.
December 21, 2011
Dear Members and Others:
As you know, the Judicial Council recently entered into a letter of intent with Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong to explore a partnership whereby the doctor would provide funds and other resources to complete the troubled CCMS project. Although behind the scenes negotiations have apparently been underway for a year, the Council was only informed of this potential rescue in October.
The Alliance continues to be concerned with the lack of transparency in this process and the obvious issue of conflicts of interest should lawsuits be filed against the doctor in our local courts. We also question the wisdom of turning over court records–many of which contain sealed confidential documents–to a third party. We agree with Senator Noreen Evans who has expressed reservations about the propriety of the public’s business being intertwined with a private entity.
We attach for your information an excellent article from the Courthouse News which details the many concerns this “partnership” raises. The article can also be electronically accessed at Courthouse News by clicking this link.
We thank you for your support and interest.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
_____________________________________
JCW disclaimer – We omitted the courthouse news article attached to the email and modified the wording of the link.
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
December 22, 2011
The conflict of interest here between the good doctor and our legal system is plain as day. The Alliance nailed it.
Now if we can just get the beer goggles off all of the specials at the JC/AOC…
Elmy Kader
December 22, 2011
To the honorable Alliance of California Judges, YES THEY CAN…..
althepal55
December 22, 2011
“¡sí se puede!”
Alan Ernesto Phillips
[Today is Day 285…]
https://plus.google.com/115902390478619061589/about
http://www.youtube.com/user/althepal55?feature=mhee
http://anewscafe.com/author/alan-ernesto-phillips/
unionman575
December 22, 2011
http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-san-diego/california-court-fees-to-sky-rocket
Fees for public records might soon sky rocket; and that’s the good news
http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-san-diego/california-court-fees-to-sky-rocket
Fees for public records might soon sky rocket; and that’s the good news
Bonnie Russell
San Diego Public Policy Examiner December 21, 2011
Exorbitant fees for public records is right around the corner as California’s chief justice, most of the Judicial Council, and the Administration of the Courts (AOC) seem poised and determined to turn the keys for public records over to a South African billionaire of Chinese with a convoluted past and present.
However, sky high fees for public records isn’t California’s biggest problem.
Both the left leaning NY Times and the right leaning Fox, recently reported the U.S. and U.S. companies are under constant attack from outsiders interested stealing company data.
Yesterday Fox reported economic espionage via the internet, in a report released from Congress; Chinese Espionage stealing U.S. secrets in cyberspace.
Earlier, the NY Times reported, “American intelligence agencies, in an unusually blunt public criticism of China and Russia, reported to Congress on Thursday that those two foreign governments steal valuable American technology over the Internet as a matter of national policy.”
The Times article also stated computer networks of government agencies and universities were also targeted.
Not connecting the dots
Neither the left or the right media considered the flip side of various countries spying on the U.S. or U.S. companies to accomplish the same informational, end result.
It’s not just stealing company secrets. It’s building software to analyze those stolen secrets. It’s data collection of public records of newly created companies, recording lawsuit pleadings involving trade secrets and copyright infringement, all which forms a picture of which companies have the best information to later target.
But missing from outsiders competing against each other to undermine U.S. companies turns out to be the easiest part of all.
Control all legal public access to the heart of the judicial system by buying it
This just in: the California Judicial Council having bobbled all responsibility to the public to the Administrative Office of the Courts, seems ready to do business with a data-mining billionaire drug maker, Patrick Soon-Shiong, a South African of Chinese descent. Soon-Shiong wants to buy and control all access to all California public records California’s 58 counties.
The Judicial Council thinks Soon-Shiong’s offer is a swell idea. Not swell enough to discuss openly, but swell none-the-less. The Judicial Council would like legislators and the public to take their word for it.
Yesterday Courthouse News revealed for the past year Judicial Council has been in secret talks to selling all public access and control to Soon-Shiong, who, after his initial offer, began registering companies for data-mining.
Enter sanity?
California’s Legislature is not buying what Soon-Shiong’s selling.
State Senator Noreen Evans has repeatedly expressed serious misgivings about the idea while others are expressing serious misgivings about Soon-Shiong. But as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Evans thoughts have some muscle behind them.
It’s all about money
Evans prefers a pending bill that would fund a higher percentage of the overall court budget to the local trial courts — exactly what the Judicial Council, and other bureaucrats who currently control billions, don’t want.
Yesterday Courthouse News reported their ongoing requests for records of meetings with Soon-Shiong have been countered by the AOC with ongoing refusals.
Clearly, the courts must operate as stand alone entities
The State has an obligation to protect the public from outside interests and greedy corporations.
Courthouse News also reported the public was duped earlier with another suitor for all court access: “A similar hosting deal in the much smaller state of Colorado allowed a private publisher to make multi-millions in profit by hosting the court’s case management data. The administrative office for the Colorado courts has fought a three-year battle to regain control of the records, which the publisher, Reed Elsevier, has fought through the Legislature with a high-power corps of lobbyists.”
Insist on Transparency
The Judicial Council will not discuss its preference of deciding the business of the public in secret; and the Council depends on the AOC to continue stiff-arming transparency.
We’ve detailed other problems with the AOC here, and here.
Readers might imagine the Judicial Council’s penchant for secrecy whipping mainstream media into a frenzy. But the “watch dog media,” media’s fondest nickname for itself, has been routinely asleep at the wheel regarding this core, continuing issue.
What does Mike Roddy, San Diego’s Executive officer for the Courts and as former official with the AOC, and current AOC cheerleader, have to say about the plan?
As previously reported, Roddy’s echoes the AOC. We have no direct new quotes surrounding their secret meetings as three calls to Roddy’s office, the last, yesterday, produced the same result as our prior two calls.
Silence.
The stiff-arming continues.
That’s how San Diego rolls.
katy
December 29, 2011
Not sure where to post this. It is another piece of the crumbling house that George (and Schwarzenegger) built.
Prosecutors file criminal charges against Regents of UC in death of lab worker
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/27/4148172/prosecutors-charge-uc-ucla-professor.html.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
How does UC = Judical Branch?
And, in what way?
I need a little help connecting the dots here.
Thanks!
sharonkramer
December 29, 2011
Would be more than happy to explain it to you, Unionman. But you do not want to see it posted here. Something about deserving jail for connecting dots. Maybe this will help you to understand how the judicial branch has been shielding, by criminal means, corruption over environmental science (aka worker environmental injury) of the Regents, California’s massive biotech industry and insurer fraud in workers comp.
Click to access b16c7060b3.pdf
Its simple. The leaders of CA judicial branch have aided a scientific fraud to continue in courtrooms throughout the US, that modeling theories can be used by themselves to deny causation if individuals’ (including workers) environmental illnesses. Now, they want it kept on the QT of just how politically compromised they really are and how many lives they have harmed. The Regents of the UC have been BIG finanicial beneficiaries of the fraudulent concept that models can be used as proof in court to deny liability for causation of enviornmental illnesses – which the judicial branch aided to continue in courtrooms by participating in malicilous litigation. MAJOR ethics problems in their biotechnology practices, while the Regents generate money off of defense expert witness fees. Did you know that they still take money from Big Tobacco?
Will say no more on this board, because you forbade it.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
=)