Let’s see if we can’t build on this list started by the Alliance of California Judges
June 12, 2012
Dear Members and Others:
We thought you might enjoy taking a walk down memory lane with the Alliance of California Judges as we consider some memorable quotes from the not-too-distant past, and some from the present. The list is long, so this will be part one of two.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
__________________
Then Chief Justice Ronald George said that any attempt to democratize selection of Judicial Council members and reduce his appointment power would be considered a “declaration of war.” George said that “the remark had its intended effect.” California Courts in Review, Spring 2006.
“Everything is vetted. Everything goes out for public comment,” said (Council Member and then Appellate Justice) Cantil-Sakauye in February. “We seek public comment on every proposal, every rule, every idea.” ABC News, July 21, 2010.
“First, during this review of the AOC, criticisms were received that Judicial Council meetings often were perceived to be tightly scripted, with little opportunity for meaningful debate, and led to preordained and unanimous votes.” SEC Report, Page 42.
“The top-level decision making process of the AOC became insular, with a top-down management style limiting input from those within the organization. The agency also failed to value the input of or engage in true collaboration with the trial courts.” Report of the SEC Committee, Page 2.
“All California state courts will be closed today, September 16, 2009, as a cost-savings measure to help courts cope with unprecedented budget reductions in the judicial branch of government.” Judicial Council/AOC press release, Sept. 9, 2009.
“Chief Justice Ronald George said in a recent meeting with Times editors that the L.A. County Superior Court’s position is ‘very much misguided’ and called (presiding judge) McCoy’s forecasts of impending closures and layoffs a ‘Chicken Little approach.’” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 16, 2010.
“Judge McCoy is somebody who I like as a person, but I think he’s very much on a crusade,” he said. “I think it’s very interesting that no other court has claimed that there will be such calamitous results if these funds aren’t used.” Chief Justice George to LA Times Reporter, Feb. 16, 2010.
Cutbacks have made the court system “hard-pressed to provide accessible justice,” (George) told lawmakers.” Associated Press, Feb. 23, 2010, on Chief George’s State of the Judiciary Speech.
“The judiciary is not represented by the few strident and uninformed voices that occasionally emerge as e-mail strings on the fringe of the judiciary.” Ronald George, Feb. 23, 2010 State of the Judiciary speech.
“Los Angeles Superior Court Lays off 329 Employees.” LA Times blog, March 8, 2010.
“California has been trying to close its staggering deficit with a series of drastic budget cuts, and the pain has been especially deep for people who have business with the state’s courts.” National Pulblic Radio, May 13, 2010.
Chief Justice George said he “could not in good conscience” step down from his post if the judiciary “remained enmeshed in a severe budget crisis.” Speech to State Bar in July 2010, announcing his retirement.
“Reflection convinced me now is the right time — while I am at the top of my game — to leave while the proverbial music still plays.” Former Chief Justice Ron George on his retirement, San Francico Chronicle, July 15, 2010.
“George insisted that his critics played no role in his decision (to retire), and to quit because of some unhappy constituents would be like “canceling a trip to Yosemite because there are ants on the trail.” California Bar Journal, August 2010.
“(O)btaining a stable and adequate source of funding for our courts without a doubt would be one of the most important reforms in the California justice system in the 20th century. Those high expectations certainly have been met.” Chief George on the passing of the 1997 State Trial Court Funding Act, Metropolitan News, Sept. 27, 2010.
“People are operating in the dark around the state,” Roddy said. “It’s very frustrating, with a capital ‘V (sic).” San Diego Union Tribune, June 7, 2010, quoting Judicial Council member and San Diego CEO/CFO Mike Roddy.
“AOC’s three regional administrative directors who report to Vickrey, Sheila Calabro, Christine Patton, and Jody Patel also saw big pay bumps, each receiving 10 percent increases in that 2008-2009 time period, bringing their base salaries to $198,708 a year. Philip Carrizosa, a spokesman for the AOC, said in an e-mail that some of the outsized raises were necessary to keep top-level employees. He said others received big raises because of ‘increased job responsibilities,’ even though their job titles did not change.” Daily Journal, Dec. 9, 2009.
