Seal of the United States Department of Justice (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In case you haven’t heard, the United States Department of Justice investigators are interviewing certain AOC employees both yesterday and today, possibly in connection with the AOC re-purposing funds for court interpreters.
A suggestion to DOJ investigators: Don’t stop there. Trace every federal dollar in every program. Trace every dollar to the vendors. Make sure that those investigators review this site in its entirety.
It will cause them more questions that need to be answered and will eventually lead to indictments.
Perhaps an active federal investigation is the reason for the judges in this state suddenly going quiet, for they wouldn’t wish to risk commenting on pending or impending litigation. * CONFIRMED
Related articles
- Buying time in the hope that you’ll give up or forget has consequences (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The Long Beach boondoggle gets more press coverage (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Legal complaint behind the investigation (scribd)
From: Gutierrez, Pamela
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 2:15 PM
To: AOC OGC – San Francisco; AOC COSSO
Subject: DOJ Interviews
Importance: High
“Please be aware that in connection with an investigation of AOC by the US Department of Justice, attorneys from USDOJ are conducting interviews in a conference room on 5 today and tomorrow. Be mindful that conversations about confidential matters not be overheard and that confidential documents not be left out in the open.
Many thanks,
Linda Foy”
Linda Q. Foy
Supervising Attorney, Labor and Employment Unit
Legal Services Office
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
415-865-xxxx
Pamela Gutierrez
+++++++++++++
Got an anonymous tip? https:\\forms.hush.com\judicialcouncilwatcher
courtflea
December 11, 2012
Are interperters federally funded?? I know they are for AB1058 authorized programs but the average case type? Thats a new one for me. I’d like to hear more about that or is this in relation a misuse of funds in general? Very interesting!
wearyant
December 11, 2012
For some good background info, check here, Flea
http://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/the-lack-of-court-interpreters-issue/
My memory is faulty, but somewhere around the time of the consolidation of the courts, the interpreters were wooed and assured of their importance by a nefarious then CEO and then somehow the interpreter funding was subsequently “swept” up by the AOC for their use, purposes and finagling. I’m happy to be corrected by better and more informed info.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 11, 2012
According to Linda Foy, they have lots to hide…….
wearyant
December 11, 2012
Ya know, that communication from Foy was especially sickening and grating on the nerves. You’d the the DOJ was the equivalent of the KGB, and the AOC have, oh, so many important secrets. Excuse me, I’ve got to locate that barf bag. Those stupid AOC management and their overblown sense of importance …
Wendy Darling
December 11, 2012
It’s their arrogance, Ant, that is truly atrocious.
wearyant
December 11, 2012
Sometimes looking back, we can portend the future …
http://www.scribd.com/doc/116431501/121211-State-Employee-Audit
This is taken from the Appendix:
================================================
California State Auditor Report December 2012
Improper Governmental Activities identified by the State Auditor
Since 1993, when the state auditor activated the hotline, it has
identified improper governmental activities totaling $31.2 million.
These improper activities include theft of state property, conflicts
of interest, and personal use of state resources. For example, the
state auditor reported in September 2005 that a supervisor at
the Military Department embezzled at least $132,523 in state funds
over an eight-year period. As another example, the state auditor
reported in September 2007 that the California Highway Patrol
wasted $881,565 in state funds when it purchased 51 vans that
remained unused for more than two years. The investigations have
also substantiated improper activities that cannot be quantified
in dollars but have had negative social impacts. Examples include
violations of fiduciary trust, failure to perform mandated duties,
and abuse of authority.
===================================================
How about the reference to embezzlement? Apparently that’s not a crime in AOC’s HR department. How about the CHiPs found to have wasted $881,565 in state funds? Ya think the CCMS boondoggle was a splash in the pail? It seems to have passed us all by with a shrug of the AOC’s shoulder. Oh, well. And negative social impacts? Ha! That’s a whole ‘nother post by attorneys who give a damn about justice. I should get a Halpin award for that zinger.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
December 12, 2012
Dear Wearyant, I know Jack Halpin… matter of fact, I personally observed Halpin just yesterday sadistically misusing his robes (again) to “beat-up” a defenseless old man – and you, Wearyant, are no Jack Halpin.
As a negatively-impacted son of Shadowy Shasta County – Home of the JACK HALPIN AWARD! – I regret to inform you, Wearyant, that you have not sunk anywhere near the requirements to covet the notorious JACK HALPIN AWARD!
1.) That award is only bestowed upon those whom embody the most lucrative & self-protective of Black Collar Criminality.
2.) and/or, to those whom rubber-stamp the wasteful likes of LONG-TERM Assigned Judges like HALPIN, LAMB, et al.
