DOCSLIB.ORG

Counsel of Record Ricardo J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 1 of 94 Docket Nos. 13-16941 and 13-17089 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT __________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE CASE NO. 02-00022 __________________________________________________ APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF __________________________________________________ SANDRA C. MILLER WILLIAM N. HEBERT OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF JAY D. TRICKETT GUAM Counsel of Record Ricardo J. Bordallo Governor’s Complex CALVO FISHER & JACOB LLP Adelup, Guam 96910 One Lombard Street, Second Floor Telephone: (671) 475-9370 San Francisco, California 94111 Facsimile: (671) 477-4826 Telephone: (415) 374-8370 Attorney for the Office of the Governor of Facsmile: (415) 374-8373 Guam Attorney for the Defendant-Appellant on behalf of the Defendant-Appellant Government of Guam Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 2 of 94 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................................ 5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................... 6 I. Background of the Guam Clean Water Act litigation ...................................... 6 II. The Receiver admits that its remaining projects are significantly over budget and will cost more than the remaining amount of the Consent Decree Funding ............................................................................................................ 8 III. The Attorney General refused to support the Government of Guam’s opposition to the Receiver’s planned use of the Consent Decree Funding ... 10 IV. The Government of Guam repeatedly requests substitution of counsel in order to meaningfully participate in the district court proceedings .............. 11 V. The Government of Guam brings multiple motions to stay and appeals the district court’s denials of substitution of counsel .......................................... 18 VI. The Receiver awards new contracts for the closure of the Ordot Dump which exceed its budget for those contracts by $26 million .................................... 21 STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................... 22 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................. 23 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 25 I. The district court abused its discretion when it prevented the Government of Guam from replacing its conflicted and disloyal attorneys ........................... 25 i Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 3 of 94 A. As the Government of Guam’s attorney, the Attorney General owed its duties to the Governor of Guam and his authorized representatives .......... 25 B. Notwithstanding its duties to the Government of Guam, the Attorney General began concurrently representing the Receiver .............................. 27 1. The May 10, 2013 amended substitution of counsel was supported by unrebutted evidence showing that the Attorney General represented the Receiver .................................................................................................... 27 2. The Attorney General then expressly admitted it represented the Receiver .................................................................................................... 31 C. The district court abused its discretion by failing to allow the Government of Guam to substitute new counsel for the Attorney General after the Attorney General had clearly abandoned the Government of Guam in favor of the Receiver ............................................................................................ 32 1. The Attorney General’s representation of the Receiver created a conflict of interest .................................................................................................. 33 2. The Attorney General’s conduct revealed that its relationship with the Office of the Governor was completely broken ....................................... 35 3. Despite the Attorney General’s public abandonment of the Government of Guam, the district court refused to allow the Government of Guam to substitute new, loyal counsel .................................................................... 36 4. The district court’s failure to recognize that the Government of Guam’s lawyers had abandoned it infected all of the decisions under review and should be reversed under the de novo standard ........................................ 38 D. The district court’s refusal to reconsider its prior rulings was also an abuse of discretion ................................................................................................. 39 II. The district court erred by failing to conduct a meaningful inquiry into the Attorney General’s representation of the Receiver and potential conflict of interest ............................................................................................................ 40 ii Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 4 of 94 III. Orders issued by the district court while it prevented the Government of Guam from being meaningfully heard are void ............................................ 42 A. The Government of Guam was entitled to be heard with respect to the Receiver’s plans to procure new contracts to close the Ordot Dump that exceeded its budget ..................................................................................... 43 B. The district court’s denial of the Government of Guam’s substitution of counsel prevented the Government of Guam being heard in subsequent proceedings regarding the Ordot Dump closure projects ........................... 44 C. Proceedings conducted after the district court’s denial of the Government of Guam’s substitution of counsel are void ................................................ 45 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 46 iii Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 5 of 94 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Allen v. Academic Games Leagues of Am., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 785 (C.D. Cal. 1993) ....................................................................... 25 Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................3, 4 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................ 40 Concat LP v. Unilever, PLC, 350 F. Supp. 2d 796 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................................. 25 Estate of Merchant v. C.I.R., 947 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 22 Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972) ......................................................................................... 42, 43 Gates v. Shinn, 98 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................... 4 In re Center Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1985) ....................................................................... 24, 45 In re Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 129 U.S. 206 (1889) ................................................................................................ 4 In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 803 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1986) ......................................................................... 22, 38 iv Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 6 of 94 Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 1990) .................................................................. 23, 25, 34 Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................ 23 Lewis v. Lane, 816 F.2d 1165 (7th Cir. 1987) ................................................................. 23, 40, 41 Lim v. City of Long Beach, 217 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 22 Manchin v. Browning, 170 W. Va. 779 (1982) ......................................................................................... 27 Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) ....................................................................................... 44, 45 Santos v. Camacho, Civ. 04-00006, 2006 WL 581251 (D. Guam Mar. 10, 2006) ................. 26, 33, 35 Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................. 39 Stewart v. Gen. Motors Corp., 756 F.2d 1285 (7th Cir. 1985) ....................................................................... 25, 34 Stone v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................. 3 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
Recommended publications
  • United States Courts Eighth Circuit Report 1982

    United States Courts Eighth Circuit Report 1982

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. UNITED STATES COURTS EIGHTH CIRCUIT REPORT 1982 ) P. LAY LESTER C. GOODCHILD Idge Circuit Executive 1/ , " ~¥L·"'J'~;""J,!J:!:~u::.t>;~;"';"'~"\;ti""o:4i,,*,'}~~~i'ii:I&~';:I;"1',\.~~;;'- ..,....:....:\.. · ........ b__ ,:, ''\-' _.':t. un ",a) '~,~ ,"-!.. ~,--.,.&·~".d"_.-~'''~.,.''''''''!_ ..~_,~'\_>"'''"&!~ ____ ---=..-~~l''.Co"",. ~">':>-".""". "",~""",, ,,'.'. "'._o_d'A,." .... " _ "_.'~".""" l0785~ U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this documer.t are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this c~d material has been granted by Public Domain united States Courts to the National Criminal Jus'ice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the c~ owner. _. .., UNITED STATES COURTS EIGHTH CIRCUIT REPORT ,19>82 DONALD P. LAY LESTER C. GOODCHILD Chief Judge ' Circuit Executive ' FORWARD This report is issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 332 (e) (10). The format follows '?he report issued last year for the calendar years 1980 and 1981. Sections I and II provide information relating to the members of the JUdicial family, the support staff and the administration of the Federal Courts. Section III presents operational data relating to the Judicial process within the Court of Appeals and the District Courts in the Eighth Circuit. Wherever possible data appearing in last years report is updated.
  • Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts

    Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts

    GETTY STEELE IMAGES/KIM Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts By Democracy and Government Reform Team February 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts By Democracy and Government Reform Team February 2020 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 7 The demographic compositions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals 10 1st Circuit 23 8th Circuit 12 2nd Circuit 25 9th Circuit 14 3rd Circuit 27 10th Circuit 16 4th Circuit 29 11th Circuit 18 5th Circuit 31 D.C. Circuit 20 6th Circuit 32 Federal Circuit 22 7th Circuit 33 The demographic compositions of the U.S. District Courts 36 District courts housed 66 District courts housed within the 1st Circuit within the 7th Circuit 39 District courts housed 71 District courts housed within the 2nd Circuit within the 8th Circuit 44 District courts housed 76 District courts housed within the 3rd Circuit within the 9th Circuit 48 District courts housed 86 District courts housed within the 4th Circuit within the 10th Circuit 54 District courts housed 91 District courts housed within the 5th Circuit within the 11th Circuit 60 District courts housed 97 District court housed within the 6th Circuit within the D.C. Circuit 110 Conclusion 111 Endnotes Introduction and summary Authors’ note: This report reflects data as of November 18, 2019. Its main goal is to provide advocates and policymakers with an accessible resource demonstrating general trends pertaining to the lack of demographic diversity across all of the lower federal courts. Some individual data points may have altered slightly between November and publication and are not reflected within this report.
  • Historical Review: "Justicia Para Todo" Judiciary History