“On this point, I think the Alliance is correct – the Legislature did ask the Judicial Council to draft a Trial Court Bill of Financial Management Rights and the council never did that. The finance policy quoted by Kasley specifies nothing about those rights. All we can do is emphasize that the finance policy recognizes that each trial court is responsible for managing its own operations. Good luck in selling this approach to Ken.” AOC spokesman Phillip Carrizosa internal email in December, 2009, that was mistakenly sent by the AOC to reporter Ken Offgang of the Metropolitan News.
“(Council member) Judge Erica Yew from Santa Clara County took an opposing view (from those urging greater cuts of the AOC) and attacked the salaries of her fellow judges. She also defended the bureaucrats, saying the AOC is “a group of well intentioned, well-run and well-led people.” Courthouse News, July 22, 2011, reporting on the July 2011 meeting of the Judicial Council.
“California Courts Agency Called Dysfunctional.” AP headline, May 30, 2012.
“‘I’ve struggled over whether this is a pay raise,’ said Cantil-Sakauye, who noted that members of the committee considering the raises discussed the matter for two and a half hours before recommending in favor. ‘I see it as if I make a hundred dollars and give up eight, then I get three dollars back — that’s not a raise as I understand it.’” Courthouse News Service, Oct. 29, 2010, reporting on retroactive AOC pay raises granted by the Accountability Committee chaired by then Appellate Justice Cantil Sakauye.
“‘They can call it whatever they want,’ said Sacramento Superior Court Judge Maryanne Gilliard, who watched a telecast of the meeting. ‘At the end of the day if your check was $1,000 and now its $1,200 that’s a pay raise. I think this game of parsing the language is a big reason why the public is so disgusted with those people who are in power.’” Courthouse News Service, Oct. 29, 2010.
“Chief, I’d like to, uh, move approval of the recommendations, and I have just—some of the discussions we’ve had recently and some of the public discussions, um, I think for the record we need to stop and think for a moment—the Administrative Office of the Courts and its staff, in cooperation with the other governmental agencies has done an extraordinary job here and undertaken a–a virtually mammoth responsibility as you pointed out, with a tiny fraction of the staff, and so sometimes it makes—speaking for myself—makes me a little weary when some clown’s worried about whether or not somebody got a step increase two years ago in an outfit that’s putting in tremendous work with less resources, less staff than any other governmental agency would do, and does a (unintelligible) damn well better job…” Justice Richard Huffman, commenting on AOC pay raises at the Council Meeting of Jan. 21, 2010.
______________________________________________________
Link of the Day: SF Court workers from SEIU 1021 demands the AOC return to the bargaining table. (Note: If you don’t know Ken Couch please look into his background. You have his first, last and final offer and he really truly honestly does not give a rats ass about rank and file employees. Negotiating in good faith is beyond him.)

JusticeCalifornia
June 13, 2012
Terrific recap. Another one could be done just from 1/1/2011 forward.
I do not think anyone questions that top leadership (Team George) is responsible for the mess in which the branch finds itself.
The question — how bad is it going to get before the 2,000-member CA judiciary engages in full mutiny so a change in leadership is forced within the branch?
Wendy Darling
June 13, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, June 13, by Courthouse News Service:
In Defense of the AOC
By RICHARD SCHEULER
I read with interest Judge Horan’s May 30 comments in the Courthouse News Service. Judge Horan had a distinguished career on the bench, and word has it that he was modest in his retirement statement that he merely “carried my end of things.”
Still, there are matters upon which reasonable minds may differ, and I must beg to differ with my distinguished colleague from Los Angeles.
Judge Horan is, of course, correct that the Tehama County Court lasted without the AOC from 1860 until unification and centralization.
However, the correct term for those days would be “barely survived”.
It was the court’s newly centralized voice that obtained adequate branch funding and provided the organization to make the most of resources which are always limited in contrast to ever increasing mandates flowing from the legislature.
I began practicing law in Tehama County in 1973: I tried hearings in the law library (think tiny and without elbowroom); I tried jury trials in the Board of Supervisors’ chambers (think jurors sitting close enough to look over your shoulder).
I often appeared in the backroom of a local attorney, which room served as the Corning Justice Court.
I watched a fine Superior Court judge suffer a specious lawsuit against not just him but other north state judges; his court had not a dime to defend that suit. A defense firm out of Redding California provided pro bono representation to those judges.
Imagine the ethical outrage were such a defense accepted today. Of course, today AOC counsel would defend those judges.
