The $10,000.00 estimate from the company that does not exist

Posted on January 18, 2011

9


Generator Follow Up – Rev 0.11.15.09[1]

Reference the above document link is the generator proposal for Michael Paul’s datacenter remodeling project at 455 Golden Gate.

There are hundreds of similarly labled documents floating around all of the courts for different projects. If you run this proposal by any lawyer who specializes in construction law, this “follow-up” which is a $10,000.00 paid estimate meets no legally required criteria, such as a contractors’ license being printed on it, a business address being printed on it or anything else legally required to be printed on a $189,000.00 proposal from a contractor to a customer. Also note the novel use of ABM’s red and blue logo, typically reserved for ABM being utilized around the word “Team” going to support the conclusion that ABM, who represents all of the “team jacobs” boots on the ground in 2/3rds of the states’ trial courts, was acting in the capacity of an improperly licensed contractor and part of a joint venture that requires its own seperate license. Unfortunately, the two entities operating as a joint venture only qualify for the lowest license held by either of them and for ABM, that would have permitted “Team Jacobs” provide only janitorial and maintenance services. One has to ask why, with full knowledge of the situation at hand, why did the AOC direct Peter Krause to ignore the existence of “Team Jacobs” in their own lawsuit against the vendor. The obvious conclusion is that there is something to hide. Follow the money by auditing the vendors in accordance with AOC contract provisions and you will discover what the AOC was trying to hide.

Note the date of the proposal. Mr. Paul had already been complaining about this entity working in the courts and endangering the lives of trial court employees and the public with their incompetent and unlicensed activity. Now he was being told that he must use “Team Jacobs” to complete this project.

The building management over at the Civic Center Complex also knew that “Team Jacobs” was unlicensed and was not about to let them do any work in the building without having the requisite licensure. The building is owned and operated by DGS.

Take a really good look at the proposal. This proposal was about $100,000.00 higher just 10 days before it was submitted to Michael Paul when it was first submitted to Dennis Leung who was at the time AOC’s Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing (MEP) eningeer.

Mr. Leung informed “Team Jacobs” in no uncertain terms that “the individual (Michael Paul) you are presenting this to is a budget hawk and this proposal will be dead on arrival” As a result, “Team Jacobs” lowered the estimate by $100,000.00. before presenting it to Mr. Paul.

This was an attempt by the AOC to entrap Michael Paul to the same crimes that OCCM’s FMU employees had been committing for years – repeated violations of B&P 7028.15. It is hard to blow the whistle when you are guilty of the same crime.

Mr. Paul rejected that proposal in an email and detailed out why he did so (and I intend on posting that email at the bottom of this thread when I find it…) Keeping in mind that the proposal was submitted in November, about a month before everything went public, Mr. Paul rightfully felt that he was being entrapped by his employer to intentionally violate California law.

On December 4th Michael sent out the following email.

  

From: Paul, Michael [mailto:Michael.Paul@jud.ca.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 8:36 AM
To: senator.corbett@senate.ca.gov; assemblymember.hayashi@assembly.ca.gov; George, Ronald; Vickrey, William; Overholt, Ron
Cc: assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov; assemblymember.lowenthal@senate.ca.gov; Judnick, John; Gyzmo
Subject: I am a Judicial Branch potential qui tam litigant

Dear Senator Corbett and Assemblymembers Hayashi, Strickland and Lowenthal, Chief Justice George, Executive Director Bill Vickery and assistant director Ron Overholt,
  
(Senator Corbett and Assemblymember Hayashi are my representatives. Assemblymember Strickland and Assemblymember lowenthal introduced whistleblower protections for AOC employees.)
  
My name is Michael Paul and I am a senior technical analyst for the Judicial Council of California, Administrative office of the Courts. I am a design engineer that works for information services and one of the the senior systems architects that designed the microsoft network utilized by the AOC, the Supreme and Appelllate courts. In my current role I support the Office of Court Construction & Management.
 
I have been employed by the AOC for the past 4 years and have a 7.5 year relationship with the AOC. I am also the principal designer for IT facilites statewide. I am a resident of San Leandro California and I am contacting you about something that should be of grave interest to you during the budgetary and investigative process regarding California’s Judicial Branch of Government. While I am aware that we are currently embroiled in a 1.something billion dollar controversy called CCMS or the Court Case Management System, unfortunately, this controversy is not what I am contacting you about.
 
The controversy that I am contacting you about is called the Office Of Court Construction & Management’s Facilities Management Unit, who is using unlicensed contractors to perform tens of millions of dollars of work to all 533 court buildings statewide.
 
Nearly overnight, this same branch administrative office has become one of California’s largest public works agencies with the transfer of some 533 courthouses from local county control to state control. These transfers involved inspections that were far less detailed than an appraisal inspection that one might get when refinancing their home. I know because I went on several of them to evaluate vairous building management systems. The issue with this is that these buildings were immediately turned over to service providers who provide a wide variety of operations, construction, remodeling and facility mod services for the AOC and are entrusted to operate these structures.
 
Well over 5 months ago, I blew the whistle on the Office of Court Construction & Managements Facilities Management Unit for using “Team Jacobs” as an unlicensed contractor to perform and provide maintainence, remodeling and construction services to 2/3rds of all courthouses in California and grossly overcharging us to do so. Since then, I have additionally learned that the other contractor maintaining the other 1/3rd of courthouses in California also lacks the requisite licensure that would permit them to act in the capacity of a contractor. This company, named AGS or Aleut Global Solutions maintains the other 1/3 of courthouses that “Team Jacobs” does not maintain, wrapping up the entire state with contractors that have no contractors licenses getting unlawfully diverted tens of millions of dollars in construction work. When I ask why this is, I can hear a pin drop amonst the many dozens of employees across the AOC who are cognizantly aware of this, including our own so-called “Confidential Fraud, Waste and Abuse Coordinator” who lives up to his title, John Judnick.
 
I am writing as a concerned citizen and in my capacity as a state employee as I am witnessing tens of millions of dollars of false claims being made against the states judicial branch for work they should not be paying for under Business & Professions Code 7031.  (Unlicensed contractors work for free) Under Business & Professions Code 7028.15, this mandated use of unlicensed contractors by management has subjected dozens of Facilities Management Unit’s employees for citations of up to $15,000.00 for repeatedly granting work to unlicensed contractors under the instruction of their management. Of course, they don’t have to worry about getting these citations from an executive branch office such as the Contractors State Licensing Board because the CSLB, and in fact, no one in state government is empowered to act upon any complaint.  I have called for an investigation of these matters that not only went through the “confidential fraud, waste and abuse coordinator” but they additionally went through my chain of command in Information Services all the way up to the directors level and the director of OCCM, Lee Willoughby is cognizantly aware of this.
 
It was short-circuited back to John Judnick in an effort to shut me up.
 
No dice.
 
More than a hundred people across the AOC are cognizantly aware of this and a few have worked to provide me additional proof and evidence of malfeasance.
 
I have suggested to the AOC that they should WELCOME ME to file a false claims suit as to indemnify members of the Judicial Branch from being implicated in being an accessory to the false claims but they have suggested below that they have already made a referral to the Attorney General. Frankly, I don’t believe the AOC has done this and have asked for proof. My reasoning for suggesting that the AOC has made no such AG referral is because the AG is entrusted to diligently investigate any such complaint and under prevailing laws and statutes, there is no immunity whatsoever for AOC employees being implicated in participating and colluding to unlawfully direct this work to unlicensed contractors that are often the highest or only bidders. Absolutely no aspect of public works laws is being adhered to with respect to Team Jacobs and AGS.
 
Since the AOC has allegedly made this AG referral as they have suggested, my attorneys and I seek to suppliment this complaint with all of the evidence we possess that we don’t believe Mr, Judnick has in his posession as while we have been investigating these matters for over a year, all he is doing is standing in the way for the past 5 months. We have asked for proof that he has filed. We have asked for his AG contact that is working the matter so we can forward evidence.
 
We believe Mr. Judnick is bluffing as to deter us from investigating and prosecuting the matter further.
 
