“He who fails to plan is planning to fail”
– Winston Churchill, WWII
We remain puzzled by the desire to move forward on the software boondoggle and court construction when several years of a bad economy have so eroded trial court funding. More puzzling is the leadership of the third branch that appears to be unwilling to authorize further offsets to fund the trial courts. On July 22, the JC, faced with serious budgetary constraints that impact the other two branches of government appeared to have ignored dire economic warnings, assuming another four billion in revenue would materialize in the next four months. They have, in fact assumed a rosier economic outlook during the entire financial downturn, advising trial courts to spend their reserves to keep their operations afloat. They’ve granted a few privileged classes of employees two raises and about a year ago granted everyone at the AOC a retroactive raise. Now we hear that the most senior amongst the AOC also gets free paid parking privileges at either of the two parking garages next to 455 Golden Gate. We also hear they these privileged few get 100% of their employee contribution of their pensions paid for by their employer, they all have smartphones and a majority now have iPads.
Even with the addition of a recently announced furlough day and announced future downsizing, the self-dealers in the AOC want you to know that not only are you in on the joke but the joke is on you. Targeted are not the lawyer temps brought on board. Targeted not are any of the other high-priced consultants in Information Services.
Last week a few economic reports came out, one that said that job growth was anemic – but there was some job growth – more than what was expected and another that downgraded the U.S. national debt. It appears that in the judicial council’s planning for the next few months, they’ve also determined the ground floor of future cuts, unwilling to compromise any of those same programs to prevent those cuts from hitting the steps of trial courts.
Ground floor of future cuts?
Delayed was a decision to implement cuts of over 15% to the trial courts for next year. It’s pretty obvious where the judicial council priorities lie so it’s also pretty obvious than an even larger cut is a virtual certainty without legislative guidance on how these cuts are to be distributed. We’re going to predict a mid-year adjustment of an additional 100 million in judicial branch budget cuts minimum. These additional cuts will be based on a revenue shortfall. By all internal reports coming out of the AOC, it is business as usual. Things have only changed with respect to a slight atmosphere of uncertainty amongst some of the lowest paid workers. For the privileged few and all of their pet projects, everything is full steam ahead as if there were no economic impact to the AOC whatsoever. The long-term overpriced consultants that have consulted for a half dozen years or more still consult. The AOC still relies on paying outside consultants to justify and provide cover for their decisions as if nothing has changed.
Was the June 22nd judicial council meeting planning for legacy or economic catastrophe in the third branch?
Was this the kind of stable funding source in the state that everyone signed up for?
Was it the “justice system” the voters signed up for?
Is this a plan to try to preserve King George’s legacy or a plan to fail so spectacularly that the third branch will need a bailout?
The California Case Management System was a project that was started in 2002. It has yet to be delivered and is not functioning as an all-case management platform in any one court anywhere in California.
The Boeing Dreamliner 7X7 project was commenced on February 29, 2003 and just yesterday, August 6th 2011 the first production 787 Dreamliner left the Everett, Washington production hangar.
…
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
August 7, 2011
“Was it the “justice system” the voters signed up for?” Here’s my answer: NO.
=)
Judicial Council Watcher
August 7, 2011
Someone is having fun with the post and comment rating system.
antonatrail
August 7, 2011
The latest disgusting news from Ventura CA:
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/aug/07/ventura-county-court-officials-applaud-state
Blech.
SF Whistle
August 7, 2011
Hey Ant–
Thanks for this interesting link—
One truly is required to acknowledge journalistic excellence when the very brave Ventura County Star can publish this Valentine to the AOC / CCMS based upon the word of “Judge Glen Reiser”…How cool ..”all lawyers love it”…and blah-blah-blah….The VC Star has managed to use a couple of quotes from one cheerleader and not trouble themselves to interview so much as a single attorney in the area—all of whom we must assume are home asleep…. in love with the CCMS and pleased that we no longer have courts with staff and lights on….truly a new highwater mark for journalism…..
Resier is a well-known suck-up lacky where CCMSs concerned—-It is intersting to note that in May of 2010 he was quoted stating…
Asked whether the big CCMS computer project should be put on hold until the judicial branch’s finances are more stable and courthouses can remain open, Reiser said, “It’s a political issue and a business issue. It is not prudent to put the project on hold. But it is important to keep the courts open. How to meld the two together, that’s for the politicians to decide.”
antonatrail
August 9, 2011
It’s a frickin’ mystery to me! I wonder if something’s in the water in Ventura. To think I considered journalism when I was a sprout. It appears to me the reporter is afraid to really report. But why the judges would be supportive of a beastly boondoggle that is sure to make their lives miserable at work is beyond me! I can’t imagine what the quid pro quo could be. There’s gotta be something more going on … CCMS doesn’t work! The people who work with it, the judicial assistants, say it doesn’t! The AOC is gonna have to give up their sick dream of utter control. And meanwhile, our tax dollars are swirling around the bowl while they continue to fight against the cold hard facts.