When I began my work as a judge 12 years ago, my supervising clerk often told stories of the “bad old days”, when small courts like ours could barely afford office supplies and when even basic funding was but unimagined luxury.
Today the Tehama County Court and numerous other courts remain underfunded. Judge Horan notes we are a court with four judges and a commissioner.
The Commissioner handles only our mandatory child support services calendar; we share her with four counties; she sits in this county one morning each week. We have no other commissioners, and we have no research attorneys.
Judge Horan is correct; not long ago we had 44 employees, but budget reduction has reduced that number to 36 We cannot afford to fill the vacancies any more than we could afford to replace services now provided by the AOC.
Henry Ford did not make cheaper automobiles by setting up assembly plants in every county in the land, and Apple Computer does not bring prices down by working through autonomous local computer factories. I do not grieve that the industrial revolution wrenched from my grasp the joy of local self sufficiency.
It is the reduced cost of centralized services that makes such services available to my court. I repeat from the letter prompting Judge Horan’s critique.
The AOC provides my court with general legal assistance, continuing education, financial services, financial and legal compliance support, technology support, labor negotiation expertise and representation, contract advice and drafting, and legal assistance in all matters including representation against the frivolous lawsuits filed continually against the court, its officer’s and staff — and much more.
If the AOC were abolished and my court’s meager share of its budget distributed to us, we could not begin to “contract for” the wealth of services provided to courts by that body.
Is the AOC perfect? Not according to the May report of the Strategic Evaluation Committee. That report makes general comments and suggests specific changes to increase efficiency.
Let us not forget that all systems tend towards disorder. Outside force is required to forestay entropy in our lives – personal and professional. There is no government organization that would not benefit from frequent looks at its efficacy.
Please also remember that it was the Chief Justice who appointed that committee, and she has commented that many of the suggestions of its report are based on information from dedicated AOC employees.
My autonomy in running the legal side of our court is not in question. The Chief and the Judicial Council, aided by the AOC, provide a far more useful voice to the legislative and executive branches than could individual courts.
Without doubt, all central authority should be scrutinized and kept efficient. My personal views find much to criticize in state and federal governance, but my differences with those centralized authorities do not lead me to urge that they be abolished. So it is with the courts.
We need the AOC. I suggest that we all get behind the Chief, work on cleaning our own house, and present a unified voice to the public and to our sister branches.
Richard Scheuler is the presiding judge of Tehama County Superior Court.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/13/47418.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Official
June 13, 2012
Get behind the chief as she marches us off a cliff? Uh, no, thank you.
Reminds me of the cycle of abuse scenario where domestic violence victims remain silent about the abuse because the perpetrator is paying their bills.
I understand the smaller counties’ codependency on the AOC, but quite frankly it’s no excuse to turn a blind eye to the detriment it’s causing the branch as a whole.
wearyant
June 13, 2012
Thank you for saying it, Official. I hope Hon. Scheuler is not prepared to sell his soul to the devil incarnate, the AOC. And the flow of frivolous lawsuits can be handled by other means, i.e., proof that they are vexies and proper rulings by other county judges that they are without legal cause. The AOC/JC’s damage to the whole California judiciary is overwhelming any [service?] they have provided. Here’s to the Los Angeles courts for standing up to them!
Recall Tani!
Support and implement AB 1208!
Long live the ACJ!
wearyant
June 13, 2012
“The wording of the proposal, read over the phone by a Senate staffer, is to ‘adopt language prohibiting use of trial court trust fund for statewide projects unless authorized by Legislature.’”
So there you have it, Unless authorized by the Legislature. That could be the nose of the camel poking in through a loose flap of the judiciary tent. Happy now, JC/AOC? This is a direct result of your machinations. Gonna re-bring up the separation of powers argument? Gawd, what bumbling.
Recall Tani!
Pass and implement AB 1208!
Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
June 13, 2012
“The Chief and the Judicial Council, aided by the AOC, provide a far more useful voice to the legislative and executive branches than could individual courts.
”
As to the above:
NO NO NO!
JCW provides a fine vocie right here.
Official
June 13, 2012
Budget Group Passes Plan to Strip Council of Some Spending Power
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – The California Senate budget committee late last night passed 9-6 a proposal stripping the Judicial Council of power to spend trial court money on statewide projects without legislative approval.
