Then come the nitpickers. They say that there was no effectual record for (3) Sentencing and Judgment for the jailing either. Careful review shows that Magistrate Woehrle was fully aware of the small inconveniece, but she streamlined it rather effectively. And the nattering nabobs expected also a (4) Register of Actions (California docket), as if there was not enough paperwork already.
§1113 ...judge must direct, by an endorsement on the warrant...
§1219a)(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), when thecontempt consists of the omission to perform an act which is yet in the power of the person to perform, he or she may be imprisoned until he or she has performed it, and in that case the act shall be specified in the warrant of commitment.
 Regarding the delusional proceeding on March 4, 2009:Careful review of the Report and recommendation reveals that Magistrate Woehrle was likely aware of the schizophrenic nature of that proceeding. In listing the ancillary proceedings that were part of the unnamed litigation under review she stated: