The AOC employs a little over a hundred people to shape, massage and distribute information that shows them always in the best favorable light. A quarter of the first floor is a production print shop larger than any Kinkos. A portion of the basement, third and fifth floors are used as television studios. If you’ve ever seen the movie good morning vietnam, reflect for a moment on the news censor twins and you’ll get a better idea of how the AOC manages information. And you wanted to trust them with CCMS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth
_____________________________________________________
LOIS HENRY: At last, plug pulled on court computer system
By Lois Henry
Yes, the giant, money-sucking statewide court computer system that never fully got off the ground in spite of its half-a-billion-dollar launch pad appears to have been killed.
But the fight is far from over.
That’s the message Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe wants to get out after last month’s long overdue death of the California Case Management System, expected to cost $2 billion (!) at full roll out.
Lampe is one of the co-founders of the Alliance of California Judges, which has been fighting for the better part of three years to loosen the stranglehold of an out-of-control bureaucracy and return greater control and funding certainty to local courts.
That out-of-control bureaucracy is the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), which operates under the auspices of the state Judicial Council and was created a little more than a decade ago as a centralized state agency to manage county trial court funding as a means to cut costs and find greater efficiencies.
Yeah, not so much, as it turns out.
Other than reporting to the Judicial Council, which is not an elected governing body, the AOC reports to no one.
Lots of money, a vague management mission and no oversight. You can guess the outcome.
The AOC’s body count and budget ballooned, going from fewer than 100 employees and less than $100 million in 1997 to nearly 1,000 people and $400 million today.
As the agency grew, its projects have swelled as well.
A planned courthouse in Delano is estimated to cost $1,041 per square foot.
Its maintenance (janitorial services) contracts are so over budget the AOC has had to dip into construction money to keep current, according to a report last fall by the Alliance of California Judges.
Its judicial education division employs 100 people — one full timer for every 17 trial judges — and has an $8 million annual budget.
“We do the teaching,” Lampe said. “The judges teach the classes. And we do it for free.”
The grandaddy of all bloated projects, the statewide court computer system, went from an estimated $260 million to $2 billion.
At one point in 2009, the AOC, with the Judicial Council’s blessing, mandated that courthouses statewide close one day a month in order to “save” $90 million that it turned around and spent on the failed computer system.
So much for the public’s right of access to its courts.
We spent a half billion (not including what we shoveled out for audits and reports showing the painfully obvious, that computer system was bunk) before the Judicial Council finally pulled the plug late last month.
Well, Lampe said, it’s unclear exactly how dead the project is as the Judicial Council is still budgeting money for ongoing support to some counties that implemented interim systems. The cost of that support is exorbitant as well, according to the Alliance report, more than $40 million a year including $7 million a year for just one system deployed in Fresno County.
Kern County has long had its own computer system for helping judges and clerks track cases. It was developed locally, according to Superior Court Administrator Terry McNally.
And while it’s main function is as a work processing system for the courts, the data is also used for the court’s public website, a very handy tool. It’s not perfect, but believe me, it’s better than a lot of counties.
Makes you wonder how innovative each court system could have been with just a fraction of that half billion if they’d been given that money directly.
“Now, that money is gone,” Lampe said with a look of resignation.
The best we can do is fix, and by that I do mean neuter, the system that spawned the AOC in the first place.
To that end, the Alliance has been successful in getting AB1208 passed by the Assembly. The bill is now cooling its heels in the Senate Rules Committee.
The bill would slightly alter the law that gave budgeting oversight to the Judicial Council by stating that 100 percent of the money the Legislature appropriates to the trial courts each year be given to the trial courts.
Right now, the law doesn’t mandate that 100 percent of that money go to trial courts. The Judicial Council (and AOC) has discretion over more than 60 percent. And we can see how well that worked — NOT.
Beyond AB1208, Lampe said the Judicial Council should do three things:
* See if it can get any money back from the statewide court computer system debacle.
* Cease all funding for courthouse construction and move that money to existing court operations.
* Take a long, hard look at the AOC budget.
And get out the chain saw.
Because I’m willing to bet there’s more than a little dead wood to be trimmed out of the AOC.
Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com
______________________________________________________________
High-tech misadventure
Two weeks ago, a frustrated state Supreme Court chief justice was before the Legislature essentially begging for more money.
Courtrooms and clerks’ offices in 29 of the state’s 58 counties already had been closed. More closures are likely, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said.
She’s right. The courts, like many vital functions of government, have been severely cut because of the state’s financial woes.
