.
“You see a lot of things in Sacramento that don’t make sense, but the Administrative Office of the Courts continues to set the bar high,”
Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, San Diego
From ABC News. News 10 San Diego. http://www.10news.com/video/29586896/index.html
The list also includes $2,500 to paint a single judge’s closet.
“It rather boggles the mind to think you’d have to pay $2,500 to paint that,” Vista court Judge Tony Maino said as he showed the I-Team the office closet.
_________________________________________
Dear Judge Maino,
Thank you for showing us all what a $2,500.00 closet paint job might look like. Egads!
We’re beginning to believe the pentagon can get better pricing than the AOC!
-JCW
Related articles
- The AOC announces new maintenance contractors (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- What the Judicial Council and the AOC is engaged in that they shouldn’t be… (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- A tribute to the AOC’s facilities Management Unit. (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Ctr for Jud Excellence
October 27, 2011
Check out the latest television news story about the AOC’s absolute cluelessness….
http://www.10news.com/video/29586896/index.html
Wendy Darling
October 27, 2011
Published today, Thursday, October 27, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Surgeon Give $20 Million to Court IT Project
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — California court officials pushing a controversial IT project heralded a medical billionaire’s promise to put $20 million into a project that has already cost about $400 million.”We have an additional alternative available to us that I think is literally a game-changer,” said Justice Terence Bruiniers, who unveiled the surprise funding at a meeting of the Judicial Council on Thursday.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/27/41000.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
October 27, 2011
A commitment to fund 1% but you do not get to know the terms and conditions. If the terms and conditions of this private grant are not met, the money does not materialize.
It sounds no different than accepting the bait of a pause in CCMS being lofted by the AOC.
It smacks of buying influence in the court system.
If Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong were serious about assisting to pay for CCMS, he would use that money to lobby the legislature to have those who maintain a bar card pay for the system with higher dues. After all, attorneys are the greatest benefactors of any future CCMS system.
This albatross is turning out to be an enormous public subsidy to the legal profession.
Commercial IT
October 27, 2011
I don’t think that buying influence in the legal system is the biggest problem with this potential arrangement although I agree that could be a problem. The biggest potential problem is having the courts’ data held captive. Then having the captor charge the courts to get at their own data. The profit on the $20 Million investment could be enormous. And all this in a situation where the total system cost should only be about $20 Million. The legitimate cost for the courts to get at their own data should be negligible. This is not a benefactor. This is an opportunist.
antonatrail
October 27, 2011
This “deal” doesn’t hit my ear right. These ethically challenged clowns in the AOC and gushing Turner seem intent on bringing down the California judicial branch.
anna
October 27, 2011
Both the AOC, and the State Bar appear before the Courts as litigants. What the hell are they doing “raising” money or being involved with this? Joe Dunn as ExDir of the State Bar is also a party to litigation, is he going to disclose that he gave money to the Courts!!!! This is why judges now have to disclose if they have received money as political contributions. What the hell are these people thinking???? This is why Richard Fine went to jail!!! Hell, why don’t they just auction off the courtrooms and buildings, to the highest bidder? When those corporations are before the courts, and they don’t rule the way they want them to, the corporations will just throw the courts out, or refuse to give them the money they want. This is the very reason why, when HRH George wanted to sell court buildings and then lease them back from the buyers, Attorneys sued, and the deal was shelved. God only knows how much money they are trying to paper over, now that the shit is floating to the top.
Wendy Darling
October 28, 2011
Published today, Friday, October 28, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Judicial Council Votes to Probe Mogul’s Offer
By MARIA DINZEO
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/28/41033.htm
Also published today, October 28, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Despite Some Qualms, Council Moves to Accept $20M from Billionaire
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — The Judicial Council on Friday approved a letter of intent that could lead to $20 million in cash and services from a biotech billionaire for installation of the long-awaited Court Case Management System.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202520820724&Despite_Some_Qualms_Council_Moves_to_Accept_20M_from_Billionaire&slreturn=1
(The Recorder article is subscription access only.)
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
October 29, 2011
“He’s extremely civic-minded,” said Judge Herman after the meeting. “He’s interested philanthropically in improving the lives of the citizens of California.”
Are you kidding me? Am I the only one who is seeing red flags here?
This gentleman made his billions selling a cancer drug criticized for it’s high cost and lack of any effect that would justify it’s cost, is described as “ruthless”, and is a familiar face as a defendant in his local court.
What if $20 million is not enough to do the job?
What is the true cost of this “gift” to the courts?
In a time when many folks believe our government is controlled by corporate money interests, I sure as heck would not want to see anything that gives even the perception that the court system is for sale.
anna
October 30, 2011
Been There, not only are you right, the law says were are not required to rely on the word of someone who’s privately interviewed someone. Judge Herman is a prize ass. There is a reason why clerks of courts and court reporters, are allowed to give oaths and solely held responsible for their actions. Because we are not required to rely on their words, but their actions. We don’t rely on a clerk telling us something was filed. They are required to produce it to us if we ask. A clerk would laugh in your face if you asked if something was filed.
