trump Administration just said, "We are going to build this wall. Just cross out the description in line item 7 over to line 15, then call it 'creativity in new articulation of the item'".

It does not matter what DoD told congress what they were going to use the money for because it was just taken from one pot and put into another pot, that no one needs to know about.

That sounds like an action of insurrection.

The judge is asking about how often they come up with "creative descriptions" of what DoD does with the money.

I believe we may be crossing over into that Defense Logistic Agency area of really, super special operations for those foreign Public Private Partnerships with Corporate Shape Shifters, but hey, what do I know?

I hope everyone understands the DoD has been in a 2 year historic audit through the OIG.

Yes, I am aware of the issues swirling around about 9th Circuit, but for now, I am more fascinated with my new term I just learned and the opportunity to use it liberally in my venacular of educating the world in the timeless art of stealin'.

"Creativity in new articulation of the item." 

Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition v. Trump Et Al by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: No More Lobbying From The Bench

You mean to tell me Judiciary can no longer lobby from the bench?

Someone better tell Maura Corrigan and her protegees.

Kansas, Meet the Queen of Judicial Lobbying: Maura Corrigan 

I wonder if the DOJ is going to get into the blackmail and bribery?

I bet those 9th Circuit emails have some rather juicy attachments, but hey, what do I know?

I know that Perkins Coie sucks and is trying to privatize the justice system.

#perkinscoiesucks

Attorney General Sessions Releases Memorandum on Litigation Guidelines for Nationwide Injunctions Cases

Attorney General Jeff Sessions today issued litigation guidelines to aid Department of Justice attorneys involved in litigation challenging a federal government program, regulation, order, or law. The litigation guidelines will arm Department litigators handling these cases to present strong and consistent arguments in court against the issuance of nationwide injunctions and to reaffirm the existing constitutional and practical limitations on the authority of judges. The Department opposes the issuance of nationwide injunctions, consistent with the longstanding position of the Executive Branch under previous Administrations from both parties.

Nationwide injunctions—sometimes called “non-party injunctions”—prevent the federal government from enforcing an Executive Branch law or policy as to any person or organization, across the entire United States, regardless of whether such broad injunctions are necessary to provide relief to the specific plaintiffs involved in the case. In effect, they allow a single unelected federal district judge to set or veto a national policy. The increase in the number of nationwide injunctions in recent years, across Administrations of both parties, highlights the problem of judges acting outside of the bounds of their authority to grant relief to people or organizations that extends beyond the particulars of a specific case. 

In releasing the litigation guidelines, Attorney General Sessions provided the following statement:

“Increasingly, we are seeing individual federal district judges go beyond the parties before the court to give injunctions or orders that block the entire federal government from enforcing a law or policy throughout the country. This kind of judicial activism did not happen a single time in our first 175 years as a nation, but it has become common in recent years. It has happened to the Trump administration 25 times in less than two years. This trend must stop. We have a government to run. The Constitution does not grant to a single district judge the power to veto executive branch actions with respect to parties not before the court. Nor does it provide the judiciary with authority to conduct oversight of or review policy of the executive branch. These abuses of judicial power are contrary to law, and with these new guidelines, this Department is going to continue to fight them.”

In a recent speech to the Eight Circuit Judicial Conference, the Attorney General stressed that the use of nationwide injunctions threatens the rule of law. The Attorney General also emphasized how nationwide injunctions are a danger to our constitutional order in a (link is external)

. The litigation guidelines published today will strengthen the Department’s efforts to help restore order, boundaries, and common sense to the U.S. judicial system.

Attorney General Sessions Memorandum on Litigation Guidelines for Nationwide Injunctions Cases by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Another $9,650,722.24 Reasons Why You Will Stop Lying, Stealin' & Selling Tiny Humans

No matter how long it takes, we are coming.

Stop stealin' children.

Much love, Deanna, much love.

Welcome to the end of trafficking tiny humans in Foster Care and Adoption.

My turn...

