Good Morning California,
There are a wide variety of reasons that the press and major media haven’t been able to cover the stories like they would wish to. Most of that coverage is related to the message those on the inside wish to convey as and less of messages that we would wish to convey, backed by empirical proof behind our suspicions and a large collection of accompanying circumstantial evidence. Such is the case with the rules of court regarding the release of information to both the public and to media outlets. In most cases, the information is there inside the AOC yet due to the resultant political damage that various releases would inevitably cause, the information is not forthcoming.
.
.
For these releases of information, media, the public and even judges are being directed to pubinfo. Those requests for information are run through the AOC’s office of general counsel to determine if they wish to honor the request, scare you off with an astronomical price tag for something that should be available at their fingertips, give you a small piece and close the request as complete or deny you that information altogether.
The problem extends well beyond the walls of the AOC as the AOC has connections throughout California’s government, such as in the State Attorney Generals office that employs former AOC attorneys and even the State Controllers Office that cuts the paychecks to AOC workers, to the State Department of Finance, from whom they recruited their newest finance director, to the California Emergency Management Agency that granted AOC’s second tier request for stimulus funds for security projects, thereby absolving themselves of accountability because they weren’t a first tier recipient.
In many cases, information that should be available from other sources is also not made available from those other sources, almost as if you had been dealing with the AOC all along. Many of our legislators are attorneys and know that they might have to some day practice law in this system or perhaps they themselves are looking for a future judicial appointment… or at least to keep their options open. Many of these legislator attorneys also accept large donations from other attorneys to influence legislation. While a strict code of ethics governs sitting judges, no such strict code of ethics exists for retired judges, yet we don’t hear them speaking out, directly addressing the issues of the Judicial Council and the AOC like only they could, for it seems to us that they alone can say for sitting judges what a majority of judges believe.
In short, the networking prowess of the AOC of having so many well-connected people on board and a faux news organization that is a propaganda machine and an office of general counsel that controls all of the information all working in apparent support of their centralization goals makes any effort to expose the issues very difficult, very expensive and very time-consuming. They tell us that centralization is not the goal yet everything they undertake is towards a centralized control model. In speaking to people on the inside of the AOC, the political influence of the Los Angeles courts is the only thing the AOC genuinely fears with one unnamed AOC insider characterizing L.A. courts as “the AOC’s potential killer bee swarm” while the ACJ, CJA and all other courts were characterized as “irritating gnats that can be swatted away.”
In all of this time while trial courts have suffered, one consistent message emerges about how the AOC has changed their way of doing business over the last couple of years with the pressures being brought to bear upon them.
That consistent message is that nothing has changed that anyone from the inside has observed.
With all of these political challenges of having to deal with a judicial branch entity that’s in essence, accountable to no one, an administrative agency that has the power to dismiss its governing council’s call for a pause by bamboozling them into fully funding a host of special projects, then granting the administrative director the power to override their governance it makes you wonder why we have a judicial council at all when the tail continues to wag the dog.
All along our gold dust woman continues to take her silver spoon and dig her political grave.
Will it ever change?
__________________________________________________________________________________
Bill Girdner & Courthouse News: Judge Bangs on Bureaucrats’ Door
.
.
Judicial Council Watcher 
antonatrail
September 3, 2011
Very sad commentary … very true, too.
JusticeCalifornia
September 3, 2011
The AOC, OGC and Marin County stonewalled the Marin Family Court audit for 10 months while the files were cleansed.
IMHO, there will be no self-imposed change by top leadership, there will only be carnival diversions, and stealth rule changes and legislation proposals, until the RG sycophant files are cleansed at all levels. That is a lot bigger job than the Marin shredding and will take a lot longer. That will involve getting or keeping the right personnel in place in each county , and all complicit entities. . . .
Announcements will surface statewide that files are missing or records were not kept–
I daresay Tani was handpicked to do a specific job, and the hope was that her heritage, looks and “personality” would create a diversion and buy time.
Change IS taking place, due to growing internal and external forces, but top leadership has “built as big a wall as possible and is playing defense”, as if their lives depend upon it. They are having to pedal faster and faster and faster to keep in one place. . . . .mistakes are being made.