    Historical Review: "Justicia Para Todo" Judiciary History

    Judiciary History - Historical Review: "Justicia para todo" War, diplomacy, social or economic pressure have been used throughout history to resolve disputes. They have literally shaped the world. Today’s court systems are a product of man’s desire to settle disputes in a more peaceful, equitable and socially acceptable manner. Method of justice continues to evolve in our land with every case or motion brought before the courts. Today’s Superior Court of Guam serves as a forum to resolve disputes locally. And though the system itself is not a product of Guam, the questions and conclusions most certainly are. This booklet is not so much a history of the courts as it is a story of the people of the island and type of justice that has prevailed on our shores. As we celebrate the opening of the new Guam Judicial Center, it is only fitting that we remember those who contributed to the growth of Guam’s courts system. Throughout the past century, the dedicated men and women who served the courts helped ensure that justice continued to prevail on our shores. It is to these fine people of yester year and those who will serve our courts in the future that this booklet is dedicated to. Thank you and Si Yuus Maase. Judiciary History - Justice on Guam: "The Chamorros" "Yanggen numa'piniti hao taotao, nangga ma na piniti-mu Mase ha apmaman na tiempo, un apasi sa' dibi-mu." Translated: When you hurt someone, wait for your turn to hurt. Even if it takes a while, you will pay because it's your debt.
  • American-Style Justice in No Man's Land Peter Nicolas University of Washington School of Law

    American-Style Justice in No Man's Land Peter Nicolas University of Washington School of Law

    University of Washington School of Law UW Law Digital Commons Articles Faculty Publications 2002 American-Style Justice in No Man's Land Peter Nicolas University of Washington School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Peter Nicolas, American-Style Justice in No Man's Land, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 895 (2002), https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty- articles/297 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GEORGIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 36 SUMMER 2002 NuMBER 4 ARTICLE AMERICAN-STYLE JUSTICE IN NO MAN'S LAND PeterNicolas* I. INTRODUCTION For much of the nineteenth century, the geographic region known today as the Oklahoma Panhandle and bounded on the east by the hundredth meridian of longitude, on the south by Texas, on the west by New Mexico, and on the north by Colorado and Kansas, was commonly referred to as the Public Land Strip, the Neutral Strip, or more ominously, "No Man's Land."1 The region was so-named * Assistant Professor, University of Washington School of Law. The author would like to thank Wendy Condiotty, Magdalena Cuprys, Ann Hemmens, Paul Holcomb, Nancy McMurrer, Cheryl Nyberg, Barbara Swatt, Lisa Wagenheim and the editors of the Georgia Law Review for their valuable research, feedback and assistance.
  • Cert Petition in Wynn Las Vegas, LLC V. Cesarz

    Cert Petition in Wynn Las Vegas, LLC V. Cesarz

    No. IN THE pìéêÉãÉ=`çìêí=çÑ=íÜÉ=råáíÉÇ=pí~íÉë= _______________ WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC AND STEVE WYNN, Petitioners, v. JOSEPH CESARZ AND QUY NGOC TANG, ET AL., Respondents. _______________ On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit _______________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI _______________ JOSHUA S. LIPSHUTZ EUGENE SCALIA GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Counsel of Record 555 Mission Street MIGUEL A. ESTRADA San Francisco, CA 94105 JONATHAN C. BOND (415) 393-8200 AMANDA C. MACHIN GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP GREGORY J. KAMER 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. R. TODD CREER Washington, D.C. 20036 KAMER ZUCKER ABBOTT (202) 955-8500 3000 W. Charleston Boulevard [email protected] Suite 3 Las Vegas, NV 89102 (702) 259-8640 Counsel for Petitioners QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or “Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., regulates specific employment practices, primarily payment of minimum wages and overtime pay, and permits private suits only for un- paid minimum wages, overtime pay, or retaliation. Id. §§ 206-207, 216(b). This Court has held that only practices the FLSA itself “prohibits” “violat[e]” the Act. Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 588 (2000). As courts (including the Fourth and Ninth Circuits) have uniformly held, the FLSA’s only provi- sion discussing tip sharing, or “pooling,” 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), says nothing restricting tip pooling by em- ployers who pay their workers a cash wage that meets the federal minimum, but merely places condi- tions on tip pooling by employers who seek to count employees’ tips toward the employer’s minimum- wage obligation.

  • Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit As of 10/8/2020

    Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Jeffrey R. Howard 0 Kermit Victor Lipez (Snr) Sandra L. Lynch Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby (Snr) 0 Jon David Levy George Z. Singal (Snr) Nancy Torresen John A. Woodcock, Jr. (Snr) United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs 0 Denise Jefferson Casper Timothy S. Hillman Mark G. Mastroianni George A. O'Toole, Jr. (Snr) Michael A. Ponsor (Snr) Patti B. Saris F. Dennis Saylor Leo T. Sorokin Richard G. Stearns Indira Talwani Mark L. Wolf (Snr) Douglas P. Woodlock (Snr) William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Paul J. Barbadoro 0 Joseph N. Laplante Steven J. McAuliffe (Snr) Landya B. McCafferty Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Francisco Augusto Besosa 0 Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez Daniel R. Dominguez (Snr) Jay A. Garcia-Gregory (Snr) Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez (Snr) United States District Court District of Rhode Island Mary M. Lisi (Snr) 0 John J. McConnell, Jr. William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Jose A. Cabranes 0 Guido Calabresi (Snr) Denny Chin Christopher F. Droney (Ret) Peter W. Hall Pierre N. Leval (Snr) Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Gerard E. Lynch (Snr) Jon O. Newman (Snr) Barrington D. Parker, Jr. (Snr) Reena Raggi (Snr) Robert D. Sack (Snr) John M.
  • Federal Courts: Art. III(1), Art. I(8), Art. IV(3)(2), Art. II(2)/I(8)(3), and Art. II(1) Adjudication

    Federal Courts: Art. III(1), Art. I(8), Art. IV(3)(2), Art. II(2)/I(8)(3), and Art. II(1) Adjudication

    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2021 Federal Courts: Art. III(1), Art. I(8), Art. IV(3)(2), Art. II(2)/I(8)(3), and Art. II(1) Adjudication Laura K. Donohue Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Jeremy M. McCabe Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2373 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3825670 Forthcoming in Catholic University Law Review. This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Courts Commons FEDERAL COURTS: ART. III(1), ART. I(8), ART. IV(3)(2), ART. II(2)/I(8)(3), AND ART. II(1) ADJUDICATION Laura K. Donohue, J.D., Ph.D. and Jeremy McCabe, J.D.* ABSTRACT. The distinction among the several types of federal courts in the United States has gone almost unremarked in the academic literature. Instead, attention focuses on Article III “constitutional” courts with occasional discussion of how they differ from what are referred to as “non-constitutional” or “legislative” courts. At best, these labels are misleading: all federal courts have a constitutional locus, and most, but not all, federal courts are brought into being via legislation. The binary approach further ignores the full range of federal courts, which are rooted in different constitutional provisions: Art. III(1), Art. I(8); Art. IV(3); Art. II(2)/I(8)(3); and Art.
  • 2011 Annual Report of the Judiciary of Guam

    2011 Annual Report of the Judiciary of Guam

    Conent 38 8 Silent Witness Ceremony Justices and Judges 3 Message from the Chief Justice and Administrator of the Courts 7 Judicial Council of Guam 12 Judicial Statistics 18 Planning for the Future 23 Modernizing Court Operations 4-6 Judicial History 27 Developing Court Staff 31 Therapeutic Courts 43 Fiscal & Administration 46 Court Partners 37 Law Week MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS afa Adai! We are proud to share with you the 2011 Annual Report of the Judiciary of Guam. Inside, you will nd judicial information, useful statistics, program summaries, performance reports, and a review of judiciary events and activities. In the years preceding 2011, the Judiciary of Guam experienced unprecedented growth, signicant advancements in its administration and operations, and our transformation as the third co-equal branch of Guam’s government. We have demonstrated that we are eective and ecient in ensuring that the people of Guam have their “day in court.” e Supreme Court of Guam matured as the Court of Last Resort, leading wide scale modernization and improvement of the Guam Judiciary in an era of declining budgets, population increases, and new approaches in the administration of justice. e Judiciary is focused on planning for the future, modernizing court operations, and developing court sta. We have introduced and sustained therapeutic approaches to address cases and have sought to inform and educate the general public through community outreach and fostering community partnerships. We invite you to review this information and to take an active interest in justice. Senseramente, F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO PERRY C.
  • 2019 Annual Report

    2019 Annual Report

    UNITED STATES COURTS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES COURTS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 2019 ANNUAL REPORT 2019 ANNUAL REPORT The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the following for their contributions to the 2019 Ninth Circuit Annual Report: The Honorable Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit The Honorable Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Elizabeth A. Smith, Circuit Executive, Ninth Circuit Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk of Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Susan M. Spraul, Clerk, Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Eric Wade, Circuit Librarian, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Rhonda Langford Taylor, Chief Probation Officer, District of Alaska Silvio Lugo, Chief Pretrial Services Officer, Northern District of California The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is to support the effective and expeditious administration of justice and the safeguarding of fairness in the administration of the courts within the circuit. To do so, it will promote the fair and prompt resolution of disputes, ensure the effective discharge of court business, prevent any form of invidious discrimination, and enhance public understanding of, and confidence in the judiciary. The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Seated from left to right are Chief District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, Circuit Judge Mary H. Murguia, Chief Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, Chief District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, Chief District Judge J. Michael Seabright. Standing from left to right are, Chief Probation Officer Rhonda Langford Taylor, Chief Pretrial Services Officer Silvio Lugo, Senior District Judge Ronald S.W.
  • Campbell Note

