Yes, this piece refers to a local county state court. Pinal County, Arizona to be exact: a court we have had extensive experience within.
I have always watched the Administrative orders. They are at times, quite interesting.
And now they have become downright fascinating.
The FORMER “elected” Clerk of that Superior Court, Amanda Stanford; who resigned just a month ago in complete disgrace for violating numerous laws stopped placing Administrative orders on the public accessible list August 23, 2019 with Administrative Order 2019-0035: “Amending Adminstrative Order 2015 – 00044: In the Matter of Electronic and Photogenic Coverage of Public Judicial Proceedings.” Nothing has appeared on the list for 2019 since August 23. It is impossible to tell how many Administrative orders have been withheld, hidden, masked from public view from 2019 but there is a good idea how many are hidden for 2020.
Each order is indicated by what it is about. That’s they way it has always been. Each one was signed by the Chief Presiding Judge who has been The Most Honorable Stephen F. McCarville for quite some time.
It wasn’t until Stanford had left the building that Administrative orders all of a sudden showed up again. This time they are not in reverse order, so they were placed on the list all at one time, not one at a time as they were issued. And the first FIVE are HIDDEN! There were a total of 35 Administrative orders for all of 2019; a very active legal year in that court. 2018 had 47. 2017 had 66. 2016 had 85. 2015 had 69. It is that way all the way back in time. Then along came 2020. Its only May and there are already 33 Administrative Orders WITH ONE GIANT IN YOUR FACE MASSIVE DIFFERENCE!!!!
EVERY SINGLE ORDER HAS THE JUDGE’S OWN SIGNATURE REDACTED and the order list even points out the thing is Redacted! Every single one.
THE SIGNATURE THAT MAKES THE ORDER OFFICIAL IS REDACTED?
Say what?
So exactly what is ‘redacted’?
Normally, a phrase or word or whole page that is ‘redacted’ is covered up so what it says cannot have an affect on something else. A greater justice comes to mind.
The ONLY reason that makes any sense is “Grand jury testimony, which generally must be kept secret under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Procedure (unless a judge issues a waiver.)” But since when does the signature of the Presiding Judge fall under secrecy? For any reason?
“There’s something psychological about it,” explains Michael Ravnitzky, an attorney who is an expert in the release of government documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). “If you see a document with blocked out sections, your eyes go to it and you wonder, what’s under there?”
But when, in all of the years of legal jurisprudence has anyone ever seen this:
That requires further research! That is a screen shot of order number 2020-0033; “COJET and Jud Conf Requirements during Health Emergency.”
Here’s a few more.
WHY and for that matter HOW is it that the Presiding Judge in BOTH the Main Superior Court AND the Juvenile Court ARE BOTH REDACTED just for signing an Administrative ORDER?
WHY?
It is understandable that the clerk stamp had to change. The Clerk was run out of that office for law violations. But Judges?
Some of the McCarville signatures looks legit. Some others look like a different signature.
Since the Arizona Supreme Court has had a habit of reviewing this site’s state related content from time to time perhaps they can answer the burning question!
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON INSIDE THE PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT?
This is what an Administrative Order should look like. This order has direct relationship to our case in that Superior Court.
2012-0004So could the answer be in this?
INVESTIGATION OF PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT KEPT SECRET
“An Arizona Supreme Court rule is keeping the findings of an investigation of Pinal County Superior Court employees sealed from public view.
Last year, an employee complaint prompted Presiding Judge Stephen McCarville to ask the Arizona Department of Administration to review the validity of the employee’s allegations of workplace misconduct.
A third-party state employee was tasked with investigating reports of harassment and discrimination by people in management positions at the court. After months of interviewing various employees, ADOA filed its findings in October.
In an email to PinalCentral last month, McCarville said he couldn’t discuss whether any disciplinary action was taken as a result of the investigation.
PinalCentral requested a copy of the report from ADOA but was told the document cannot be released. A request from a county employee was also rejected.
Patrick Camunez, the human resources director of Pinal County, filed a request for the document after it was submitted to the court. McCarville denied the request so Camunez appealed for administrative review by an independent party.
Camunez wrote a letter to McCarville in February, stating he met with a former court employee last year. The person reported being subjected to bullying, discrimination and labor-code violations.
Camunez wrote he instructed the former employee to take the matter up with the court. But Camunez then chose to get involved after other court employees contacted him with similar claims of a hostile work environment.
One current court employee, who agreed to speak with PinalCentral on the condition of anonymity, described a “dicey” workplace where certain people are targeted.
According to court documents, Camunez argued there was good cause to release the investigative report because the county has an interest in the welfare of court employees. McCarville disagreed, claiming oversight over court employees is his responsibility and not that of the county administration.”
A pickle indeed. But THIS is not the big problem. That was in May of 2017. Orders were not stopped public view until August 2019 .
OK Supreme Court WHAT NOW?
Well he’s what now!
UPDATE!
“Good Morning,
Thank you for contacting AOC Support Center. We received your e-mail in regards to your filing questions. Please contact us directly for further assistance in your matter. Please reference ticket number… blah blah blah”
OK so the response was:
was just looking for sense
since when does a judge redact his own signature but not his name?
this makes no sense and that’s all i’m trying to ascertain
is it because they are actually digitally signed? could make sense but not with a
signature already on every administrative order
makes no sense that the signature and not the name is redacted unless the
signature is not that of the judge shown.. but that makes no sense at all,,,
have never witnessed a more curious court action and believe me
i’ve seen a lot in that specific court
It appears some background on redaction and orders is… ah… in order:
When does a judge’s ruling become a valid order?
The Signature
UPDATE 2:
In response to the above clarification I received this:
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for contacting AOC Support Center. We received your e-mail in regards to your Judge filing questions. Please contact us directly for further assistance in your matter so we can get you to the right courthouse to speak too. Please reference ticket number blah blah blah…
Ah no. It wasn’t a Judge filing question. It appears the people at the Arizona Office of the Court from some outfit called http://ajinweb/support, not a web address but listed as one is not paying attention.
So the mystery remains. I will not ‘call’ those people they don’t seem able to understand simple English.