I am getting unmistakable whiffs of fear and desperation from the Borg.
Sort of like the time leading up to RG’s unexpected “retirement”.
Mrs Kramer
September 3, 2011
Yep, JC. They are too deep in dog doo doo to be able to climb out and walk among others without the stench sticking to them for all to smell. They seem to know it and appear to be choosing to dig deeper.
With so many misdeeds, their only choice is to remain glued together by the sh** they have created — while trying to keep up the front that ugly dogs and ugly men are loyal, don’t ask for much and are servants of the courts.
With so much at stake and so much coming to light, it seems not possible to keep up that schtick for too much longer.
keeping the FAITH
September 3, 2011
Mrs.Kramer,
Remember s*** gets old, dries up and crumbles into little pieces! Then before you know it, its gone, blown away in the wind. They had a good run, stealing and lying, but the end of the gravy train is coming. As stated before, RG and BV knew this to be true, that’s why they tucked tail and ran.
Kevin Grimm
September 4, 2011
Yes, this is outrageous! Taking my lead from Judge McCormick I made a request to the Superior Court of Sacramento asking for the very same information that Judge McCormick (and many other followers of the Watcher) thought should be simple to compile about the AOC.
A week later, not only have I not received the information, I have received no reply from the Sacramento Superior court to a) acknowledge receipt of the request, or b) confirm that they will comply.
(After following up with the court two days after making the request, I saved a copy of the screen shot of my request on the Superior Court’s information request web page.)
What is the Superior Court of Sacramento hiding? Who are they consipiring with to dupe the public? When will they come clean? Are they now, or have they ever been a member of the communist party?!
JusticeCalifornia
September 4, 2011
I remember making requests for information (that only the Marin Court had) from the Marin Superior Court. Kim Turner’s assistant told me that the Judicial Council said not to do my research for me. The court sent me on a wild goose chase, asking all kinds of departments for the information. I always got the same answer: this information is not available to us, only Kim Turner has it.
Michael Paul
September 4, 2011
Judge McCormick’s wait is going on six weeks.
Why would you ask the Sacramento courts about the number of contractors employed by the AOC and expect that information to be supplied to you by the Sacramento courts when the AOC won’t supply that same information to anyone…or are you just a troll?
Historically when a branch of government or a government agency has a problem with public disclosure, there’s a reason for it. Having previously been one of those sole-source high priced consultants for 3 1/2 years before going to work for the AOC I can appreciate the question, especially since I know contractors working there who’ve been on the job for more than a dozen years, getting paid far more than I was ever paid. (think:300-500K a year)
By the way, I’m told (for years) that this was against contracting policies and procedures – and that was before public contract code takes effect next month.
Given the loophole of “contracts renewed on or after” will be the only recommended reported disclosures to the legislature, knowing the information Judge McCormick seeks concerning all contracts, contractors and temps is important, especially when the AOC apparently has a 118 million in play money.
Is it that the AOC is contemplating whom to issue 5-10 year contracts to that aren’t subject to renewal or reporting?
Delilah
September 4, 2011
Yes, MP, nail on the head. KG is a troll.
Kevin Grimm
September 4, 2011
Surely Judge McCormick can intervene on my behalf since I made my request of the Sacramento Superior Court. Let’s ferret out all of the malfeasance!
Surely it’s not too much to hold the superior courts to the same standard that we’re holding the AOC (maybe the SEC could send its survey to all superior court employees?).
If you need a copy of the screen shot of my request for information to the Sacramento Superior Court, just let me know and I will happily provide it.
Wendy Darling
September 4, 2011
The AOC isn’t being held to any standard at all.
Long live the ACJ.
antonatrail
September 4, 2011
Mr. Grimm: Ask the pointy-heads at the glorified AOC for the info you want. You can be sure, they have it. After all, they are staff support for the courts. The trial courts are buried in criminal and civil cases. Surely the pointy-heads do something other than arrange for awards for themselves and lobby the legislature constantly for their bureaucratic self-interests on their little gravy train.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 4, 2011
Mr. Grimm, JCW wishes to see your request. judicialcouncilwatcher@gmail.com (for email with attachments only…)
unionman575
September 4, 2011
JCW you nailed it. Getting info, any info at all, is damn near impossible for all of us.