ASFA Gives Social Workers The Right To Lie In Child Welfare Cases

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: ASFA Gives Social Workers The Right To Lie In Child Welfare Cases http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2016/11/asfa-gives-social-workers-right-to-lie.html#ixzz5PLD35NHe
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

9th Circuit Opinion Says Child Welfare Workers Do Not Have"Right To Lie"

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: 9th Circuit Opinion Says Child Welfare Workers Do Not Have"Right To Lie" http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2017/03/9th-circuit-opinion-says-child-welfare.html#ixzz5PLDpCsLk
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Do Social Workers Have a Constitutional "Right to Lie" Case 9th Cir 15-55563 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Right to Lie in Child Welfare Cases - Opinion 15-55563, 1-3-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Hearing on Examining The Need for New Federal Judges - Trafficking of Tiny Humans

In the spirit of fuchsia, I have provided a quick synopsis of the hearing:  

TRANSLATION: THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM IS CRUSTY, DUSTY, AND RUSTY.

The Judicial Conference is more focused on maintaining its current status quo operations rather than the administration of justice.

Southern boarder states do not have enough federal judges to process immigration cases or even do the 9th Circuit appeals.

Federal courts are having issues with people filing too many lawsuits.

Corporations are hustling federal courts because they can afford to prolong litigation, in what I call frivolous and 

Judges, who are far removed from reality and technology, are delegating to magistrates, who are far removed from reality and technology, who in turn, delegate to clerks, who are far removed from reality and technology, who cite legal precedents, which are far removed from reality and technology.

I know this as a fact.  I have watched them use my work for legal research because I am the only one who created databases, specifically for them in mind.  My introductory brief on reality and technology in the federal courts is on file with the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.  

Feel free to FOIA and let me know what they give you.

Hank Johnson, a former federal judge, demonstrates in his line of questioning how federal judges have absolutely no clue about federal child welfare laws of CAPTA or ASFA.  Children removed from parents at the border are automatically placed under the federal auspices of privatized foster care, under the court granted guardianship of corporations, where concurrent planning, adoption planning, is fast tracked under ASFA, and the child is sold adopted under that state's jurisdiction to maximize revenues.

Child trafficking, once crossing the border, morphs into what I like to call, the Trafficking of Tiny Humans, which means these kids are thrown into foster care to be bought and sold using federal and state taxpayer dollars called adoption.

Many of these child traffickers, called "coyotes", who do not get caught, dupe parents, spirit children away, and take them across the border to be sold as slave labor, whether it is for sex or free labor, or both.

What would you do if you had your child Legally Kidnapped?  Perhaps, that is why some people will continue to "illegally cross the border" over and over again.

Poverty is the crime of child abuse and neglect, which automatically makes illegally crossing the border with a child a crime, not a misdemeanor, justifying federal prosecution and placement of the child in foster care.

Mr. Samuel J. Kahn of Kent Holdings and Affiliates did not submit written testimony. Hmmmm....

Issa does not get Article III Judgeships and "zero-tolerance".  Some of these "illegal border crossers" cannot just up and go back home if you snatch their kids.  Issa never did like me.  I smashed him on child welfare about 10 years ago.  Still looking for that interview. Smooches!

Issa did not get the Detroit memo that plans are on the table to build a new immigration detention center, as rumors shall have it.  Some "illegal border crossers" enter from the other U.S. southern border, Canada.

9th Circuit has an interesting en banc  policy, identified by Issa and an even more interesting culture.

Hank, a former federal judge, did not know that pro se is a civil matter because criminal matters get federal court appointed representation.

I do not believe the child welfare terms of "foster care", "adoption", "CAPTA" nor "ASFA" were ever mentioned in this hearing.

How come DOJ, being the ones to prosecute these "illegal border crossers" never address child trafficking or the trafficking of tiny humans?

Well, that just sucks.

U.S. House Judiciary Testimony of Judges Lawrence Stengel, Roslynn Mauskopf 6-21-2018 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Richard Cebull Has Popped Back Up From The 9th Circuit

Well, look what popped up from Salt Lake, Utah.