Pursuant to government code 12653(a), I have requested the right to independently investigate these matters as perscribed by state law as an employee of the judicial branch that has uncovered malfeasance and so far, the AOC is playing pass interference and doing most everything possible to attempt to disqualify me as a potential qui tam litigant. They have adopted the policy and procedure of silence and inaction to thwart any attempt to further my complaint, they have attempted to assign the unlicensed contractor to my datacenter remodeling project at a price more than 150% of cost estimates and other quotations and have told me if I wish to have my project completed, this unlicensed contractor, team jacobs is whom I must use.
 
I reject that coersion categorically and pointed out to my coworkers in FMU that I will never approve the work of an unlicensed contractor under Business & Professions Code 7028.15 and suggested they did not either.
 
We.
 
Oh yes, perhaps I forgot to mention….
 
I am also President & Chief Technology Officer of an Interactive Media Group – a company that owns hundreds of websites, news and trade sites that are interlinked to hundreds of other websites – we manage yet hundreds more other websites for clients from offices worldwide. For all intents and purposes, I’m not only an AOC employee, I am the media as well and work with other media groups worldwide. Collectively, we have been working this story for well over a year and I have exercised vast restraint for the judicial branch in not publishing it in an effort to wake people up and say that these activities, from the very branch of government that is entrusted to protect the public from unscrupulous unlicensed contractors, is themselves utilizing unscrupulous unlicensed contractors statewide to maintain, remodel and renovate some 533 public buildings. They can get away with this because they are not required to pull county permits for the work (which only a licensed contractor can do) or undergo county inspections of that work. Because the AOC lacks their own competent construction code inspection team that inspects every single project, the AOC does not inspect the work either and there are allegations and some proof that some of the work the AOC was billed for was work that was either never completed or presents code or safety violations.
 
With that being said, except for bearing witness to continued malfeasance, I cherish my job and do not wish to lose that job. However I am stepping forward in an attempt at an immediate resolution to these matters. I would suggest that the AOC needs some competent, independent oversight and an entirely new investigative body to oversee their operations that is entirely independent of both the AOC and the Judicial Council themselves and that such a body should be created immediately and a forensic audit should be conducted and if they won’t permit us to move forward because they allege they are looking into a complaint they are not investigating, then the whole state and even the federal government should be asking why.
 
I suspect the reason the complaint itself is being stonewalled is the fact that the AOC’s FMU team is supposed to perform this due diligence before presenting it to judicial council members, standing members of the Judiciary, before any such approvals are made. The fact that the Judicial Council Subcommittee likely has no idea that any of these entities is unlicensed is a cause of grave concern for the AOC and this is the reason they will never act upon my complaint in a prudent and responsible manner just like they have not been doing for over 5 months.
 
Instead, they have been giving the unlicensed entities even more work!
 
Understand, I’m not a potential (state or federal) qui tam litigant for the money. I’m a potential qui tam litigant for the protections afforded me since the AOC exempts itself from the California Whistleblower Protection Act. Any judicial official has the right to not reward me for doing my job as a qui tam litigant even though my legal counsel should be paid, although in light of the extraordinary effort I have made to protect the Judicial Branch, all the stress, headaches, sleepless nights, threats to my continued employment and even my life, I probably deserve some compensation for 5 months of enduring this.
 
Below is a message thread, one of many with Mr. Judnick.
 
I am requesting for paid leave from my official duties to thoroughly investigate the extent of these false claims and am further requesting my legal counsel have full access to everything to conduct that investigation.
 
This cover-up needs to see some sunshine.
 

Michael A. Paul, MCSE, MCITP

Senior Technical Analyst, Information Services

IS-TSG | IT Facilities Design & Integration

Judicial Council of California

Administrative office of the Courts

455 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

O:415-865-4073 |Cell 510-684-8706

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

 
 

From: Paul, Michael
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:12 AM
To: Judnick, John
Cc: mpena@hershlaw.com; Gyzmo; san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov
Subject: RE: Records Request

Dear Mr. Judnick,
 
Im confused and I’m hoping you can answer six simple questions. If you look at the history of my allegations, not once will you find any recordation of me making any previous allegation against AGS or Emcor to you before the first email in this thread.
 