Kevin Grimm
September 4, 2011
I’m sending along the screen shot of the request to JC Watcher. Nothing that hasn’t been asked of the AOC.
In re: the trial courts being burried in criminal & civil cases: that’s line staff. Every trial court has administration, right? ACJ and Judicial Council Watcher draw a very bright line between administration & case processing but don’t seem to want to make that distinction where the courts and their administration are concerned.
Seriously, unionman, the trial courts can’t provide the same information that is being asked of the AOC? Some kind of accountability!
Judicial Council Watcher
September 4, 2011
JCW has seen some evidence that Mr. Grimm initiated the request below after working hours on Thursday, Aug 25 and then sent a follow-up on Saturday, Aug 27 wondering why he received no acknowledgement of his request.
_____________________________________________________________________
I am requesting that the Sacramento Superior Court provide me with a current list of every employee (temporary or permanent), consultant, independent contractor, and/or person paid directly or indirectly by or through the court. I am also seeking information as to their department. (i.e. Appellate, Civil, Criminal, Exhibits, Family & Children, Jury Services, Delinquency, Dependency, Landlord / Tenant, Probate, Restraining Orders, Small Claims, Traffic). I also would appreciate your providing the current pay and benefits information for each of the above individuals. It is my understanding that under Rule of Court 10.500 the court is responsible for responding to this request within 10 days.
____________________________________________________________________
In fairness, let’s assume AOC rules:
10 days tends to be 10 business days that they (the AOC) indicates it will take to for them to determine if they can or will be responsive to your request, which would give them another week or so to respond. (by AOC’s own interpretation.)
Let’s see how Sacramento responds. Some information won’t be produced because the government entity knows only what they contract and pay for goods and services, not what vendors pay their employees.
Someone else can address how courts are broken up structurally but I’m thinking your request misses this mark too.
Kevin Grimm
September 4, 2011
Just one clarification, Mr. Paul, I didn’t ask the Superior Court of Sacramento for information about the AOC: I asked it for the same information on Sacramento that Judge McCormick requested of the AOC.
No worries, it’ll be administration that deals with it. And if I’ve learned anything from the JCW and the ACJ it’s that administration is useless at best, really a waste of taxpayer dollars. I’m sure someone twiddling their thumbs, sitting on the information in Sacramento’s administrative offices can provide it to me without any impact on case processing.
Michael Paul
September 5, 2011
Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t see Judge McCormick’s request ask what various contractors’ employees are paid, rather how much the contractor was being paid. That’s a credible difference in being able to obtain and supply the requested information. The AOC and all of their divisions know who they contract with. Heck, I know who they contract with and in some cases, the obscene amount of money they’re paid.
Each of the trial courts has their own administrative offices. Well before the AOC came along, these administrative offices of the individual courts ran the courts. They can get by without whole divisions of the AOC as they were doing so well before the AOC came along.
Mrs Kramer
September 6, 2011
Mr. Grimm,
Contrary to your post, I have never seen anyone state on this board that administration is useless. The contention is that the AOC is wasteful, secretive and drunk with power wrongfully self bestowed while leaving the trial courts with not enough funding to be able to function.
Judge McCormick is asking for information regarding the allocation of tax dollars for labor at the AOC in response to a survey he was asked by the JC to complete regarding the fruitfulness of AOC and its personnel. For what purpose are you requesting information from the Sacramento Superior Court?
Kevin Grimm
September 4, 2011
According to JCW:
“Some information won’t be produced because the government entity knows only what they contract and pay for goods and services, not what vendors pay their employees.
Someone else can address how courts are broken up structurally but I’m thinking your request misses this mark too.”
Please note that my request to the Sacramento Superior court was cribbed, in many parts word-for-word, from the request made by Judge McCormick to the AOC. I don’t recall you mentioning that the AOC would not be able to comply with his request because “the government entity knows only what they contract and pay for goods and services, not what vendors pay their employees.”
I don’t recall your mentioning that his request “missed the mark.”