Conyers and Cohen Request Hearing On Judge Cebull's Violations of Office 

John Huber is from Utah.

Judge Richard Cebull is from U.S. Circuit Court 9th Circuit.

Even Trump has voiced issues about the 9th Circuit.

Heck, I even heard rumors about the 9th Circuit and its False Claims Act decisions but I must give respect where the media has failed to do to Judge Stephen Trott.

Right to Lie in Child Welfare Cases - Opinion 15-55563, 1-3-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

I believe someone found some more stuff in those emails of the 9th Circuit.

I wonder if it had anything to do with real estate fraud, or sex trafficking of tiny humans, or drugs, or bribery, or blackmail?

Oh, the possibilities to throw a case.

Federal judge who sealed Cebull file retires amid sexual misconduct allegations

The federal judge who ordered that the results of a lengthy misconduct investigation into a former Montana chief judge be sealed resigned Monday amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

According the 

Alex Kozinski, the powerful judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who was facing a judicial investigation over allegations that he subjected 15 women to inappropriate sexual behavior, announced Monday that he would retire effective immediately.

Kozinski is the U.S. 9th Circuit chief judge who in 2013 declared that the results of an official investigation into former Montana Chief District Judge Richard Cebull’s racist, homophobic, and sexist emails was “moot” because Cebull resigned from the bench.

Kozinki’s decision to abandon the order revealing the findings of the investigation was overruled by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court Judicial Council. The ethics panel, after nine-month review,  revealed that over a four-year period, Cebull sent “hundreds” of emails “related to race, politics, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and politically sensitive issues.” However, the panel determined there was no bias in the Cebull’s judicial conduct.

The panel sealed the investigative file and it has never been made public.

---

Kozinski first came under fire in 2008 when the Los Angeles Times revealed that he maintained a publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos. After the allegations surfaced, Kozinski called for an investigation into his own conduct. As the Los Angeles Times reported, Kozinski was presiding over a closely watched obscenity trial when news about the website broke. An investigation found Kozinski and his son exercised carelessness in allowing the information on their private server to be publicly available, but he was not sanctioned.

The cascade of recent sexual misconduct allegations against Kozinski, which the Washington Post

 first reported on Dec. 8, involve accusations that Kozinski repeatedly showed pornography to female staffers in his courthouse chambers. An account the Post published Friday involved an unnamed recent University of Montana law student who says Kozinski inappropriately touched her.

From the One recent law student at the University of Montana said that Kozinski, at a 2016 reception, pressed his finger into the side of her breast, which was covered by her clothes, and moved it with some “deliberateness” to the center, purporting to be pushing aside her lapel to fully see her name tag.

---

U.S. Chief District Judge Richard Cebull, of Montana, retired in 2013 amid misconduct allegations after Cebull sent a racist email from his courthouse computer.

In 2015 this reporter, along with former Montana journalist Shane Castle, filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals demanding release of the investigative files so the public could review the emails and determine whether Cebull had demonstrated judicial bias during his time on the federal bench. The complaint argued that federal judges and court officers should not be exempt from federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure requirements.

“Plaintiffs seek disclosure of these discriminatory emails because this is a matter of public concern, and because various parties who appeared before Judge Cebull likely had their due process rights violated by his rulings,” the complaint stated. “Without access to the requested emails, the potential harm to numerous people is incalculable.”

After more than a year of litigation, the plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit in 20016 after it became apparent that suing the federal court in federal court was not the best mechanism for obtaining the records.

In light of the recent allegations surrounding Kozinski, Castle said efforts to bring sunshine to the federal judiciary is more important than ever.

“I always thought a compelling reason for getting the emails was to see who else in the judiciary sent or received the offensive emails, or perhaps responded to them,” Castle said. “This latest news is just further proof we need a FOIA equivalent for the judiciary and legislative branches, so civil servants wielding huge amounts of power over other people’s lives can’t hide in these black boxes.”