I’ve forwarded the allegations to my attorney regarding the unlicensed AGS, I have forwarded the allegations to the FBI regarding the unlicensed AGS.
 
I’ve never shared those allegations with you and, well, I’m ancient and blonde. I don’t recall sharing those with anyone you might have had any contact with.
 
1. Are you telling us that you took action and made an AG referral against a party I never previously mentioned to you in response to a complaint I never previously made to you?
 
2. Can you kindly explain how all four of these unlicensed entities (Jacobs Engineering & ABM DBA “Team Jacobs”) and aleut global solutions (AGS) are still getting millions of dollars worth of overpriced work unlawfully directed to them on a sole source basis 5 months after I filed my “Team Jacobs” complaint?
 
3. For clarification purposes: How many more months do you anticipate these unlawful diversions of public works and public funds to continue to unlicensed contractors?
 
4. Can you kindly explain how the AOC can make any claim or referral of false claims while the AOC themselves is involved in the unlawful act of employing unlicensed contractors on over 500 public projects?
  
5. Can you kindly show us the AG referral or provide us the name of your contact so we can verify that you have made these filings?
 
And now for the single most important question:
 
6. In whose hands does the decision rest to obey the law and fire the unlicensed contractors? Who is the responsible party because I need to be asking those people these questions.
 
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
 
 

From: Paul, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 4:47 PM
To: Judnick, John
Cc: mpena@hershlaw.com; Gyzmo; san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov
Subject: RE: Records Request

Mr. Judnick,

I have scheduled my attorneys time twice to find you unavailable when presented with times and dates that you previously gave me.  I have a busy schedule this week and will get with you after next Monday on a possible meeting. They have busy schedules and can’t afford to be rescheduled or hold blank spots in their schedules.  It has been suggested that you put these questions in writing as there is less opportunity for misunderstanding or your own interpretation of what was said.

With respect to the State Attorney Generals’ referral, I am the relator. Perhaps you can share a copy of that referral with my attorneys and I because there is a credibility gap that is growing by the day – most especially when the AOC assigns the unlicensed contractor as the sole source for my project in an attempt to implicate me as participating in a fraud,  thereby disqualifying me from pursuing the matter further while still employing that contractor and taking no action on the complaints.

If you still wish to meet, it will only be with my attorneys present. I would suggest contacting them via monica pena via the above email address to set up a 3rd appointment with me after ignoring two previous requests for an appointment until after the dates had passed.

Michael A. Paul, MCSE, MCITP

Senior Technical Analyst, Information Services

IS-TSG | IT Facilities Design & Integration

Judicial Council of California

Administrative office of the Courts

455 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

O:415-865-4073 |Cell 510-684-8706

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

 

From: Judnick, John
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 4:25 PM
To: Paul, Michael
Cc: mpena@hershlaw.com; Gyzmo; san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov
Subject: RE: Records Request

 

Mr. Paul:

I am referencing your information request to the appropriate AOC Divisions for review.

Be advised that the AOC has not concluded its inquiry into these issues.  As you know, I have been attempting to get you to meet with me to discuss “Team Jacobs” issues for more than a month.  This meeting as previously advised to you would allow me to put some parameters around the items you have provided to me and to define the scope of your complaints.  As I have told you previously, the purpose of the meeting is for me to obtain all information relating to these matters so that I can fully investigate them as necessary.  I continue to reiterate the request.  The need is to meet in person and I can reasonable allocate time if given some notice with the caveat that other matters come up that affect my schedule as they do yours.  Can you provide me some dates and times in the next week or two where you are available to meet.

You should also know that documentation gathered on the AGS and Jacobs matters have been referred to the California Attorney General for review and possible action on behalf of the AOC.

I will advise you once the AOC internal review has been completed.