But on the heels of that plea comes word that a $2 billion decade-long upgrade to the court’s computer system is a flop and will be scuttled.
It was a case of overpromising – in this case bringing the state’s 500 court facilities under a single computing system – and underperforming.
That failure undermines Cantil-Sakauye’s plea for more operational funds for the court.
The unified computing system was held out as bringing the courts into the 21st century, making it possible for courts to communicate, allowing lawyers to file documents from anywhere and allowing judges and law enforcement instant information about warrants, restraining orders and other real-time information helpful to investigations.
But there were constant problems with the project, and as the problems multiplied, pressure to pull the plug built. Finally, last month, a $200,000 consultant’s report declared the system ready for a final push. But that push, the consultant said, could cost about $1.3 billion more.
That was it. The governing body of the courts stopped the project last week, succumbing to political pressure and financial realities.
An additional $9 million will be spent to figure out what can be saved.
Seven of the state’s 58 counties did end up with better computer systems, but beyond that it’s likely all the state will end up with is thousands of lines of computer code that individual counties may be able to use but that won’t allow court computers statewide to communicate.
Wasting taxpayers’ money is always bad.
To keep spending on a questionable system at a time of severe financial stress is imprudent.
Wendy Darling
April 5, 2012
From The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Bill Would Give AOC Workers the Right to
Collective Bargaining
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — Employees of the state Administrative Office of the Courts would be given the right to unionize under new legislation quietly introduced last week.
Assembly Bill 2381 by Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina, would place the 750 employees of the AOC under provisions of the Dills Act, which allows state workers to bargain collectively. The bill is backed by the Service Employees International Union, which represents thousands of trial court employees.
“AB 2381 is a simple parity bill that would extend the same rights that are afforded to other public employees to select an employee representative of their choosing,” a statement released by Hernandez’s office and the SEIU said.
The legislation would require the administrative director of the courts to negotiate with AOC workers over wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment. Employees of the appellate courts and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center would not be covered by the bill’s provisions.
Calls to Hernandez’s office and an SEIU spokesman were not returned Tuesday afternoon. Curtis Child, the Judicial Council’s chief lobbyist, said his office was still reviewing the bill and had no immediate comment.
The legislation marks another powerful political play by the SEIU, which, with its strong allies in the Legislature, has already successfully sparred with the AOC and the Judicial Council over the past year on judicial branch spending authority and governance issues. SEIU would be the leading contender to represent AOC workers.
Union representation of trial court workers was a major issue of debate during efforts to shift trial court funding from counties to the state in the mid- and late 1990s. Legislation in 2000 created a new trial court employee classification and ensured that these workers could collectively negotiate salary and benefit levels. Those provisions were never extended to AOC workers, however.
The bill has not been assigned to a committee hearing yet.
**************************************************************************************************************
Thank you, Assemblymember Roger Hernandez.
Long live the ACJ.
anna
April 5, 2012
Why the hell does the judiciary have a lobbyist? Reviewing laws the legislature writes is not enough power? WTF? Curtis Child should be tarred and feathered, and run out on a rail!
unionman575
April 5, 2012
Being a Union Man…I love this Wendy!
Wendy Darling
April 5, 2012
And unionman, there’s a whole bunch of line staff at 455 Golden Gate Avenue that love it too. Of course, none of them are in the Executive Offices, or have an executive title after their name.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
anna
April 5, 2012
Unionman, am a I wrong in assuming that “management” is not usually included in “unions”?
So, Wendy if I’m correct in my assumption, it would be irrelevant as to what the “executive assholes” want. At least the “workers” could “expose” those assholes without fear of retaliation.
Wouldn’t it be a hoot if this bill passed, and not AB1208. There would be an investigation!! All would have to happen is that the line staff would come forward and spill the beans. Let see EmpressTani try and shut that down.
Hell, we wouldn’t have to have a recall, just an investigation, which would lead to impeachment. The legislature would look like heroes, when we find out where the money
went.
As one jurist said, there’s always more than one way to skin the kitty.
unionman575
April 5, 2012
It has always been management v. unions. That’s what makes America great! lol
unionman575
April 5, 2012
The AOC “EMG” (Executive Management Group) all needs to be thrown in the trash, sane as my local Trial Court EMG.
=)
anna
April 5, 2012
Unionizing the AOC could have unintended consequences for Empress Tani. How would, or could, Steinberg object to that?
How would the Empress Tani be able to “spin” that her staff is less entitled to rights of other state employees?
