AOC / Council’s Proposed Entanglement with Billionaire Raises Questions

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.

How does UC = Judical Branch?

And, in what way?

I need a little help connecting the dots here.

Thanks!