Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Speakers tell Judicial Council pro se litigants face 'abomination' of process; another seeks help over alleged local investigation failure
Summary
Two public commenters told the Judicial Council about gaps in access to justice and local investigatory failures: James L. Chaffee Jr. urged attention to pro se litigant case‑management gaps and a rule-of-court timeframe; Kai An urged the council to publicize and investigate an alleged cover-up and to consider legal avenues when local authorities do not act.
Two members of the public addressed the Judicial Council during the in‑person public comment period.
James L. Chaffee Jr. said the courts still fall short for self‑represented litigants, calling how some pro se parties are treated “an abomination.” He cited California Rule of Court 3.721 (initial case‑management conferences) and described waiting more than 16 months for a trial date after his trial‑preference request under section 36, saying the absence of an early case‑management conference left him and the court “adrift.”
Kai An, appearing from Sacramento, appealed directly to the council about his father’s fatal traffic collision and alleged failures by local law enforcement and prosecutors to investigate. He asked the council to publicize the incident and asked the body to consider whether citizens should have a path to present criminal evidence to a judge when grand juries or the attorney general do not act. “Political power tried to cover up the primer that killed my father,” he said, urging the council to convene a future meeting in Sacramento with local officials present.
Justice Hill thanked both speakers for appearing. The council did not take formal action in response during the meeting; council members acknowledged the concerns and noted the Judicial Council is not an adjudicatory body.