3.) and/or, to retired judges looking for a highlight on their CVs for an approach toward a double-dipping salary and Directorship.
However, if you should ever consider turning to the dark-side of the AOC/JC/CJ Force, you may have a shot. (Great post!
[Today is DAY 642... but who's counting?]
wearyant
December 12, 2012
Awards are to be given out at the end of the week. We all will be waiting with baited breath
for the accompanying comedic comments alongside …. Thanks for your kind remarks and sorry for your continuing anguish.
courtflea
December 11, 2012
What is AOC COSSO?
unionman575
December 11, 2012
COSSO….
The Court Operations Special Services Office (COSSO)
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-rec-64.pdf
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-rec-123.pdf
Larry Hohol
December 11, 2012
My experience is that the DOJ will not ask the right questions. They are part of the problem. Holder and Company are keeping very tight chains on all investigations that have any sort of negative political ramifications. How do I know this? How can I make such a claim? I have had numerous FBI Agents tell me this as fact and did so independently of each other. I am trying to get a DOJ Investigation started in Penna pertaining to the most obvious case of police brutality and official state coverup that I have ever seen and the DOJ simply continues to sit on their hands with no explanation as to why they are not moving forward. Please go to YouTube and watch: Worse Than Rodney King. Good luck, you are going to need it.
Wendy Darling
December 11, 2012
Published today, Tuesday, December 11, from Legal Pad, the legal blog of The Recorder, by Cheryl Miller:
Trial Court Funding Study? Don’t Expect Much
[Cheryl Miller]
The Trial Court Funding Workgroup met for the second time on Tuesday, and it quickly became apparent that observers who are looking to the 10 panelists for sweeping recommendations to change California’s court financing system are probably watching the wrong show.
At its inaugural meeting on Nov. 6, the group talked about choosing two or three courts of similar size to compare their budgets, caseloads and staffing levels. At Tuesday’s meeting the proposal never surfaced for discussion. Last month state Finance Director Ana Matosantos said she would suggest a more specific scope for the group’s vaguely defined work assignment. As of Tuesday, the Finance Department, no doubt consumed now with drafting the state budget, had not provided any more specificity.
Asked about the group’s endgame, co-chair Phillip Isenberg on Tuesday said only, “Have you read the charge sheet?”
That “charge,” as defined by the governor’s revised May budget, is to evaluate the state’s compliance with the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act, which, among other things, shifted court funding responsibility from the counties to the state. The group, the budget said, “will conduct a statewide analysis of workload metrics, staffing standards, and other relevant data necessary to support a more uniform and efficient administrative system for the judiciary.”
On Tuesday, that translated into giving Jody Patel, chief of staff of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a huge work assignment, including summarizing areas where there has been uniformity among court services and looking for ways to measure the funding act’s promise of equal access to justice in the trial courts.
How that will translate into any final recommendations is unclear. What is clear is that there seems to be little appetite among group members to dictate a standardized workload for an individual court or judge. And that may disappoint some historically underfunded courts.
“Disparate impacts upon access to justice from county to county will continue until workload is considered when making funding decisions,” leaders from Lake County Superior Court wrote in a Dec. 7 letter to the working group. The court’s presiding judge, assistant presiding judge and executive officer said they have had to reduce staffing by 35 percent, furlough workers and slash public hours while “some trial courts have been able to maintain services to the public and provide wage and benefit increases to staff.”
“Without funding based at least in large part on workload, there cannot be equal justice for all Californians,” the Lake County court leaders wrote.
The working group meets again on Jan. 15. Members are expected to produce a report on their findings by April.
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/12/trial-court-funding-study-dont-expect-much.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+legalpad_feed+%28Legal+Pad%29
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 11, 2012
And now another word from San Bernardino CEO and former AOC Money Man Steve Nash…
http://www.sb-court.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=YPIDlNAlO3o%3d&tabid=40&mid=395
San Bernardino Superior Court Announces the
Second Phase of Cost Reduction Measures
With over $22 million less in state funding this year, the San Bernardino
Superior Court has implemented a series of cost reduction measures intended
to close an operating shortfall by the end of this fiscal year. The first phase of
these operational changes was announced in July of 2012; those actions
included the closure of Chino Courthouse, effective January 1, 2013, reductions
of court clerk’s office hours countywide, reductions of administrative staff, as
well as other related actions. Three experienced assigned judges are being
released this month. Even with those and other related changes, the court is
still projecting a deficit next year that could exceed $13 million next year.
Today the Court announces the second phase of measures intended to
address this financial challenge.