John A. Judnick
Senior Manager
Internal Audit Services
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA  94102-3688
Phone (415) 865-7450, Fax (415) 865-4337, john.judnick@jud.ca.gov

www.courtinfo.ca.gov
 
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians”

From: Paul, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:18 AM
To: Judnick, John
Cc: mpena@hershlaw.com; Gyzmo; san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov
Subject: Records Request

 

Dear Mr. Judnick,

Pursuant to Government code 12653 (a), I am requesting copies of any and all records to include but are not limited to contracts, email, correspondence, invoices, copies of bid announcements, copies of bid awards, copies of actual bids, for all projects, any and all files, service work orders, proposals, contracts, cost estimates, disputes, warnings and claims made by any third party regarding any relationships between Jacobs Engineering or any affiliate, subsidiary or joint venture, including Team Jacobs, American Building Maintenence (ABM) as well as Alieut Global Solutions or AGS AND Emcor that exist between the AOC (California’s Administrative office of the Courts) or the Judicial Council of Califonia for the past 5 years.

Specific email is all current and archived evault and .pst files email going back for 5 years where @jacobs.com is the sender or recipient or @att.net is the sender or recipient (as used by “team Jacobs”) or the email addresses of AGS employees are the sender or recipient and @jud.ca.gov is the sender or recipient or any intteroffice email where the word “Jacobs”, “Team Jacobs” “ABM” or “AGS”  or “Emcor” is in any part of the email.

This is not a fishing expedition as the contractors state licensing boards website clearly indicates that not one of the entities currently providing construction services in over 500 buildings statewide under various contracts has a valid contractors license to do so and it appears the AOC quietly got rid of Emcor alleging false claims but chose not to pursue the matter.

I am the one of the branch enterprise systems administrators and one of the Microsoft architects that designed this electronic computer network here in the AOC. As such, I hope to work with all parties on the “email team”, which I am a part of, to produce, restore and preserve these records for purposes of furtherence of a false claims action against various respondents. As such, I know the production of a majority of these records to be an effortless task while others will require more effort. If you have been actively investigating this matter then you should be able to abbreviate this search considerably.

Interestingly, you have made no such similar request of my team nor do you have the proper permissions over networked systems to retrieve all those records yourself.

1. As I understand things, your cooperation in providing these records is obligatory under prevailing law because “fixing a license soon”  after 5 months of inaction does not rise to the level of pursuit of false claims already made and you failed to pursue Emcor altogether.

2. I am a government employee investigating what I believe to be crimes against the state. After 5 months of inaction from the AOC I am moving forward under 12652(d)(4) on my Team Jacobs complaint and you’ve taken no action whatsoever against Emcor so I expect that the AOC intends to resolve the licensure situation by simply not renewing the contract and not exposing the AOC’s ignorance by not pursuing the false claims made.

3. As I am a government employee when I made this lawful request, there should be no charge for me to retrieve or reproduce these records as I am making this request as a government employee. Should that employment status change, these records should still be produced at no charge as I made this request as a government employee in furtherance of the prosecution of false claims made against the judicial branch.

4. These records will be held in the same degree of trust and confidence that I hold all information in my capacity of being an enterprise systems administrator. However, they will also be shared with my legal counsel and may be shared with appropriate investigators and state and federal law enforcement. 

Please be kind enough to “reply to all” with your reply.

Thank You

Michael Paul

Senior Technical Analyst,

Information Services Division

510-684-8706

California Government Code section § 12653. Employer interference with employee disclosures, etc.; liability of employer; remedies of employee

 

(a) No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency or from acting in furtherance of a false claims action, including investigating, initiating, testifying, or assisting in an action filed or to be filed under Section 12652. 

_______________________________________________________________

As previously indicated, when I found the email rejecting the proposal, I would post it.

__________________________________________________________

From: Paul, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 7:46 AM
To: Paul, Michael; Leung, Dennis; McCrea, James
Cc: Cimino, Nick; Derr, Michael; McGrath, Patrick; Gilleran, Patrick
Subject: SFO-UPS : More

Under Business and Professions Code 7028.15 we as public employees are obligated to reject estimates that lack proof that the contractors are licensed. In fact, each and every one of us carries the obligation to check licensure with the contractors state licensing board on any contractor that gives us a proposal, estimate or bid.
  
According to Business & Professions Code 7028.15, such bids or proposals are to be declared non responsive and are to be rejected by public employees. The penalty for not doing so is codified in 7028.7 –
  
A citation of up to $15,000.00 for the public employee who fails to verify proper licensure before entering into an agreement for work or any contract.
 