JusticeCalifornia
April 5, 2012
One of above editorials said: “Wasting taxpayers’ money is always bad.To keep spending on a questionable system at a time of severe financial stress is imprudent.”
The AOC should be required to provide intact unredacted past and current Deloitte contracts, and each and every contract and invoice and receipt connected with the almost $9 million the cj and jc just voted to spend on CCMS. Is CCMS being shut down/scuttled, or is it secretly moving forward as planned?
See pages 27 and 56 of the Grant Thornton report. It was estimated it would cost $8.2 million to MOVE AHEAD with the development of V-4 to ready it for deployment by November of 2012. That included a new $5 million contract with Deloitte.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120327-itemD.pdf
Judge Rosenberg correctly said at the JC meeting: if we are terminating V-4, let’s call it that.
Someone needs to call our blackjack dealer’s bluff. Which is it, Tani–are you moving forward with this computer system, or are you terminating it? No more clever word games, please. Apparently even the members of the Judicial Council cannot figure it out, although I suspect Matthai and Herman were and are very much in on your joke.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 5, 2012
One thing you have gotta love about the MinistersofdeMess within the Crystal Palace, they can never, ever, admit they are wrong. Well, except for that one time when they thought they made a mistake when that thought itself was the mistake.
Terrence Bruiniers has once again demonstrated that he sold his sole to be on the big stage. In a letter addressed to the members of the CCMS Executive Committee, CCMS General Administrative Advisory Committee, CCMS Operational Advisory Committee, CCMS Justice Partner Advisory Committee (cc: to the usual suspects) Mr. Bruiniers acknowledged yesterday that CCMS is finally dead. Some of the language of this letter is remarkable and is as follows:
“This decision effectively brings to a close the efforts that we have made over the past several months to ensure the successful completion of a decade long project. I think that we can all take great satisfaction in having achieved that goal. Despite the still repeated claims to the contrary, the independent quality assessment requested by the Legislature and the Judicial Council confirmed that our product acceptance testing was “well planned and comprehensive,” that the system architecture “is scalable and has a solid foundation,” and that “CCMS will perform as designed once it is deployed into the production environment.” In short, we were able to deliver a product that works, is ready to deploy, has the ability do what we designed it to do, and which has the capability to meet branch needs now and for decades to come. It is particularly remarkable that our staff was able to accomplish this as funds continued to be redirected from CCMS development ($171 million over the past three fiscal years).
We now face the unfortunate reality that the unprecedented budget cuts suffered by the branch over the past few years make it impossible for us to invest in the future of the branch as we struggle to maintain even basic services in our courts. Regardless of the promise that CCMS offers the branch and the public, we simply do not have the resources to move forward.
It is difficult to say what use we may still be able to make of CCMS technology.”
=========
All I can say about Mr. Bruiniers letter is: Wenn ist das Nunstuck git and Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput! (Hint: watch And Now For Something Completely Different)
Yes Mr. Bruiniers, you continue to tell the funniest joke in the world. Well, it would have been the funniest joke in the world except for all the jobs lost and lives interrupted by your insistence on fueling the Deloitte Chariot to Nowhere. What some people will sacrifice to attain a relatively insignificant goal in their lives…
Wendy Darling
April 5, 2012
Justice Bruiniers didn’t sell his soul to be on the big stage. He didn’t have one to sell to begin with, or a conscience, or the ability to tell the truth. Which is why he was picked to be “on the big stage” – he fit right in. No tailoring needed.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 5, 2012
I could not agree more Wendy. That’s why I threw in sole, in lieu of soul.
unionman575
April 5, 2012
What the hell is “Bruno Boy” Terrence Bruiniers smoking????
Wendy Darling
April 5, 2012
Not “smoking” . . . drinking, as in hallucinogenic Kool-Aid.
unionman575
April 5, 2012
He could be smoking and drinking both. Yeah that’s the ticket Bruno Boy.
Wendy Darling
April 5, 2012
I didn’t think it was a typo, General Woodhull. And I hesitated to point out the obvious, but sometimes it just needs to be said. Especially when the Orwellian techno-speak lies just keeping flowing out of his mouth, one right after the other.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
April 5, 2012
And a turd should be called a turd. I agree, General and Wendy. Sometimes it’s so obvious, but you cannot count on how the weirdos will read and spell it! They think differently than normal people.
unionman575
April 5, 2012
Yes a turd is a turd.
wearyant
April 5, 2012
“… CCMS Executive Committee, CCMS General Administrative Advisory Committee, CCMS Operational Advisory Committee, CCMS Justice Partner Advisory Committee …”
This has got to be a joke, right? Gawddamm!