---

The Great Falls Tribune first broke the Cebull scandal in 2012 after Cebull admitted to sending a racially charged email about President Barack Obama from his courthouse chambers.

Cebull, of Billings, was nominated by former President George W. Bush and received his commission in 2001 and he served as chief judge for the District of Montana from 2008 until his retirement in 2013.

This reporter received a copy of the offensive email. The source who sent it said they had received it from a family member, who received it from one of the recipients on the email thread. The subject line of the email, which Cebull sent from his official courthouse email address on Feb. 20 at 3:42 p.m., read: “A MOM’S MEMORY.”

A photo that accompanied Cebull’s racist email.

The forwarded text read as follow:

“Normally I don’t send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.

“A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white? His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!'”

On March 1, 2012, a day after the story broke, Cebull wrote a letter to Kozinski requesting an inquiry into his actions to determine whether sending the email constituted “misconduct.” Cebull waived his confidentiality as to making the request and the existence of any proceedings. The Montana Human Rights Network was among an unknown number of groups and individuals who filed official judicial misconduct complaints with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The scandal touched off a national firestorm and calls for Cebull’s immediate resignation, including from within the halls of Congress, rained down.

A timeline of the Cebull investigation is as follows:

Feb. 10, 2012: Judge Richard F. Cebull receives an email titled “A Mom’s Memory” on his courthouse email account.

· Feb. 20, 2012: Judge Cebull forwards that email  to six friends and his personal email address.

· Feb. 29, 2012: As a reporter for the Great Falls Tribune, I receive a copy of the email sent from Cebull’s email account and call him to ask him about it. He admits to sending the email and says he did so because he does not like President Obama.

· March 1, 2012: Judge Cebull writes an apology to President Barack Obama.

· March 1, 2012: Judge Cebull writes to 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski requesting an inquiry into his actions to determine whether his actions constitute “misconduct.” Cebull waives his confidentiality as to making the request and the existence of any proceedings that ensue.

· March 1, 2012: Cathy A. Catterson, executive of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issues a statement in which she proclaims the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit  “is expected to act expeditiously in investigating and resolving this matter.”

· March 1, 2012: Groups begin circulating petitions calling for Cebull’s resignation.

· March 5, 2012: The Montana Human Rights Network files an official judicial misconduct complaint with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and calls on Cebull to resign.

· March 6, 2012: The ranking Democrat on the House judiciary, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., calls for the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on Cebull’s conduct.

· March 12, 2012: The Montana Human Rights Network sends a letter to Cebull along with a petition signed by more than 2,800 people calling on Cebull to resign.

· March 23, 2012:  9th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski appoints a five-judge judicial committee to investigate Cebull’s actions. Judge M. Margaret McKeown is assigned to preside over the case.

· October, 2012: Cebull announces he’ll take senior status effective March, 15, 2013

· December, 2012: The Special Committee submits its report to the Judicial Council in December 2012.

· March 15, 2013: The Judicial Council issues an order and memorandum, though the order is not to be released until after the 63-day appeal period.

· April 2, 2013: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals in a statement on its website makes the preceding two facts known to the public and announces Cebull submitted a retirement letter stating his last day would be May 3, 2013. The council states it will have no further comment until the conclusion of the appeal period.

· May 3, 2013: Cebull retires. According to federal law, as an Article III federal district judge he is entitled to continue to collect his $174,000 annual salary until his death.

· May 13, 2013: Four days before the order and memorandum are to become public, Kozinksi issues a statement saying the order stemming from the investigation is “moot” because Cebull retired from active duty. Kozinski says the Judicial Council “now finds it necessary to review the procedural status and will consider the matter” at its June 28 meeting.

· June 28, 2013: The Judicial Council meets to consider the Cebull misconduct complaint.