The following plan has been vetted through the San Bernardino Superior Court
Judicial Executive Committee and will become effective May 6, 2013:
• Barstow courthouse will close, shutting all four courtrooms. This will
result in the loss of 22 positions.
• Needles and Big Bear courthouses will close. These courthouses had
recently been reduced to three days per month, but will now be closed.
• Civil and juvenile delinquency cases and dependency drug court will no
longer be heard in the Victorville District. Those cases will be heard in
other courthouses to provide room for other cases from Barstow that will
now be heard in Victorville.
• Based upon a review of overall staffing, Juvenile court will reduce staff
by four positions overall. Likewise, restructuring of court administration
will result in three additional layoffs.
• Court reporters will no longer be assigned to specific departments but
will be assigned from a pool as needed. The court plans to continue to
provide court reporters for civil law and motion and trials, to the extent
sufficient resources are available.
• Unlawful detainers and small claims currently heard in San Bernardino
will now be heard in the Fontana Courthouse. Unlawful detainers
currently heard in Rancho Cucamonga will be heard in the Fontana
Courthouse.
The following changes are also being implemented and will take place prior to
May 6, 2013:
• The juvenile court will no longer accept direct filings of informal juvenile
matters; these filings will be addressed directly through probation.
Night court services will no longer be provided in the county.
In total, it is planned that these and related actions will result in a reduction of approximately 44 staff, and will save a projected $5.3 million per year. “The severe funding cuts made to our budget result in the need to take these painful steps. We are cognizant of the impact that these actions will have upon the bar and citizens of this county who have business in the court, especially for people who live some distance from the remaining courthouses. The simple fact is that we can no longer afford to support as many court locations, or support as many services as in the past.” Said Marsha Slough, the Presiding Judge of San Bernardino County.
The closure of Barstow, Needles, and Big Bear courthouses will mean that people living in a large swathe of San Bernardino County will no longer have a courthouse within a reasonable distance from their homes, leaving many facing hardships to get to court, given very limited public transportation and distances that can exceed three hours in driving time, each way.
San Bernardino is one of the most under-resourced courts in the state, and has been outspoken at the state level regarding the impact of cuts upon the state’s poorest courts and their communities.
“Our court has been operating on a shoestring budget for many years. Now the state is taking away the shoe strings.” said Judge Larry Allen, the court’s Assistant Presiding Judge.
In addition to the court’s funding problems, the court faces the largest shortfall of judges of any county in the state. Based on the state Judicial Council’s statewide judicial needs study, which was released on October 25, 2012, the court should have approximately 156 judicial officers (judges and commissioners) but currently has 91, a shortfall of almost 65 judges, or 42%. This means that judges in San Bernardino face caseloads that are substantially larger than in most other jurisdictions in California. This severe problem, for the court, also represents a hope for the future. “We continue to encourage the Legislature and the Governor to approve funding for needed judges and staffing. If and when the court receives adequate funding, it will be a court priority to reopen the Barstow Courthouse, in order to reestablish needed court access in that part of the county.” said Judge Slough.
For now, though, the outlook for the court is for further reductions of operations and services. “All of the actions that the court has announced up to now are not enough to balance our budget next year. We will need to identify additional cuts to operations before next fiscal year begins.
Unfortunately, there is more bad news to come. ” said Stephen Nash.
San Bernardino Superior Court currently has 954.5 staff. The court has a current year budget of $105.2 million.
Michael Paul
December 12, 2012
A three hour drive to the nearest courthouse is unconscionable. If they think they had a problem before collecting ticket revenue, watch what happens when customers have a three hour drive in one direction to take care of a ticket. Those billions in uncollected fines is about to turn into tens of billions. Cops won’t wish to write citations that may be contested or take people in on bench warrants unless they’re big money because a cop that has a three hour drive to the courthouse is a whole days loss to the community.
Sacramento needs to find some leadership to address these issues because it’s obvious that the Judicial Council has other priorities.
unionman575
December 12, 2012
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/barstow-38077-close-courthouse.html
Barstow courthouse to close in May
Local litigants could face delays, longer trips
December 11, 2012 12:51 PM
Long lines and packed courtrooms are common sights at the Victorville courthouse, while defendants and victims often have to wait months or years to get their cases resolved.
But it could get worse.
The Barstow courthouse will close in May as part of ongoing cost reduction measures, the San Bernardino County Superior Court announced Tuesday. Criminal and family law cases in Barstow will be sent to Victorville, while civil and juvenile cases in Victorville and Barstow will be transferred to courthouses down the Cajon Pass.