Not to mention the unmitigated garbage about how deMess is “scalable and has a solid foundation.” Hahaha. I hope all Bruiniers’ words get fed to him on a deMess platter! That could happen when and if the pointy heads attempt to get back something on their investment. Another big laugh that makes my head ache. Bruiniers is not likely to ever get his sole back. um, if he ever had one. (I prefer the General’s spelling.)
JusticeCalifornia
April 5, 2012
From page 56 of the Grant Thornton Judicial Council report:
“Release 1 of CCMS. Before CCMS V4 can be deployed at any court, the core software must be brought up-to-date with all legislative changes since the design requirements were ‘frozen’ during CCMS V4 development . The AOC has 85 legislative changes, 76 enhancements, and 25 bug fixes that they would like to incorporate into the CCMS V4 core software to create a ‘CCMS V4 Release 1′ that will be ready to implement at the early adopter court. Deloitte is currently completing the design work for these changes under an existing contract, but a new contract for approximately $5m will be required to apply all these changes to CCMS V4 by November 2012. We assumed that all the estimate $5m would be expended in FY 12/13.”
Terry–dude! Your own guy said it would take 8 months, $5 mil and a new Deloitte contract to get the 186 — yes 186–CCMS V-4 changes, bugs and enhancements ironed out so V-4 could be deployed.
If Bruniers truly said, in writing, that CCMS is “ready to deploy” he is either suffering from a memory related illness, high on drugs, or knowingly lying.
At what point do members of top leadership get called on the carpet for knowingly lying, over and over again? What is the correct fix? A civil lawsuit? A personal lawsuit? CJP action? Criminal prosecution? Or do these people just get to lie, over and over again, with no consequence? They are DISGRACING the entire CA bench, harming countless lives,
and each and every day further undermining trust and confidence in the branch.
Leanne Kozak essentially calling the state auditor a liar was Exhibit “A” for the argument in favor of AB 1208. Brunier’s letter –if it says CCMS is “ready to deploy” –is Exhibit B. There is a HUGE difference between “ready to deploy” and requiring 186 fixes, $5 million, a new Deloitte contract, and 8 months of work IN ORDER TO BE ready to deploy. It is hard to believe these nincompoops are asserting control over a $3 billion budget and “the largest judiciary in the Western World”. It is irresponsible for the branch and the legislature to maintain the status quo, given “top leadership’s” increasingly deplorable track record, and the availability of a legislative fix.
JusticeCalifornia
April 5, 2012
Speaking of “souls”, Henry Rollin’s video “liar” is harsh (don’t watch it if you cannot tolerate punk rock), but the fact is, “top leadership” has been lying for years, while wasting billions of dollars on CCMS and courthouse construction (and what else, I wonder?) at the expense of the branch and the public. How much longer is this going to be tolerated? How much lower can the branch go?
Wendy Darling
April 5, 2012
“How much lower can the branch go?” I don’t know, but what is lower than the sewer it’s in now? Prison?
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 5, 2012
Justice I love Henry Rollins – he tells it like it is both through his music and the spoken word!
unionman575
April 5, 2012
That has to be my #1 video selection for the humps at the JC/AOC
They are liars!
unionman575
April 5, 2012
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
lando
April 6, 2012
Thanks for the insights, Woodhull Wendy, Justice and all others here and everywhere who believe government should act with integrity and honesty.CCMS doesn’t work. It wasn’t ready to be deployed. Don’t believe the man behind the curtain , J Bruiners. All his claims that CCMS was working and ready for deployment are contradicted by the State Auditors report that said a year ago that it would take another 1.5 billion dollars to complete this mess. J Bruiners claims are also expressly contradicted by the AOC’s own hired gun, Grant Thornton. Countless stories from judges and courtroom clerks from around the state also contradict the assertion that CCMS worked effectively. 10 minutes to load a case on a probate calendar in San Diego? 1 tech person hired for almost every judge in Orange County to manage a CCMS workaround complete with its own server ? Judges from Sacramento so frustrated that they told the JC they wouldn’t continue to use the system and to their credit were willing to stand up to the JC and insider J Huffman. Even in the court touted as desperate for CCMS, SLO, we learn judges were badly divided about implementing it. What the insiders like J Bruiners don’t understand is that no one is buying what they are selling anymore. Making incredible claims about the continued success of CCMS is great as it demonstrates to the world just how out of touch the antidemocratic JC at 455 Golden Gate actually is. So thanks, J Bruiners, J Miller and AOC shill Ms Kozak. Please continue that Pravda like spin on CCMS as it the strongest argument for the reformation of the JC and the recall of the CJ.
versal-versal
April 6, 2012
I don’t say this lightly. Justice Bruiners needs to be recalled. His comments about CCMS are shocking and an embarrassment to the entire branch of government we serve.