· July 2, 2013: Kozinski releases another statement indicating that the Judicial Council reviewed misconduct complaints 12-90026 and 12-90032 against Cebull. Judicial Council issues a  “final order,” which is to be made public on Sept. 4 “if no petition for review is filed before that date.” Only Cebull and the complainant associated with docket No. 12-90032 have the right to view the final order and consider it for appeal.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE DEMOCRATS RESPOND TO SCOTUS IMMIGRANT DETENTION DECISION

Washington, D.C. - In response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the Ninth Circuit's ruling requiring that immigrants subjected to prolonged detention be given a custody hearing, Immigration and Boarder Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), along with Subcommittee Democratic Members Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and Jamie Raskin (D-MD), joined with House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) in issuing the following joint statement:

“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit decision requiring judicial bond hearings for certain individuals in immigration proceedings.  The Court’s ruling opens the door to the potentially indefinite detention of immigrants, including lawful permanent residents, on US soil.  Our Constitution, we believe, instructs us otherwise.  Thankfully, the Supreme Court did not reach the constitutional question, which will now be addressed directly in the lower courts.  The Constitution lives on to fight another day.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

9th Circuit Opinion Says Child Welfare Workers Do Not Have"Right To Lie"

On January 3, 2017, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its opinion in the "Right To Lie" case.

9th Circuit Judge Stephen Trott

I can not give this opinion its proper honors due, so instead, I have provided a few highlights of Judge Stephen Trott's opinion.

No official with an IQ greater than room temperature in Alaska could claim that he or she did not know that the conduct at the center of this case violated both state and federal law.  The social workers in this case are alleged to have knowingly and maliciously violated the law in their attempt to sever Preslie’s protected relationship with her mother. Perjury is a crime under both federal and California state law, as is the knowing submission of false evidence to a court.

Then, there was this one.

When asked about these legal facts during oral argument, the following colloquy occurred: 

Judge Trott: Are you telling me that a person in your client’s shoes could not understand you cannot commit perjury in a court proceeding in order to take somebody’s children away? 

Answer: Of course not. 

Judge Owens: Was there anything you know of that told social workers that they should lie and they should create false evidence in a court proceeding? 

Answer: No . . . .

In a nutshell, the Justices ripped these child welfare workers, the county, and the legal community a new one by stating that

Trust me, I will be following up on this one because I want to know if the DOJ is going to follow up with criminal charges and if there exists an attorney, or just a warm body with a valid P number who is game on calling me to assist in bringing forth an action of false claims.

Hell, State can bring forth an action against Orange County.

But, of course, nothing will happen and the child welfare system will continue to operate as usual, well, they may snatch more kids to make up for the settlement of the case.

Right to Lie in Child Welfare Cases - Opinion 15-55563, 1-3-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & NADLER Call Out Trump's Misstatements On The Judiciary At Hearing On 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals

Washington, D.C. – At a hearing to reexamine the structure of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,  House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and senior Judiciary Member and Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) today called out President Donald Trump’s dangerous misstatements about the Judiciary in response to court rulings that blocked his Muslim/Refugee ban.

In his opposition to restructuring the 9^th Circuit, Ranking Member Conyers said, “The hearing takes on added importance in the wake of a series of decisions in the 9th Circuit and elsewhere overturning President Trump’s Muslim/Refugee ban.  Instead of coming to terms with the legal flaws with his own executive order, President Trump has chosen to attack the 9th Circuit, which has said is “in chaos” and “frankly in turmoil.”   Last night, after learning of the Hawaii court’s decision again rejecting his ban he said “people are screaming to break up the Ninth Circuit … You have to see how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.”

“Of course, none of what the President has charged about the 9th Circuit is true.  The Ninth circuit is as well organized as any in the country.  Of the very few Ninth Circuit cases the Supreme Court takes up, a significant portion are overturned, but that’s true for every circuit, several of which are overturned at a higher rate than the Ninth Circuit.  And overall less than 1/10 of 1% of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court.

“The reality is, this is not a new debate President Trump has brought us to.  It is one that we have had for decades.  Although I will not speculate about why there continues to be such interest by some of my Republican colleagues to divide the Ninth Circuit, there are several points we should keep in mind.”