That could mean delays at the already jammed Victorville courthouse and longer trips for local civil litigants plus juveniles and their parents.
The county’s Superior Court, operated by the state, faced $22 million in state funding cuts this year. That’s about 20 percent of the 2011-12 budget.
“We are cognizant of the impact that these actions will have upon the bar and citizens of this county who have business in the court, especially for people who live some distance from the remaining courthouses,” San Bernardino County Presiding Judge Marsha Slough said in a statement. “The simple fact is that we can no longer afford to support as many court locations or support as many services as in the past.”
The following plan will become effective May 6:
• All four courtrooms in Barstow will close, resulting in the loss of 22 positions.
• The Needles and Big Bear courthouses, operating three days per month, will close.
• The court will cut an additional seven positions countywide.
Night court services will be eliminated countywide prior to May 6.
The first phase of cuts was announced in July, which included the closure of the Chino courthouse,
reductions of court clerk’s office hours and reductions of administrative staff.
Despite these measures, the San Bernardino County Superior Court is projected to lose more than $13 million in 2013, according to court officials.
Acting Chief Deputy Public Defender Mark Shoup said it’s too soon to tell how the changes will affect criminal courts in Victorville, where courtrooms and judges need to be reconfigured.
Victorville family law attorney Greg Zumbrunn also said it’s too soon to tell the impact on family courts. But the process could slow down because Barstow has more self-represented litigants than in the Victor Valley, he said.
Each family court judge in Victorville has 30 to 60 cases per day. Litigants in child custody cases usually have to wait three months or more to get a hearing, Zumbrunn said.
“No question we’ll be impacted, but to what extent, I don’t know,” Zumbrunn said.
Because Victorville will no longer have civil courts, litigants from the High Desert will have to drive to either San Bernardino or Rancho Cucamonga to get their cases heard.
Brian Morgan, who’s been practicing civil law in the Victor Valley for 35 years, said local litigants will have to pay more for gas, witnesses and attorneys than people in other parts of the county. Taxpayers bear more burden when local cities and school districts get involved in lawsuits, he said.
“Why aren’t the citizens of the desert entitled to drive to a local courthouse in the same manner that the residents of San Bernardino or Rancho Cucamonga and other cities are?” Morgan said. “We bear the entire burden of balancing the budget. Citizens of our community should be outraged. People already can’t afford the cost of access to justice.”
Small claim cases will still be heard in Victorville, San Bernardino County Court Executive Officer Stephen Nash said.
San Bernardino County has some of the most under-resourced courts in the state. Each judge on average has the second highest caseload in California behind Imperial County, according to the 2010 Court Statistics Report.
Tomoya Shimura may be reached at (760) 955-5368 or TShimura@VVDailyPress.com. Follow Tomoya on Facebook at facebook.com/ShimuraTomoya.
unionman575
December 12, 2012
Ana Matosantos, Director of the California Department of Finance & Governor Brown will have their private fireside chat today in Sacramento with Tani this morning…that ought to be a fun time for all involved…
Judicial Council Watcher
December 12, 2012
Matosantos, Jahr, Cantil-Sakauye and Brown should all know our survey results.
50% of respondents indicate that the state should walk away from this project.
27.7% of respondents indicate that this project should be paid for only with AOC allocations.
11% indicate that the general fund should pick up the tab
11% indicate that the state court construction fund should pick up the tab.
While the poll is non-scientific it is reflective of what judicial branch employees think about this project from justices on down to front counter clerks.
You’ll note that the council’s alleged leadership has endorsed the least popular choice and the one that will cost courts the most in real terms.
Michael Paul
December 12, 2012
Re: Investigators -
Denying people their civil rights to an interpreter is a big deal and one that gets everyone’s attention. While I would hope that there is far more to this investigation than meets the eye, like looking into why the AOC and company intentionally threw a case against their unlicensed contractors for the sole purpose of shielding AOC management for wrongdoing, or why a crime report was never filed on a hundred thousand dollar embezzlement also to shield AOC management, I don’t think they’re going to clean up the problems.
Now we have Justice Hill shielding AOC management by implying that the legislature promised to pick up the rent payment at long beach. Before that, Justice Bruniers shielding AOC management by telling people V4 works.
There is a clearly discernible pattern here people and it is not only in your head. This is what public corruption looks like.
unionman575
December 12, 2012
Yes Michael “This is what public corruption looks like.”
JusticeCalifornia
December 12, 2012
I wonder how many of the assigned judges being let go are of the controversial “longterm” variety.
I wonder if it’s a crime for the Office of the Chief Justice to intentionally and repeatedly violate the public’s fundamental CA Constitutional (Article 2) suffrage rights. . . . .