Delilah
August 8, 2011
Talk about disgusting news.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18590270?source=rss
Woo-Hoo!
antonatrail
August 9, 2011
With the little miss’s comments as she made this revolting appointment, I am finally persuaded there is no hope for the third branch as long as she is at the helm. I wonder how much suffering we all will have to endure before we’re rid of her. Ugh.
anonymous
August 8, 2011
Fast facts:
It only took 5 years to deliver two F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and award the production contract to Lockheed.
The software on both the Dreamliner and the joint strike fighter are more complicated than CCMS.
Microsoft has rolled out Windows XP, Windows 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008 and Windows 7 in the same time frame the AOC has had to develop CCMS.
sharonkramer
August 8, 2011
State Bar elects new president. John Streeter from San Francisco.
http://www.calbarjournal.com/August2011/TopHeadlines/TH3.aspx
robin
August 8, 2011
The only reason they want this system is so that the AOC and the Judicial Council will be able to monitor case files and then delete or strike papers filed with the courts. In San Diego Judge Dato just admitted to a party and their attorney that a secret docket exists and a secret clerk struck a motion. Hello? Since when does a clerk get to strike anything. It’s a crime for anyone to tamper with the “court files” let alone strike or remove moving papers on behalf of an opposing party. The attorney then inquired and filed a request to have this person exposed and reported to the District Attorney. Not only did the “phantom clerk” engage in the unlicensed practice of law, they impersonated a judge, by issuing an order. No notice was sent to any of the parties, and Judge Dato just said he was baffled. Hello, these judges are acting as if they don’t control their own cases. Since when are secret dockets able to exist? This is a case that the plaintiffs won, and now the AOC and the CJC are trying to cover for the State Bar, because the State Bar stated that this case was remanded, based on attorney misconduct, [Phil Kay] and now the plaintiffs are seeking and entitled to Attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil rights law, because in fact they won their case.. This was all put on the record, where the judge admits that there is a “super duper” secret docket, and the clerks are allowed to do this. When questioned further, the judge says he doesn’t even have access to the ‘super duper’ files. Hello? This wasn’t even done by an attorney.
Welcome to hell.
sharonkramer
August 8, 2011
Robin,
I have learned that every case in CA has three files:
a.) the actual hard copy Case File
b.) the Case Summary, which is the numbered items on the Register of Action (ROA). These item are available for view by the litigant and will print when one asks for a copy of the ROA.
c.) what I call the “stealth ROA”. These are unnumbered items entered in the ROA. They don’t print when one asks the records dept for a copy of the ROA. They are only available for view by the judges and court personnel. They use it to relay info to each other in “special cases”.
sharonkramer
August 8, 2011
Judicial Council as represented by San Diego:
Huffman, ex-Chair of the Exec Comm JC. “The committee is the most powerful body within the administration of California’s court system, handling disputes over money and policy as well as making recommendations for membership on the council as a whole. Huffman’s departure follows the resignation of Bill Vickrey, as director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, along with Sheila Calabro who for years was in charge of a controversial IT project that has drained hundreds of millions from the court’s coffers and Ken Kann who was in charge of the agency’s public image, which has been battered in recent months.”
Now Huffman is Chair of an oversight committee of ethics and spending.
Stephen Kelly, Clerk of the SD Appellate Court
Michael Roddy, Clerk of the SD Superior Court.
Kevin Enright, Presiding Judge of the SD Superior Court.
And of course, we have Judith McConnell as Chair of the “independant state agency”, CJP, overseeing ethics of all the judges.
Any one of the above named has access to the stealth ROA’s occurring in SD “special cases” where unnumbered items entered in the computer file, and entered out of sequence, do not match the court file.
JusticeCalifornia
August 8, 2011
Top leadership could do a heck of a lot of illegal damage control with a password and access to all state files, minute orders and registers of actions.
Judicial Councilmember /Marin CEO Kim Turner’s clerks are allowed to alter minute orders and registers of actions months after the fact, secretly, without notice to anyone or notation in the record that the alteration took place.
Just like that a sentence was added to a minute order by a court clerk, and that sentence fixed a little due process problem the court was having. That record was then compromised on appeal, because there was no notation of the change! But oh well, as I recall that issue of a compromised record never made it to the court of appeal, because the right to appeal was denied based upon the clerk’s proof of service swearing the document that began the appellate clock running was served– too bad NEITHER lawyer listed on the proof of service received that document. . . .
Imagine what our cj’s new best buddy Kim Turner could do with the keys to the entire kingdom.