The vote was taken at 9:30 Tuesday evening. It was clearly aimed at a massive IT project that failed after costing a half-billion dollars in public money.
The Senate budget committee proposal also cuts $7 million from the $8.6 million the Judicial Council set aside for salvaging parts of that same IT project, the Court Case Management System, which has been derided and despised by trial court judges for draining enormous sums from a fund intended to support local trial courts.
The wording of the proposal, read over the phone by a Senate staffer, is to “adopt language prohibiting use of trial court trust fund for statewide projects unless authorized by Legislature.”
At budget hearings in both legislative houses, lawmakers showed no intention of restoring funding for the courts, saying their budget plans were “99 percent” in line with Governor Jerry Brown’s revised May budget.
”The Legislature seems poised to adopt most of the May revise,” said Senate budget committee chair Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). “In the proposal before us, we have a number of points that will act as compromises to mitigate some of the concerns of the trial courts.”
As voting on budget spending extended late into the night, Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), switched sides on the proposal regarding the courts when she realized the Judicial Council was in fact opposed to it.
”I guess I misunderstood,” said Evans. “The Judicial Council is not in agreement with the proposed compromise.”
Leno countered, saying a number of measures in the overall judiciary budget proposal have trial court support, a very different matter from administrative office or council support.
”A half-dozen have trial court support,” said Leno.
Both Evans and Leno are on the the Senate Judiciary Committee with Evans as the chair. She has been a strong supporter of measures backed by central court administrators who are often at loggerheads with local trial judges.
The Senate proposal, approved by a vote of 9-6, also reduced Brown’s $300 million sweep of trial court reserves to $235 million, partially offsetting that reduction by taking $15 million from the budget of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
It will also allow individual trial courts to keep one percent of their fund balances in reserve, and would establish a statewide court reserve fund of two percent. Courts will have to apply for money from the Judicial Council-controlled fund.
The issue of sweeping court fund balances into one giant pot has caused alarm among trial judges up and down the state.
”Having an emergency fund rest in the control of the Judicial Council, in which every court must run hat in hand when seeking permission to pay workman’s compensation claims or local infrastructure needs will hardly be productive or equitable,” Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento testified at a Senate budget hearing last month.
”Those funds must be left with individual trial courts who have demonstrated fiscal responsibility in accumulating these funds to begin with. Anything less would cripple us.”
Judges have also argued that the governor’s plan shows a lack of understanding about how trial court budgets operate. Most courts have already committed their fund balances, sometimes mistakenly referred to as “reserve funds,” to meeting their financial obligations.
In the Legislature’s other chamber, the state Assembly’s budget committee held an informational meeting but took no action on any budget proposals Tuesday.
Assembly members expressed the same objections as many trial judges to the governor’s use of court fund balances to offset his cuts to the judiciary’s overall budget.
”If courts were prudent and tried to build up a reserve to offset layoffs, the governor’s proposal proposes to take that reserve from the courts. Instead of being rewarded, now they’re being punished,” said Assemblymember Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville).
”I have major concerns about that. When you’re hearing from judges what a negative impact this will have, it certainly needed to be raised here today,” he added. “Hopefully as we continue to have discussions this week that might be able to change.”
The Senate’s proposal to bar further spending on CCMS seems to have also gained support in the Assembly.
Assemblyman Gilbert Cedillo, Los Angeles Democrat, said, “We have rejected the development, implementation and deployment of the CCMS, which was moving out of control in a way none of us could support.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/13/47420.htm
Wendy Darling
June 13, 2012
The Chief Justice just wouldn’t listen, and clean house, and address the misconduct and mismanagement in branch administration, and so now, after over a year and a half of doing nothing meaningful, and trying to blame everyone else, including the State Legislature, as predicted, the State Legislature is tasking its own corrective measures. So much for “leadership” and “accountability” from the Office of the Chief Justice. The next thing we’ll probably hear is more whining from 455 Golden Gate Avenue about “co-equal branch of government” and “separation of powers.” Way to go.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
June 13, 2012
Tani may have slept through the part of her high school civics class where it was explained that “separation of powers” does not mean the executive and judicial branches are not accountable to the legislature for how they spend the taxpayers money.
Wendy Darling
June 13, 2012
I don’t think she was sleeping, Been There. It seems pretty clear that she cut that class altogether and didn’t bother to attend, especially for the final exam.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 13, 2012
Wow.