Read Conyers' full Committee statement here.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler called conservatives’ calls to restructure the federal courts a dangerous attempt at judicial gerrymandering. In his opening statement he said, “What this debate is really all about is that conservatives do not like the more liberal rulings that occasionally emerge from the 9^th Circuit, and they believe they can manufacture a new circuit that will produce more conservative results.  That is a very different—and a more dangerous—matter.

“Like clockwork, we see proposals to split up the 9^th Circuit whenever it delivers a controversial decision with which conservatives disagree.  Whether it is ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance should not include the words “under God”; overturning restrictions on abortion or gay rights, or, most recently its unanimous decision to uphold the temporary stay on President Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim and refugee ban, the 9^thCircuit has long been in the sights of Republican politicians.  Just last night, President Trump said at his campaign rally, “[p]eople are screaming, break up the 9^th Circuit. And I’ll tell you what, that 9^th Circuit – you have to see. Take a look at how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.

“But to manipulate the federal courts in order to achieve the political ends you seek is highly inappropriate.  Just as there is a nation-wide movement to end legislative gerrymandering, we should resist this form of judicial gerrymandering as well.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement for the Hearing on “Bringing Justice Closer to the People: Examining Ideas for Restructuring the 9th Circuit” Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Today’s hearing provides an important opportunity to examine whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is able to adequately perform its duties as it is currently structured.

The hearing takes on added importance in the wake of a series of decisions in the 9th Circuit and elsewhere overturning President Trump’s Muslim/Refugee ban.  Instead of coming to terms with the legal flaws with his own executive order, President Trump has chosen to attack the 9th Circuit, which has said is “in chaos” and “frankly in turmoil.”   Last night, after learning of the Hawaii court’s decision again rejecting his ban he said “people are screaming to break up the Ninth Circuit … You have to see how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.”

Of course, none of what the President has charged about the 9th Circuit is true.  The Ninth circuit is as well organized as any in the country.  Of the very few Ninth Circuit cases the Supreme Court takes up, a significant portion are overturned, but that’s true for every circuit, several of which are overturned at a higher rate than the Ninth Circuit.  And overall less than 1/10 of 1% of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court.

The reality is, this is not a new debate President Trump has brought us to.  It is one that we have had for decades.  Although I will not speculate about why there continues to be such interest by some of my Republican colleagues to divide the Ninth Circuit, there are several points we should keep in mind.

To begin with, splitting the Ninth Circuit would not “bring justice closer to the people.”  Instead, it would likely result in further delay, reduced access to justice, and wasted taxpayer dollars.

If the Ninth Circuit were divided there would not be sufficient judicial resources, particularly with respect to addressing the significant caseload demands of the district and bankruptcy courts.

Although legislative proposals introduced this Congress take differing approaches to dividing the Ninth Circuit and creating a new Twelfth Circuit, inevitably all of these have one common problem.  Such restructuring would result in a significant financial cost to American taxpayers because millions of dollars would be needed to construct a new Circuit headquarters and for other costs.

Another concern I have is that splitting the Ninth Circuit would do little to improve judicial efficiency.

And, none of the legislative proposals would actually resolve the heavy caseload problem because a clear majority of the Ninth Circuit cases come from California. 

Any circuit that includes all of California will still have the largest number of judges and appeals and it would still serve the largest population. 

Finally, I am particularly skeptical of any legislative proposal ostensibly intended to assist certain entities when, in fact, those very same entities oppose or question the need for such legislative “fix.” 

Dividing the Ninth Circuit is opposed by a majority of the judges in that Circuit as well as by the bar, including the American Bar Association. 

In fact, the White Commission, which Congress established to study this issue, concluded in 1998 that splitting the Circuit was impractical and unnecessary.

So for these reasons, I am opposed to dividing the Ninth Circuit. 

Nevertheless, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and look forward to the testimony from today’s esteemed witnesses.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©