Wendy Darling
April 6, 2012
Yes, he does need to be recalled, and yes, his comments about CCMS, as well as other comments regarding branch administation, are shocking and an embarassment to the entire branch. His lack of integrity and eager willingness to engage in intellectual dishonesy is also shocking and an embarassment to the entire branch. And yet, the Chief Justice just adores him.
Long live the ACJ.
lando
April 6, 2012
You nailed it again Wendy. Intellectual dishonesty. It flows from the arrogance of unaccountable power. The JC needs to be democratized and the CJ needs to be recalled.
unionman575
April 6, 2012
The AOC machine is alive and kicking…there is MORE WORK TO DO…
“Still, the courts cannot afford to abandon this effort entirely. The vote last month should not mean that statewide computerization will be scrapped. While it got less attention, the Judicial Council also voted to explore what can be done, short of statewide deployment, to salvage some parts of the new computer system.”
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/06/4394731/justice-is-loser-as-courts-drop.html
Editorial: Justice is loser as courts drop computer plan
unionman575
April 6, 2012
Ok so we now need 2 recalls: Tani and Bruno Boy.
Let’s get this show on the road.
=)
Wendy Darling
April 6, 2012
I’ve got my clipboard, pens, and comfy tennis shoes ready. Let’s get busy.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 6, 2012
Well, the next focus should be the expensive courthouses the Judicial Council members are slated to get. Let’s look at those, and let’s not forget San Diego. You can be sure these will be a topic of discussion during budget talks.
Wasn’t the budget for the San Diego courthouse originally $1.2 billion? Add Santa Clara (which I do believe already has new courthouses) and you are at $1.5 billion.
So when the branch goes to Sacramento crying poormouth, when it has over-the-top projects in the cooker, it is relatively easy to say– if they have $1.5 billion sitting around for two courthouses alone, and lots to waste on unlicensed contractors who get $500-$2000 to change lightbulbs–and top leadership is lying about costs and projects and making the choice to spend money on buildings and self-serving reports, and committees, and a FULL BLOWN PR DIVISION no other branch has that is taking on the state auditor, rather than keeping court doors open and providing a record of proceedings as the CJP said was necessary for the administration of justice– well, THERE IS FAT IN THAT BUDGET.
Our defiant gambling barmaid and her Team George minions are taking down the branch, and alienating members in all three branches in the process. Everyone expected cantil sakauye to clean house, reset priorities and embrace diverse points of view. Instead, she’s worse than George and change is taking place not because of her, but in spite of her. Think about it. Spending on CCMS, $24 million one-courtroom courthouses, unlicensed contractors who charge outrageous fees, brutality against employees, and the like, would be proceeding full speed ahead if the ACJ, the legislature, AOC Watcher/JCW, Michael Paul, Paula Negley, Jon Wintermeyer, SEIU, members of the press, and ever so many, many concerned others had not stepped in to demand investigations, share information, shine a light on what has been going on, and seek legislative changes. Educating everyone as to the down and dirty things going on in the branch has been the biggest hurdle, because no one could believe these things are really taking place. Many believe it now and more believe it every day, as the proof piles up.
Change is inevitable. But the longer cantil sakauye and Team George remain in charge, the more hurt will be heaped upon the branch. They are the perps who have gotten and kept the branch in this mess. Their excuses about what has happened dominate the CA courts website. Team George has no credibility and everyone knows Team George is not the least bit sorry about what has happened. They are only sorry that they got caught and the money ran out. Handing Team George $3 billion is irresponsible.
anna
April 6, 2012
They’re not sorry, they haven’t been caught yet. They’re just sorry they can’t steal any more money. Until they are arrested for what they did, they are just laughing their asses off.
Wendy Darling
April 6, 2012
Unfortunately, all too true, Anna. So very disgusting, but so very, very true. They boast of being “untouchable” in the dark hall ways of 455 Golden Gate Avenue, especially on the 5th floor.
So very disgusting, but all so very, very true.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 6, 2012
Actually Team George– the members of which once fancied themselves to be masters of the universe– have been caught repeatedly lying, severely mismanaging multibillion dollar projects, grossly overpaying unlicensed contractors, harassing employees, destroying documents, writing and commissioning self-serving and misleading reports, abusing the assigned judges program, feathering their own nests at the expense of the branch and the public, and so much more.