You know, the right to vote for judges as set forth in the CA Constitution, Article 6, section 16 (b) and (c). The Governor and the Legislature are not allowed to infringe on those rights. But, in a stunning display of hubris, the Office of the Chief Justice has been doing it for decades. How ironic.
I do believe there is going to be a public showdown about this, one way or another. The time has come, the time is now. The Constitutional and financial abuses of the $26 million Assigned Judges Program have gone on way too long, after far too many complaints and warnings to the Office of the Chief Justice.
The Legislative and Executive branches are going to have to step up and call out the Office of the Chief Justice in order to protect the public regarding this issue. . . .
I seem to recall a non-spoliation request regarding the assigned judges program was made to the AOC. . . .
unionman575
December 12, 2012
And now a word from Kim Turner, Marin Superior’s CEO about INTERPRETERS…
The California Constitution mandates that a person unable to understand English who is charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings. Courts must provide specially trained language interpreters for witnesses, victims, and defendants who understand little or no English. This mandate has been broadened to include juvenile delinquency, certain civil and family law matters involving a protective order, and child custody and visitation proceedings. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing are entitled to an interpreter for all court proceedings, whether criminal or civil. Because of the high number of Spanish speaking defendants in traffic court, the Court usually provides an interpreter for traffic hearings as well. The cost of mandatory court interpreters is borne by the Court.
Court interpreters are available in many languages and dialects. Some of the most common languages include Spanish, Arabic, Eastern Armenian, Western Armenian, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Portuguese, Russian, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and American Sign Language.
The Court provides interpreters for all of the case types described above. For civil, small claims, probate, juvenile dependency and certain family law matters, it is up to the parties to provide their own interpreters.
The Court’s Local Rule 3.15 states that an individual who is entitled to and requires the assistance of a court interpreter must notify the Court at least three calendar days before the hearing. The Court’s Interpreter Coordinator may assist with names and telephone numbers of certified and registered interpreters for individuals who do not qualify for a Court-provided interpreter.
Often, the need for a court interpreter is not known until the first court hearing. Following an examination of a defendant, party or witness, the Court may determine that the individual does not understand English or does not speak English well enough to be understood by the Court, counsel and the jury. The Interpreter Coordinator then makes arrangements to have an interpreter present in Court for the next hearing date.
http://www.marincourt.org/court_interpreters.htm
unionman575
December 12, 2012
I am clear that the Death Star has KNOWLEDGE of its obligations to provide access.
But it has failed to do so…WHY????
DOJ will dig around up there at Death Star HQ.
I say to DOJ, “Go for it”.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Fact_Sheet-_Court_Interpreters.pdf
wearyant
December 12, 2012
Ahh, Unionman575, the knowledgeable cynics know WHY The Death Star ignores their obligations. If the obligation costs them money and they think they can get away with ignoring their obligations, especially federal laws, The Death Star will choose to ignore, obfuscate, and — well, they’ll break the law. No one calls them on it so it’s full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, who the hell cares about justice for the huddled and unwashed masses? The Death Star apparently holds unfettered and total power. And it has corrupted. Big surprise. I hope someone calls them on it and shocks everyone here.
unionman575
December 12, 2012
I hope the DOJ calls them on their shit!
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2012
Some of us are hoping that the DOJ indicts them for their sh*t.
Long live the ACJ.
URBANTRUTH
December 13, 2012
DOJ or somebody need to go in their and look through every piece of paper at the AOC especially in HR. Working at the AOC is just like working for the mob. For the first round of layoff they offered VSIP and then for the second round they offered it with unemployment. What kinda crap is that? They should have came up with a solid plan to fit the situation acorss the board. They need to be sued for all the back-handed crap that goes on in there. No worries though because every dog gets its day. Case in point Ernest Fuentes…….no bad deed goes unpunished.
Wendy Darling
December 13, 2012
“Case in point Ernest Fuentes…….no bad deed goes unpunished.”
Yeah, Ernesto “Bluto” Fuentes laughs every month when he gets his over-inflated PERS check. That’s hardly “punishment” for all the lives he ruined and all his unethical conduct at 455 Golden Gate Avenue (done with the blessing of the Office of the Chief Justice and the AOC Director).
And you are absolutely correct, UrbanTruth: working at the AOC is just like working for the mob.
It’s exactly like that.
Long live the ACJ.
URBANTRUTH
December 13, 2012
OOPS WAS TYPING TO FAST BUT , YOU KNOW WAT I MEAN
wearyant
December 13, 2012
Omerta, you are missed. Merry Christmas, All posters and trolls!