I checked. Not a single party in this proposal has the requisite licensure that would permit them to perform the work making the proposal a misdemeanor.
 
Please check with your own personal attorneys before you proceed.
 

From: Paul, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:35 PM
To: Paul, Michael; Leung, Dennis; McCrea, James
Cc: Cimino, Nick; Derr, Michael; McGrath, Patrick; Gilleran, Patrick; ‘Tom Lighthouse’
Subject: RE: RE:SFO-UPS Next Step Path Forward???

Correction below

Michael A. Paul, MCSE, MCITP

Senior Technical Analyst, Information Services

IS-TSG | IT Facilities Design & Integration

Judicial Council of California

Administrative office of the Courts

455 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

O:415-865-4073 |Cell 510-684-8706

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

 

From: Paul, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:17 PM
To: Leung, Dennis; McCrea, James
Cc: Cimino, Nick; Derr, Michael; McGrath, Patrick; Gilleran, Patrick; ‘Tom Lighthouse’
Subject: RE: RE:SFO-UPS Next Step Path Forward???

 

I’ve thoroughly vetted the Jacobs Proposal and find it lacking.

1.       Transformer types are undefined and currently only spell out one transformer

2.       The ATS switch is currently powering the entire carpenters shop and the proposal does not address this

3.       The re-use of an existing electrical panel in the IS room is unacceptable. An entirely new panel, with new breakers EPO’ed back to the closest closet is required both from a “I have no circuits left” standpoint.

4.       Delete 1st floor electrical requirements altogether.

5.       Re-calculate the entire electrical budget as you can’t get there from here. There is more load than there is power supplying it.

6.       Drop all HVAC *except* the MPOE from the proposal as this would require extensive interfacing with existing fire dampers and air control systems to manage the IDFs on floors 3 and 5.

7.       NUMEROUS cost estimates indicate the quoted work to be well over 100% over other cost estimates done internally.

8.       A list of subcontractors to be utilized, their roles and what they are doing towards this project and the percentage of work / dollar value going to each contractor is not present.

9.       New panels will be required in 3 IDF’s to power the POE switches. These are not called out, the source voltages powering them are not called out.

10.   Please re-scope and re-quote the project as all the assumptions made by the existing proposal are defective. Contact me for a further onsite explanation and walk through.

11.   Please identify all contractors, engineers and architects utilized to manage and execute this project by their DBA, their current California license numbers and their physical addresses as Government Business & Professions code 7028 requires us to consider the proposal non-responsive and reject the proposal without this information.

12.   Please price this proposal for work to be performed mid-day with only minimal after hours work.

If there are any questions, I am available this week Thursday and the first part of Friday. I am available in the afternoon Monday and am available by cell anytime.

Michael A. Paul, MCSE, MCITP

Senior Technical Analyst, Information Services

IS-TSG | IT Facilities Design & Integration

Judicial Council of California

Administrative office of the Courts

455 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

O:415-865-4073 |Cell 510-684-8706

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

 

From: Leung, Dennis
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:37 PM
To: McCrea, James; Paul, Michael
Cc: Cimino, Nick; Derr, Michael; McGrath, Patrick; Gilleran, Patrick; ‘Tom Lighthouse’
Subject: RE:SFO-UPS Next Step Path Forward???
Importance: High

 

Hello Jim,

The SFO UPS scope of work has been defined and I am waiting for a path forward  IS and FM decision to proceed and receive authorized funding, ($ 200K)  to proceed immediately. It has been approximately 2 weeks, what additional information required to make a decision to go or not go.  I would like to release Team Jacobs’ to complete the reminding 15% of the design and obtain a third party peer review prior to submission to the DGS and Cal Fire. Please advise ASAP.

Thanks,

Dennis Leung, MEP Engineering Group
Facilities Management / Design and Construction Services
Office of Court Construction and Management
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 8331-03
San Francisco, California, 94102-3688
415-865-4045  Fax 415-865-8885
Dennis.Leung@jud.ca.gov
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov

“Serving the courts for benefits of all Californians”