What if Court Executive Officer office is vacant?
Date: Sun, 04/01/2012 - 18:45
So the Court Executive Officer, also called (Head) Clerk Of Court for my county here in California, long story short, is currently manned by an individual that did not take the constitutionally required Oath of Office (I have it all documented etc).
The office is technically vacant, though nothing has happened yet and my Criminal Complaint to the DA has thusfar been ignored.
Does anybody know what the ramifications on a court case would be if the Court Executive Office had (theoretically until somebody important agrees that such is the case) been vacant through the up-to-now proceedings?
Seems to me like it would invalidate the rulings of the court in that time period in some way shape or form.
Thanks
The Clerk of the Court is an administrative position, not judici
The Clerk of the Court is an administrative position, not judicial. Absense of a clerk would not affect court decisions.
From Wiki..
[QUOTE]
A court clerk (British English clerk to the court; American English clerk of the court or clerk of court) is an officer of the court whose responsibilities include maintaining the records of a court. Another duty is to administer oaths to witnesses, jurors, and grand jurors. Traditionally, the clerk also was the custodian of the court's seal, which is used to authenticate copies of the court's orders, judgments and other records.
In courts without a clerk, or if there is no specific officer otherwise available, the judge may have authority to act as clerk of the court, as sometimes in a short-staffed probate court.
In some U.S. states, the state trial courts technically do not have their own clerks, but are supposed to use the services of the county clerk, who is normally an elected official. Several U.S. states, like California, that previously had this arrangement eventually recognized that it violates the principle of separation of powers (because the county clerk is a member of the executive branch), abolished it, and in its place authorized each state trial court to appoint its own court clerk.
[/QUOTE]
Administers all court activities
You very well may be right, what with it being an administerial position.
However.
Quote:
The Clerk is the official custodian of the records and dockets of the Court and is accountable for all fees, costs, and other funds collected by the Court. The Clerk is the certifying officer for the Court and responsible for the efficient use of the Court???s human, fiscal, and physical resources. The Clerk manages the administrative and operational activities of the clerk???s office to ensure that its statutory duties are properly discharged. |
No Clerk of Court (specifically, someone signing papers and giving orders and approving subpoenas etc), seems like that would have to affect -something-.
If a judge turned out to not be an valid judge, that would have an effect on court proceedings etc.. I'm trying to find the effect on the system that would result from a Court Executive Officer not being valid officer.
Also
[QUOTE]B. The Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court is also appointed ex officio Jury Commissioner pursuant to Section 195(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and he/she and duly appointed deputies are authorized to grant excuses from jury service to prospective jurors pursuant to Section 204(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. As Jury Commissioner he/she is empowered to issue and serve jury summons as provided in Sections 208 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure.
QUOTE]
Deputies not actually duly appointed....invalid jury summons issued and served, etc....
I re-read your first post....this is a criminal action. You wou
I re-read your first post....this is a criminal action. You would be better served by a board or forum that deals with criminal/legal issues.
Presumably, it could affect the validity of clerk-issued orders
Presumably, it could affect the validity of clerk-issued orders and judgments, which are typical of default cases. I can't see a criminal angle worth pursuing here, but - as advised - there are probably better forums out there to discuss it. I would suggest you start with an administrative law attorney.
Thanks
Yeah, I put in a criminal complaint to the DA just to bring attention to it to fix the situation.
Mostly I was fishing to see if anybody here had some insight as to how the situation might affect two court cases I have going on.
Thanks.
Sounds to me like you're just trying to get out of a ruling.
Sounds to me like you're just trying to get out of a ruling.
Momma always said...
Thanks for sharing your snide and incredibly uninformed comment OhioGal. In response, I'll just say:
A. You're wrong. There is no ruling, and the plaintiff has such piss poor 'evidence' for their debt collection claim that I'm going to wipe the floor with them if they actually show up.
B. I will not apologize for wanting, nay, requiring ( to the extent that little ol' me can) that the California Superior Court of my county actually follow the constitutional law of the state and have it's top level officials swear the constitutionally required Oath of Office.
If you don't care whether the law and/or the constitution is followed, and look down on me for caring, that's your perogative.
C. If the judge, police officer, court executive officer, head judge, etc in -your- past, present, or future court case never swore the constitutionally required Oath of Office (which means that they are not, in fact, a judge, police officer, etc), would you still consider yourself bound by any rulings she/he/they might make?
If so, of if you think that I should submit to the rulings and actions of non-governmental non-officials, that's your perogative.
Personally, I'm not interested in submitting to someone acting as if they have governmental authority but in fact don't.
Rules
And while it may not affect my personal situation (looks like SoapLady was correct and no judicial anything would be affected), I still find it important that govt officials be held to the same law they enforce.
Quote:Thanks for sharing your snide and incredibly uninformed co
Quote:
Thanks for sharing your snide and incredibly uninformed comment OhioGal. In response, I'll just say: |
You're quite welcome. If my response was "uniformed," it's because you asked a question in which you failed to supply the details necessary to give an informed response. Your question was vague and I made an assumption, which I would venture to guess many of our fellow forum members/experts also made.
Quote:
Seems to me like it would invalidate the rulings of the court in that time period in some way shape or form. |
That assumption was based on this statement which, whether you like it or not, sounds like you're trying to wiggle out of a ruling against you. Perhaps the next time you ask a question you'll supply details.
Quote:
A. You're wrong. There is no ruling, and the plaintiff has such piss poor 'evidence' for their debt collection claim that I'm going to wipe the floor with them if they actually show up. |
If you show up to court with that smarmy attitude, the judge will rule against you on principle.
Quote:
B. I will not apologize for wanting, nay, requiring ( to the extent that little ol' me can) that the California Superior Court of my county actually follow the constitutional law of the state and have it's top level officials swear the constitutionally required Oath of Office. |
I don't expect you to.
Quote:
If you don't care whether the law and/or the constitution is followed, and look down on me for caring, that's your perogative. |
Now who's jumping to conclusions? I do care, very much. That's why I spend countless hours on this forum helping people fight back against illegal payday lenders and bottom-feeding collection agencies.
Quote:
C. If the judge, police officer, court executive officer, head judge, etc in -your- past, present, or future court case never swore the constitutionally required Oath of Office (which means that they are not, in fact, a judge, police officer, etc), would you still consider yourself bound by any rulings she/he/they might make? |
You're comparing apples to oranges. The Clerk of Courts is an administrative position. You're reaching.
Quote:
If so, of if you think that I should submit to the rulings and actions of non-governmental non-officials, that's your perogative. |
When exactly did I say you should submit to rulings and actions of non-governmental officials? Again, you're reaching but, that's your prerogative (<- this is the correct spelling of the word, by the way).
Quote:
Personally, I'm not interested in submitting to someone acting as if they have governmental authority but in fact don't. |
Nor am I. We have that in common.
Have a great day! :D
Update:
1. After various communications to the county and D.A., the county employee no longer holds the position of Clerk of Court.
2. 'Prerogative' and 'perogative' are both commonly used and acceptable forms of the word. Just like 'tendinitis' is technically 'correct', but 'tendonitis' is used more by a factor of 10 to 1.
3. "It sounds like you're just trying to wiggle out of...." Regardless of how much detail I entered, I found this to be a very antagonistic first response to a fellow visitor on a site dedicated to helping people (in the words of JDB's) 'wiggle out of debts you owe'.