It is too bad top leadership is so completely out of sync with those in the trial courts it ostensibly “serves”.
The branch needs new leadership.
And I guess no one thinks the Sakauye/Herman/JC last minute trick regarding CCMS option 3 was funny.
Been There
June 13, 2012
Good riposte, Wendy
wearyant
June 13, 2012
Sweeping the “reserves” from the trial courts is a big bozo-no-no. I hope those funds can be saved for the trial courts by simply designating what those funds are. They are not truly “reserves” in one sense of the word; they’re not sitting there for a rainy day, Brown! At least the legislature grabbed back most of the so-called CCMS salvage money. What a farce that allocation was! Well, as some wiser poster here said a while back, the hens will be coming home to roost. They’re sitting on their eggs as we speak. Happy now, JC/AOC?
Recall Tani!
Support and implement AB 1208!
Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
June 13, 2012
Our branch “leaders” will find that the pen and the checkbook ARE mightier than the sword real soon.
Recall Tani!
Support and implement AB 1208!
Long live the ACJ!
The OBT
June 14, 2012
Our branch is now paying the price for having wasted a half billion on CCMS, for spending way to many millions on new courthouses, for the AOC’s abuses detailed in the SEC report ( telecommuting lawyers from Europe and the Midwest, numerous managers not paying into their retirement and the overall complete lack of fiscal accountability) and the Chief Justice’s unnecessary attack on the Assembly after the 1208 vote. All and all a sad state of affairs for justice.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 14, 2012
What is even more disconcerting is that a report exists that says “here are the issues that need to be addressed” starting with the AOC’s credibility and wandering in to lawyers telecommuting and an Office of General Counsel that thinks they run the branch.
The not credible people are in Sacramento and are representing us in negotiations.
The rest are delaying and obfuscating while Sacramento witnesses only a token effort at any change, none of which is in response to the SEC report.
You can’t make this stuff up.
unionman575
June 14, 2012
We know JCW.
Keep up the good work!
Jimmy
June 14, 2012
The SEC report is scheduled to be formally presented to the Judicial Council on Thursday afternoon.
Curious
June 14, 2012
Anybody know why the next Council meeting is scheduled for three days (assuming I’m reading the Council website correctly). I show it Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
No agenda posted last time I checked.
Been There
June 14, 2012
No agenda? Oh don’t worry, they’re clearly addressing the finding:
“First, during this review of the AOC, criticisms were received that Judicial Council meetings often were perceived to be tightly scripted, with little opportunity for meaningful debate, and led to preordained and unanimous votes.” SEC Report, Page 42.
Oh, wait, no they aren’t.
Nathaniel Woodhull
June 14, 2012
Tani doesn’t get it. If she looked around, she would understand that her “closest adviser” is really there to ensure the “legacy” of Ronald George. That person doesn’t give a hoot about Tani, in fact, I’m sure she hopes that HRH-2 fails, so that the legacy of King George remains untarnished…at least in her eyes.
JCW, unionman575, Wendy Darling, along with everyone else has said it, “they just don’t get it.”
The AOC and JC (circa 1998-present) should be a required study of all those seeking to attain their MPA.
Wendy Darling
June 14, 2012
It’s baaaack! Published today, Thursday, June 14, from Courthouse News Service by Maria Dinzeo:
Demo of ‘Terminated’ Cout IT System Raises Fear of Return
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – The recent demonstration of a thought-to-be-terminated court IT system has brought fear that it is rising from the dead.
California’s top body of judges had voted to “terminate” the half-billion-dollar adventure in programming three months ago, but the Judicial Council also dedicated $8 million to see if any part of the Court Case Management System could be salvaged.
This week, Senate democrats tried to drive a stake into the system, by voting to cut off almost all those salvage funds.
The fear that the project is being resurrected was likely prompted by a recent email from central court administrators describing the IT project as merely in “suspension.”
The same email sent in early June said the project that has consumed an enormous volume of public money is currently in “maintenance mode” and went on to offer a demonstration of the capacities of the latest version of the system, V-4, to any court that might be interested.
“What I want to make clear is this is not about deploying CCMS V4,” said Judge James Herman of Santa Barbara who is also a council member. “It’s about, are there any parts or components that can be transferred to the trial courts.”