JusticeCalifornia
August 9, 2011
(P.S. Let me clarify that I am NOT accusing all Marin court clerks of falsification/destruction/secret modification of court records. Just Kim Turner and certain of her minions who participated.)
Judicial Council Watcher
August 8, 2011
Ms. Kramer – go somewhere on the internet. Take the above information you’ve posted in dozens of threads here and post it there.
Provide a one line URL to it from here to there (the maximum you should say about it here) and stop re-posting here. We will experience less complaints this way and you won’t go so far off topic.
sharonkramer
August 9, 2011
JCW, will do. Question:
Don’t you find it relevant that Robin is posting of changes by clerks impacting cases – where there are JC members involved and it is a big public interest issue (sexual harassment in the workplace).
Justice Ca is posting of changes by clerks where JC members are involved and it is a big public interest issue (child abuse),
and I am posting the same thing (environmental exposures).
We know they are capable of overpaying unlicensed contractors and then firing people when caught.
What is going on in the judicial branch at its highest levels? Given the above four scenarios indicating a track record, its a bit concerning that the courts want to push thru a paperless case trail only stored in their computers. Who oversees the overseers?
Judicial Council Watcher
August 9, 2011
The alteration of files and the even easier alteration of computer files is disturbing. The destruction of what we believe to be court records – but the Judicial Council doesn’t believe are court records while holding off auditors is very disturbing.
It is not the focus of this blog. The people who make the decisions about computer systems capable of presenting multiple records or having super secret records for judicial branch eyes only, while making judgment calls about the applicability of what is in a docket that matters while discounting what should matter most is more towards the subject of this blog.
These decisions rest with the judicial council and the AOC.
sharonkramer
August 9, 2011
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong with the following statements:
1. Its criminal collusion to destroy court records while under investigation for several cases of child abuse and pedophilia being aided by the courts – with the new CJ saying this is A OK, and then promoting the record destroying clerk to the JC.
2. Its criminal collusion for a judge to file a false complaint containing perjury against an attorney with the State Bar over the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace and then a JC member reward the the perjury via a writ.
3. Its criminal collusion to reward perjury on the issue of malice over a matter of public health and ultimately end up with the mailing of a fake judgment document that originated from the courts to threaten someone with legal action, interstate, with members of the JC/CJP involved.
4. Its criminal collusion to overpay unlicensed contractors with tax dollars and (what is it? $350M unaccounted for?) and then fire people who expose the matter involving JC members/AOC employees.
5. Its criminal collusion to award state pensions to non state employees by the JC/AOC.
Perjury, suborning of perjury, destruction/altercation of court records, graft, cronyism, mail fraud and lots of retaliation heaped on those who expose. The above all take several people to pull off and all involve members of the JC.(I could add a few more evidenced examples, but will stop here).
And what? Our courts are closing causing the delay of justice, while these people who are evidenced to be colluding over several issues, are able to award themselves even more money for a questionable at best computer system and more construction?
Did I miss anything or get anything wrong that isn’t clearly evidenced?
sharonkramer
August 9, 2011
JCW, I agree with you. This blog needs to keep its eye on the collective decisions of 455 Golden Gate Ave and its administators. I could evidence many more Ca cases with problems for you, including “stealth ROAs”. But I don’t. I only show you ones with JC members’ direct input and involving matters that precidences would be set in public policy/judicial branch operations should “errors” be recognized for what they are. I do this because I think its important info, relevant to what you and many others are trying to accomplish.
To understand what is going on inside 455 Golden Gate Ave, I think one needs to be aware of what’s going on when “they” step outside it’s doors as officers of courts making omnipitent decisions in direct conflict with law. And as always, you are the boss of anything I post to be left up or taken down.
“judgment calls”, was that an intended pun?
robin
August 9, 2011
JCW,
The fact that the JC, along with the AOC have created a program that affects the “actual” court records is very much the problem. While the AOC and the JC can affect administrative rules or such [eg; the weight of paper one has to use in order to file papers,mim.16lbs]] in courts, they are not suppose to have any “secret” access, or access otherwise to actual court records, that is the sole purview of the clerks of the courts and the judges who control their courts. [they are also considered public records, and the public is allowed to view them]
Only judges can enter orders or strike pleadings, or moving papers. Clerks are not allowed to do anything but keep the records and do those things which the legislature expressly allows them to do. They are not attorneys, nor are they allowed to give legal advice. This is a huge overstep of these “administrative organizations”.
While you may think that it is a judgment call as to what is in a court file, you are mistaken. Anything filed in a case is a part of the court file and the govt. code. is very clear that no one can alter or destroy or remove anything in the file once its been filed. The JC and the AOC have no business reviewing or directing someone to take anything out of a court file or illegally adding anything to it.