    Campbell Note

    JAMES T. CAMPBELL Island Judges abstract. This Note explores the persistent differences in status among federal district judges in U.S. territories. Beginning with Congress’s decision to extend life tenure to federal judges in Puerto Rico in 1966, the Note traces the evolution of local and federal courts in U.S. territories over the past half century. Although universally counted within the ninety-four districts of the Article III system, the federal district courts in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are not staffed by Article III judges. In some cases, these federal district judges can be replaced at any moment. This regime, once defended on account of the distinguishing jurisdictional features of federal courts overseas, has outgrown its prevailing justifications. Divorced from its once-plausible logic of necessity and institutional development, the present status of federal district judges in the territories is an emerging problem in federal judicial independence that exposes the federal courts to charges of exceptionalism and political interference. Focusing on judicial administration, this Note challenges the notion that all federal district judges are created equal, highlighting an underinterrogated space in the discourse on U.S. empire: the Judicial Conference of the United States. author. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2020; Yale College, B.A. 2013. I am grateful first and foremost to Aziz Rana for his guidance, example, and unremitting encouragement. I also owe thanks to Daniel Immerwahr, Gustavo Gelpí, Alex Munson, José Cabranes, Kate Stith, Guido Cal- abresi, Ashraf Ahmed, and numerous others for engaging with this idea and challenging my think- ing from a variety of angles.
  • Pacific Islands Judicial Education Programs

    Pacific Islands Judicial Education Programs

    December 8. 2020 Pacific Islands Judicial Education Programs 2020 Preliminary Fiscal Year Report Russ Mathieson Office of the Circuit Executive Phone: 415‐355‐8974 Education Specialist 95 Seventh Street, Suite 429 Fax: 415‐355‐8901 [email protected] San Francisco, CA 94103 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents I. 2020 Fiscal Year Report ....................................................................................... 4 II. About the Pacific Islands Committee ................................................................... 4 III. Overview of the Pacific Islands Judicial Education Program .............................................................................................................. 6 IV. Program Development ........................................................................................ 6 V. Target Audience .................................................................................................. 7 VI. Measuring the Impact of Judicial Training ............................................................ 7 VII. 2020 Programs at a Glance .................................................................................. 8 1. GENJR NJC: General Jurisdiction ............................................................................................... 8 2. CTINT PJC Advanced Court Interpreter Training ..................................................................... 8 3. AJIDC Appellate Judges Education Institute ...........................................................................
  • REPORT of the PROCEEDINGS of a SPECIAL SESSION of the JUDICIAL CONFERENCE of the UNITED STATES R

    REPORT of the PROCEEDINGS of a SPECIAL SESSION of the JUDICIAL CONFERENCE of the UNITED STATES R

    REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES r * * MARCH 19-20, 1951 WASHINGTON, D. C. r TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 331 § 331. Judicial Conference of the United States. The Chief Justice of the United States shall summon annually the chief judges of the judicial circuits to a conference at such time and place in the United States as he may designate. He shall preside at such conference which shall be known as the Judicial Conference of the United States. If the chief judge of any circuit is unable to attend, the Chief Justice may summon any other circuit or district judge from such circuit. Every judge sum­ moned shall attend and, unless excused by the Chief Justice, shall remain throughout the conference and advise as to the needs of his circuit and as to any matters in respect of which the administration of justice in the courts of the United States may be improved. The Conference shall make a comprehensive survey of the condition of business in the courts of the United States and prepare plans for assignment of judges to or from circuits or districts where necessary, and shall submit suggestions to the various courts, in the interest of uniformity and expedition of business. The Attorney General shall, upon request of the Chief Justice, report to such conference on matters relating to the business of the several courts of the United States, with particular reference to cases to which the United States is a party. The Chief Justice shall submit to Congress an annual report of the proceedings of the Judicial Conference and its recommendations for legislation.