They are being ridiculed and scorned on a daily basis, and increasingly recognized as bullies, liars and fools who have sacrificed virtually anything– and I do mean anything, including innocent children–to get their way and cover up their misdeeds.
I would not say Team George is going out in a blaze glory — or that they are laughing their asses off. They will be remembered as the arrogant architects of the takedown of the largest judiciary in the Western world. They are going to be subject of the civics lessons our gambling barmaid is so hot to push as her pet project.
A few years ago no one would have believed it if you told them what was happening. Now lots of people get it. As the three branches and the public become increasingly educated about Team George and how it has taken advantage of its orchestrated utter lack of oversight or accountability, the calls for investigations, restitution and prosecution will grow. It is a matter of time. And look how far things have come.
Once it becomes really, really clear that the party’s over, and that those who have towed the party line face being shunned and questioned by law enforcement rather than showered with party favors, those left with any kind of survival instincts or viable excuse will jump the sinking Team George ship.
Just my opinion.
anna
April 6, 2012
Justice California,
While I agree with most of what you say, and the article you linked to is great,[it needs to be read by Sen. Evans] people can only be “shamed” if they care, or have a conscience. Team George may have “cared” about his legacy, but not as much as his love for money and power. People such as his ilk, only get “it”, if they are jailed.
He is a megalomaniac, and probably a sociopath.
You’re right, a few years ago no one would have ever thought these things could happen. However, there is still a great deal of denial out there, and the Steinbergs of the world, are more than willing to take advantage of that.
These cretins need to be investigated and jailed. George needs to shunned, and not put on one more “advisory” anything. That bastard needs to lose all of his “influence”.
Most decent people would be shamed, at knowing that all of their deeds were exposed as his were, however, most decent people would not have done what George did. He wasn’t decent, he is a sociopath.
That’s why we put them in jail, when they break the law.
anna
April 6, 2012
Justice California,
I don’t mean to criticize you, I just think you are too trusting, however, your perspective always gives me hope.
I’ve just seen too much corruption, and no one seems to care. You always prove me wrong. As a matter of fact, this entire website, proves me wrong, because all of you care and it’s taken a long time for this to come to light, yet it has. However, the damage in not over, nor, is the work done.
unionman575
April 7, 2012
I share your opinion Justice.
JusticeCalifornia
April 6, 2012
I found this as I was trying to figure out whatever happened to ron george.
Great article summing up what has gone down.
http://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/pages/sonoma-county-news-article-139.html
Wendy Darling
April 6, 2012
Thanks for posting this link, Justice California.
A copy of that article should be sent to every single member of the State Legislature, and hand delivered to Darrell Steinberg.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
April 6, 2012
Yes, great article by someone who apparently sees it all from the sad inside. I agree with everything this man says. Wish it could be required reading for all in California.
wearyant
April 6, 2012
http://sonomacountygazette.blogspot.com/2010/01/disorder-in-courts-california-budget.html
Do I feel foolish after reading the above. I’m not fit to carry Stirling’s lunch sack. I would shine his shoes if he would permit it …
LOVE this guy!
katy
April 6, 2012
Fourth District Division One Appellate Court strikes again on behalf of Ralph’s. More twisting of anti-SLAPP laws.
Since when is someone, who was the subject of malicious prosecution, strategically litigating against public participation for seeking restitution from a large corporation?
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/john040612.htm
anna
April 7, 2012
Just shows how bankrupt McConnell is. You have a cause of action that now can never be litigated. WTF?
unionman575
April 7, 2012
And let the spending continue at the AOC…while the trial courts all starve for funding…
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
INVITATION FOR BID IFB-ISD-031912-AA
DELL HARDWARE/EQUIPMENT
PER SPECIFICATIONS
NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD
April 2, 2012
After evaluation of the proposals submitted in response to Invitation for bid (IFB) # IFB-ISD-031912-AA, and review and approval of the evaluation team’s recommendation, the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has selected Dell Computer, of Round Rock, Texas, as the preferred goods provider for the goods set forth in the subject IFB.