In the future, it might be useful for you to help your readers — and contributors — understand the limits of what they are requesting of the AOC.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 5, 2011
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/28-days-judge-kevin-mccormicks-reply-to-the-sec-committee/
The requests were not the same. We have a collection of AOC org charts that identify separate organizations within the AOC. We were easily able to confirm that Judge McCormick’s request was doable.
Nonetheless, let’s wait see what Sacramento comes up with.
Mrs Kramer
September 6, 2011
Sacramento received this request from Mr. Grimm on a Friday before a holiday and on Saturday a demand was sent by him to know why no response was yet received?
Seem like his demands to Sacramento are just another Grimm’s Fairy Tale involving trolls.
Please tell me, Mr. Grimm, that the AOC did not pay you after hours overtime with my tax dollars for this childish endeavor.
unionman575
September 4, 2011
“In the future, it might be useful for you to help your readers — and contributors — understand the limits of what they are requesting of the AOC.”
I’ll pass on our help Kevin. You are way too angry for my taste.
Welcome to the party. You are a tad late amigo. Although it’s nice to see you post like a mad man these past few days. =)
courtflea
September 5, 2011
Heck, if the court is doing their payroll through the AOC’s Phoniex system, this information should be a snap for SACTO court or your office to provide, right Mr. Soderlund??
Poor sniff! AOC sniff! having to go through all of those requests! Boo hoo, cry me a river. Since the AOC is sooooooo transparent I am certain the info that Judge McCormick requested is at their fingertips. I mean don’t they have to provide information to the E&P, the JC and certainly the Chief regarding their budget?? In order to compile the big picture for them you have to start with the detail. Krikey, these requests for information are nothing compared to what the AOC requires the courts to submit to them!! At least the AOC has the staff.
Kevin Grimm
September 5, 2011
“Some information won’t be produced because the government entity knows only what they contract and pay for goods and services, not what vendors pay their employees.
Someone else can address how courts are broken up structurally but I’m thinking your request misses this mark too.”
Not my words; the words of the venerable JCW to a request of a court that was effectively Judge McCormick’s request to the AOC.
JusticeCalifornia
September 5, 2011
Hey “venerable JCW”
Methinks top leadership and its knaves are rather unhappy with this bulletin board, and would dearly love to “kill the messengers”, metaphorically speaking.
Perhaps they should instead be thinking about who convinced them to go along with selling the third branch down the river in the first place.
This song is dedicated to Ron George, and it is called “The King Who Sold His Own”.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 6, 2011
Methinks Mr. Grimm gives himself too much credit. His request is not the same as Judge McCormick’s request and he thinks submitting the request on a Friday deserves an answer or response on a Saturday.
There’s also a difference where AOC directors and executive directors were asked directly by Judge McCormick and Justice Scotland to provide the information.
Remarkably, six weeks later, two weeks after they indicated that the information would be ready, the AOC still hasn’t provided the information in the time that they themselves designated they would provide the information.
Mr. Grimm, likely one of those AOC senior managers is proud that he has managed to stall his request over the course of 5 non-business days including a national holiday as proof that the Sacramento courts are no more responsive than the AOC. Someone mentioned that Mr. Grimm’s r/l initials are KK. Such speculation would align with the intellectual prowess of either party.
In making the effort to align one puzzle piece with another, we see Mary “The Lizard” Roberts suggest that the AOC only report contracts entered into or modified after October 1, 2011 and will be keeping all of their options open to keep these long term, no bid contractors on board by writing them long term contracts before October 1, 2011 that don’t require renewal for a few years. Since there is no legislative obligation to report them, we don’t feel that either the legislature nor Judge McCormick will be getting any straight answers about contracts that exist before October 1, 2011.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 6, 2011
In reviewing the SacCourts website, we found this page:
http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/general/judicial-admin/records.aspx
Mr. Grimm, this outlines the procedures for requesting these records you requested of the Sacramento Courts. According to your own screen prints, you requested this information from this page that does not include an option for a public records request. Since this is a contact form to comment on the site, I’m unsure if they can even process your request.
http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/contact.aspx
It’s fair to assume that Sacramento wishes to know what real people they are dealing with as opposed to fictional characters. Even we use real people to submit requests for us.