They just give you the file. Do you really thing they want to go through the file, or have time rifling through a file, when you can look for yourself? Even if, they tell you something was filed, they would know that you would still have to show the actual document to the court if you wanted to contest it, or use it in court. As I noted below, this violates so many rules of law, that this will contaminate court files beyond repair.
This giving over to unsworn private third parties, official court documents is criminal. [and I mean that literally] Taking an official court document out of the clerks office is a felony. That’s why you have to make copies there. Talk about stupid. No, this is being done to have someone else clean files, and then claim “sorry the machine must have eaten it”, in other words no accountability. Wonder how the Clerks will feel, when they are left holding the bag???
Commercial IT
October 29, 2011
I believe it was Judge Lampe in Kern County who pointed out that it might be unlawful to remove court data from the county for which that data was created. I suspect a number of presiding judges will not allow their county’s court data to be removed outside the county. That would be a good idea because losing physical control over primary data has happened a number of times in private industry, sometimes with disastrous results.
anna
October 29, 2011
Just how corrupt is the JC? Not one of these nimrods can see a conflict of interest? Why doesn’t the medical industry pay for all court costs, then when they are before a court they can expect favorable rulings. WTF!!
Commercial IT
October 29, 2011
Anna, you have undoubtedly hit one of the nails on the head. However, there is a further problem. Even assuming for the moment that there is no actual conflict of interest because Soon-Shiong has no further litigation in the courts, he would still have physical control of the computers holding court data. Pose this question to litigants, particularly those who have supplied sensitive information to the courts:
Is it okay with you to have all your personal sensitive information in the hands of a third party who is not employed by the court system?
Michael Paul
October 29, 2011
Let’s not forget that someone requires administrative access to the systems in order to maintain and preserve that data. Ie the ability to copy/modify/delete.
In the wrong hands or in the hands of someone of questionable ethical character, than can be a problem.
Commercial IT
October 30, 2011
Absolutely correct, Michael. Management needs to know exactly with whom they are dealing.
anna
October 30, 2011
IT, I totally agree with you. It violates the law for anyone other than clerks of the court[county employees] to have, or control, court documents. But for the JC not to see the conflict of interest is disturbing. No, they want to cover up something, that will be found out about, if they don’t get this money for the CCMS. There is no other alternative. They want this so badly they will violate conflict of interests laws.
The law is very clear that if something happens to court documents, the clerk of the courts, are responsible. If they let them, “disappear” they are engaging in “obstruction of justice” that is a felony. This is no laughing matter. There is a reason, we have clerks of court, and not judges maintain court documents. They are suppose to be neutrals.
HRH George, has FUBAR the actual workings of the courts, by his overreaching of the JC, in collusion w/the AOC.
Don’t kid yourself, I know exactly how dangerous it is, and will be, if private third parties are allowed to have control over court documents. 1] they won’t be available when you need them, 2] they will be altered, 3] they will disappear, or 4] they will appear miraculously when they did not exist.
It’s know as the “chain of custody”, and until now, can usually be relied on. [believe me, i’ve seen hanky panky, by certain counties, [san diego] going on] but still an savvy attorney can ferret out the crap, and get to the truth.
However, that ability is backed by the party, or attorney, knowing their rights [in some instances, asking the judge if their clerk has engaged in “obstruction of justice” by removing something from the file] and then demanding answers. You would be surprised how quickly things are found.
Right now accountability, rests with the clerks of courts. [county employees]
Can you imagine if both, the judge and the clerk could say “we don’t know?”
But the fact, that knowing all this, and on top of it, the JC doesn’t see the additional conflict of interests, is really disturbing. How many laws are they willing to break, and how many people are they willing to entangle?
No IT, I know exactly how corrupt this is.
The question is why judges are willing to go along with this? It clearly violates the law, on many levels. Clerks of the courts, along with court reporters are allowed to give oaths, and are responsible for their actions. You start to weaken that, by delegating this to unknown third partied, then court documents are no longer trustworthy. No, they have just opened Pandora’s box.
The question is why?
antonatrail
October 30, 2011
http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/10/29/2596028/budget-tricks-may-have-good-outcome.html
Input from Fresno in time for trick-or-treat.
Demosthenes
October 30, 2011
Why not just call a bribe a bribe?
courtflea
October 31, 2011
You guys are all so spot on. Krikey, a clerk working at a counter in a court cannot take a gift from litigants (candy, flowers, etc) because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. Not to mention that in several instances the Office of General Counsel has opined that taking donations (for whatever reason) from local business is a conflict for a court because those folks may one day have business before the court!! Hot damn in the words of Yogi Berra, its dejavu all over again (for the corrupt AOC and the JC that is)!!