Provided contract negotiations can be successfully finalized, the AOC intends to award the contract for these goods to Dell Computer.
anna
April 7, 2012
When is the legislature going to step in and shut these fuc&^rs down?
lando
April 8, 2012
Have a nice Easter to everyone here on JCW !
versal-versal
April 8, 2012
Hi All, Thanks to all of you for the incredible insights and comments. It was about 6 years ago when HRH 1 declared any criticism of him would be tantamount to a” declaration of war”. It was only about a year and a half ago that HRH 1 declared any one critical of his policies was as insignificant as an ” ant on a trail “. HRH 1 and his supporters further demeaned any one with a different views as “shrill and uninformed” or as “clowns “. Today the many who stood up to this and the continuing injustice that flows from the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate have much to say we accomplished for the benefit of the citizens of California. HRH 1, and his minions J Huffman, Vickrey and Ron O have left the building. CCMS the biggest public policy failure in California history is done. The legislature and the public are now aware of the excesses of our new Chief , and the anti-democratic JC. 1208 is close to becoming law. Next we need to democratize the JC and recall the CJ. We must remain vigilant against the punishments and retribution we risk for speaking out and exercising our most cherished First Amendment rights. Have a nice holiday everyone.
katy
April 8, 2012
Question. Does anyone know if this right? I was told that all judges must have their oath and a bond on record with the county. Bonds must be recorded in a book of Official Record. Said oath and bond are required by law to be timely filed pursuant to the following:
REQUIREMENTS OF OATH OF OFFICE
Cal. Gov. Code § 1363(a) states:
Unless otherwise provided, every oath of office certified by the officer before whom it was taken shall be filed within the time required as follows:
(2) The oath of all officers elected or appointed for any county, and, except as provided in paragraph (4), of all officers whose duties are local, or whose residence in any particular county is prescribed by law, in the office of the county clerk of their respective counties.
REQUIREMENTS OF BOND OF OFFICE
West’s Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1457 reads: (emphasis added)
Unless otherwise provided, the official bonds of a county and judicial district shall be approved by the presiding judge of the superior court, recorded in the office of the county recorder, and then filed in the county clerk’s office.
West’s Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1461 reads:
Any person appointed to fill a vacancy shall give a bond, corresponding in substance and form with the bond required of the officer originally elected or appointed, before entering upon the duties of the office.
West’s Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1481 reads (in part):
(a) When deemed expedient by the appointing power, a master official bond or other form of master bond may be used which shall provide coverage on more than one officer, employee, or agent who is required by the appointing power or the board of supervisors of a chartered or general law county to give bond.
Mechanics of Filing Offical Bonds
West’s Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1450 reads (emphasis added):
Unless otherwise provided, every official bond shall be filed in the proper office within the time prescribed for filing the oath.
West’s Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1451 reads:
The approval of every offical bond shall be indorsed thereon and signed by the officer approving the bond.
West’s Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1452 reads:
No officer with whom any official bond is required to be filed shall file such bond until approved.
West’s Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1453 reads:
Official bonds shall be recorded in a book kept for that purpose entitled “Record of Official Bonds.”
Penalty for failure to timely file Offical Bonds
West’s Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1770 reads (in part, emphasis added):
An office becomes vacant on the happening of any of the following events before the expiration of the term:
…
(i) His or her refusal or neglect to file his or her required oath or bond within the time prescribed.
unionman575
April 8, 2012
Please provide your source Katy and I’ll be happy to double check it.
katy
April 8, 2012
The source is a Pro Per litigant who states there are many judges in CA who do not properly have their oaths and bonds filed with the county in which they work. SD county has 212 oaths on record (no sure if that means just judges). Less bonds. He was able to cite the above noted references and a few others. I have never heard anything of this subject before but he states its important to know.
Another source tells me that within the stealth Case History of CCMS is evidence that the courts generate income off of cases by “trading them like derivatives”. I have no clue what this is about or if there is any validity to this claim.
Just wondering if anyone knows anything of these subjects; and if so and if I wanted to know more, where I would look.
anna
April 8, 2012
The judiciary is exempted from some of the Govt. Code. [if not all]. One would have to read the definitions of the Govt. Code to see if these sections include the judiciary.
However, you’re statement that “cases” are traded as ‘derivatives” is extremely disturbing. I know for a fact, and have documented, that judges [including disqualified ones] have discussed cases and possible outcomes, with defense council and have ruled so those outcomes will come about. They are not always successful. And that’s where the shit hit’s the fan. That’s where Huffman, McConnell, and George used the AOC,JC and the State Bar to retaliate.