In addition, Judge Lampe is right. Judges are not allowed to do an independent investigation re; other cases. [as the CCMS promises] they would be able to do. That violates their cannon of ethics. They are only allowed to follow published decisions. Why would they even need to look at orders or what judges in other cases do? Until a reviewing court determines what a trial court did is right, and publishes that decision, it’s improper for another trial court to follow what another trial court, or consider what the court did, based solely on it being done. That in itself, allows for an improper use of prejudicial material to be before them. The Code of Judicial Cannons along with prohibitions on who and what trial courts,[judges] can talk to, or consider, when issues are before them is what is controlling. Lawyers aren’t even allowed to bring to the attention of what goes on in other cases, unless its a published opinion or they bring it to the courts attention through a noticed request for judicial notice.
[see below]
What is amazing is that the AOC, and the JC are brazenly touting what the CCMS will allow judges to do, while it violates cannon of ethics and rules of transparency, along with grounds to disqualify judges for engaging in such behavior. This whole concept of being able to look at what goes on in other courts is forbidden. There are rules that if a party wants to have a judge look at something in another case, they have to file a “request of Judicial notice”, otherwise known as an RJN, so everyone will know what the judge is, and has, considered in making his ruling. This would circumvent this.
While it may sound reasonable to a lay person, to be able to have access to other court cases, it will create havoc, when it comes to reviewing cases and decisions, the Court of Appeal is required to review.. There is a reason, parties, judges have to make a complete record as to what went on in the lower courts.[and what was before the judge] Considering things that were not properly before the court is judicial misconduct. That is why RJN’s are so important. Before they can even review what is done in another case, parties are allowed to object to having this even considered. It’s called the evidence code. The CCMS will deny these very important evidentiary rulings. This cannot be overstated.
However, the powers that be, want to be able to send back alley messages to certain judges, because they know the law does not allow for the outcomes in certain cases that they want.
Don’t kid yourself HRH George knew this. So does Huffman. There is no reason for any judge to use this system, it actually violates the cannons of ethics for them to do so. While it may make the records more accessible for the public,[which could be a good thing] the legislature sets into place Code of Civil Procedure, which controls how and what the trial courts can consider, along with how parties are able to put certain records before the courts, not the AOC or the JC.
The Code of Evidence is being violated, if judges use the CCMS without creating a judicial record of what they considered in making their rulings, not to mention violating parties constitutional rights, and the rules of procedure.[both civilly, and criminally].
While many people may think this is a technical argument, all of our due process rights arise from our rules of procedure, and evidence code. What can be considered by a jury or a judge is the very essence of our system of jurisprudence. The fact that certain entities want judges to consider things that they are not suppose to, speaks for itself, and will deny parties a fair trial. The AOC and the JC are not suppose to be even involving themselves with these matters,[ all legal matters must be decided by judicial officers,[that includes what is in a file, and not] it is the sole purview of the legislature, who create statutes[laws] and individual judges who preside over individual cases.
This is a huge power grab which, if you look at the above law violates ours laws affording parties a .right to a fair trial. What is admissible in trials determines if the trials were fair. That goes for jury trials as well as what the trial courts look at. If the records does not reflect what was admitted, then there is no accountability or record to review. The AOC and JC are creating an illegal system, if they are claiming this will help judges.
They should be in jail, this is obstruction of justice. Some people consider fixing cases.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 9, 2011
We’re in agreement that it is disturbing and it is an issue that should be covered. We’re simply asking that if you want to tell the whole story of a specific case more than one time and it does not directly land on the judicial council’s doorstep, provide a link to the story.
If you wish to speak generally about the alteration of court records with the judicial council and AOC’s blessing then those issues are fair game and should be discussed.If you wish to discuss about how case management systems make this task even easier, that is also a fair game issue that should be discussed.
JusticeCalifornia
August 10, 2011
well said, Robin.
sharonkramer
August 9, 2011
JCW, I don’t mean this post as personal to my case. Its an example of file management at the courts and a design flaw in CCMS.
Was just at the Appellate Court to look at/copy files. They gave me three big binders. I looked for about a hour and could not find one of the documents, which was a file stamped document that should have been in the file according to the ROA. When I stated to the clerk that I couldn’t find the doc dated xxxxx, she pulled out a file that I am not permitted to see. When I asked her why, she said because it had judges’ notes in it.
Since when are litigants not permitted to puruse files containing file stamped documents from a case? I won’t go into detail, but I wholeheartedly agree with Robin that there is a serious computer design problem occurring that violates many laws when judges are able to access and rely on computer entries of prior court clerks – which may or may not be what is in the court file (that they also are not suppose to rely upon). Worse, that input can be made in a computer file by other clerks from other courts — such as an appellate clerk in a trial court ROA.