The judge said 84 people last Friday attended a functional demonstration of the system, mostly administrators, but some judges as well. “The demonstrations were initiated at the request of trial courts,” he added, “looking at what V4 had to offer.”
At the time of the council’s earlier vote in March to finish off the 10-year project, trial judges commented on the ability of CCMS to regenerate itself and start consuming money again.
“Some people say it’s like a vampire that isn’t really dead until you drag its body out into the sunlight,” said Orange County Judge Andrew Banks at the time.
“If the past is a guide to the future, and I believe it is, the AOC will use the $8 million not to simply obtain the artifacts and code, but to try to once again breathe life into this Frankenstein monster of a system,” predicted retired Judge Charles Horan, also at the time.
In deciding to terminate the project at that March meeting, the council had a choice between voting to “suspend” it or “terminate” it. An overwhelming majority voted to terminate it.
So the June email from central administrators describing the IT project as merely “suspended” suggested that the Administrative Office of the Courts was not listening to the council.
“The Council was given the option to suspend CCMS, but they voted to terminate the program,” said the Alliance of California Judges. “A decision of the Council is meaningless if AOC staff are free to treat it as advisory only.”
The issue is a sensitive one because of a similar series of events last summer when the council in July ordered a “pause” in the IT project for one year.
That order was promptly ignored by the administrative office which continued to spend more than $200,000 a day on the project, based on the administrators’ own budget estimates. “We’re now relabeling it,” administrator Mark Moore explained at the August council meeting. “It’s not necessarily a one-year pause.”
This week, the Senate’s budget committee voted 9-6 to “eliminate $7 million in CCMS system evaluation funding,” with the wording dictated over the phone by Senate staffer. That means that most of the $8.7 million voted by the council for a CCMS salvage effort is being taken away.
While a majority of Democrats on the committee supported the proposal, Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), went against them, withdrawing her support when she realized the council opposed the measure. As chair of the Senate’s judiciary committee, Evans also holds a non-voting seat on the council.
“It’s not a surprise,” said Presiding Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County. “It’s an easy target. CCMS is like shooting fish in a barrel.”
“I personally thought it was a project we had to put the brakes on and the council did, basically said ‘we’re done.’ All the council wants to do is salvage what had been developed, and what they could use.”
Herman would not comment on the legislative vote to cut the salvage money.
“The project is over, but this is not a laptop you can just turn it off,” he said. “You have to decommission the servers. There’s a staff cost to that.”
He urged against any interpretation saying the IT project is being resurrected — “This is not about the Phoenix rising out of the ashes of CCMS.”
Rosenberg also preferred not to comment directly on the budget committee’s vote to cut the salvage funds until he sees the final language of the resolution.
“Is it a big step into the realm of the Judicial Council? It is. There’s always a fine line between legislative authority and judicial branch authority,” he said. “But we’re seeing this year in stark color that the legislature and the governor absolutely control the purse strings of the judicial branch. This is arguably within their authority.”
Rosenberg said the mistake the judiciary made on the IT project was deciding to develop a completely new system. “Competition is good,” he said. “There are at least three or four off the shelf products and will do just fine.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/14/47478.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 14, 2012
There you go Judge Rosenberg: ““But we’re seeing this year in stark color that the legislature and the governor absolutely control the purse strings of the judicial branch. This is arguably within their authority.”
Now write it 500 times on a blackboard.
Wendy Darling
June 14, 2012
They just don’t get it at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Even when it’s served up on the proverbial silver platter, they just don’t get it.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 14, 2012
No chit. At least someone on the judicial council has a grasp of well rounded (non-toady version of) civics. It’s stuff like this that lurches Rosin bag back from a dgital purgatory fate.
Wendy Darling
June 14, 2012
And from today’s Twitter Feed at the Legal Pad, the legal blog of The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw:
Capital Accounts @CapitalAccounts
LA Superior Court to lay off 157 workers, move 108 others to three-day-a-week shifts.
http://twitter.com/#!/CapitalAccounts
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
June 14, 2012
Also from today’s Twitter Feed at the Legal Pad:
Capital Accounts @CapitalAccounts
Here’s the budget bill for CA’s judicial branch. http://ow.ly/bAc6D
http://twitter.com/#!/CapitalAccounts
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 14, 2012
The agenda for the JC meetings:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120622-agenda.pdf