However, some very smart lawyers, had those verdicts and judgements upheld. [It’s not that hard to take the lame “personal responsibility”, “jack-pot lotto”, “victim was asking for it”, defenses and turn them on their head. Juries are not as stupid as defense lawyers or judges think. However, some very big law firms had a “lot of ‘splain’in to do to their big corporate clients and why their bills were so high, and yet they lost. [Not to mention the payoff they paid to certain judges, including Huffman, McConnell, and George] Oh, yeah,Ron Burkle gave a great deal of favors to George. Just ask about the private plane rides.
Katy, would be nice if you could elaborate as to what your source meant.
unionman575
April 8, 2012
http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/index.cfm?state=CA
Judicial Selection in the States: California
Overview
The California judiciary consists of the supreme court, the courts of appeal, and the superior court. According to California’s constitution, judges of the supreme court and courts of appeal are nominated by the governor and must be confirmed by the commission on judicial appointments, which consists of the chief justice, the attorney general, and a presiding justice of the courts of appeal. Since 1979, the legislature has required that the State Bar of California’s commission on judicial nominees evaluation conduct a thorough investigation of the background and qualifications of prospective nominees, but the governor is not bound by the commission’s recommendations. Appellate judges must stand for retention in the next gubernatorial election after their appointment. Appellate judges serve twelve-year terms.
Superior court judges are chosen in nonpartisan elections for six-year terms. The governor fills vacancies on the superior court by appointment. As with appellate court appointments, prospective nominees must first be investigated by the commission on judicial nominees evaluation. The vast majority of superior court judges initially reach the bench via gubernatorial appointment, and once on the bench, incumbents are rarely challenged for reelection.
In many states, judicial retention elections are low-key affairs, with judges facing little, if any, organized opposition. Over the years, retention elections for appellate justices in California have been the exception to this rule. In 1986, three justices, including the chief justice, were targeted for their rulings against the death penalty. A total of $11.5 million was spent campaigning for and against the justices, setting a record at that time for spending in a judicial election. In recent elections, justices have been targeted for their decisions in abortion cases, but efforts to unseat them have been unsuccessful. However, the margin of approval for state appellate justices in retention elections declined from an average of 76.8% in the 1980s to 60.1% in 1994.
Been There
April 8, 2012
It is not my intention to hijack this topic, Unionman, but your post brought to mind that three, I believe, Riverside County Superior Court Judges are facing challengers in the upcoming election. Now, normally, I would not be too curious about so many challenges in one county, but then I read that the JC’s own Justice Miller is visiting the editorial boards of the local press in support of the incumbents — and wondered what is going on that is bringing the good Justice into the debate. The Justice is quite the comedian. He observed that parties to an action who believe a sitting judge has acted inappropriately or unethically can file a complaint with the CJP.
anna
April 8, 2012
Yeah right, and then they will really fu*k you. Because the CJP gave them the green light.
Been There
April 8, 2012
It is an Orwellian world indeed.
Wendy Darling
April 8, 2012
Animal Farm and 1984 come to life, before our very eyes. It can no longer be called “fiction.”
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
katy
April 8, 2012
Anna,
Its two different sources. One stated that unless a judge has their oath and bond properly on record with the county, they are not acting within the law. He tells me that five judges have been “dismissed” for this. (meaning they denied it when challenged and then recuised (sp) themselves).
The other tells me that cases have value such as stock and are “traded like derivatives”. He tells me this info is in the Case History of CCMS. I honestly have no idea what he means with this – but do find this individual to be a smart, credible person.
Right now, I have seen nothing that states the above is incorrect. But that’s all I know and I consider it hearsay until I see more in writing. Was hoping someone here might know of these aspects.
As far as the CJP – they can’t keep it up. Its gotta give. More later.
unionman575
April 9, 2012
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/04/09/2301260/our-view-a-setback-for-justice.html#storylink=cpy
Pravda at work again…
The judicial branch needs to be weaned off paper and onto a computerized filing system — statewide.
The California Judicial Council voted reluctantly but unanimously last month to pull the plug on its Court Case Management System, a costly statewide computer system designed to link all 58 county court systems in ways that, in theory, would have made the transfer of information seamless and instantaneous.
Court watchers may regard the vote as a victory for dissident judges, who had criticized the project as a boondoggle. It is not a victory. The failure of the decadelong effort to wean the judicial branch of government from paper and bring it into the electronic age is a setback for the administration of justice in California.
Not all the $553 million investment spent on the project has been wasted. Remnants of a system still work in Sacramento, Fresno, San Joaquin, Los Angeles, San Diego, Ventura and Orange counties. Judges, litigants, law enforcement agents and the public in those counties will have limited ability to file complaints and other court motions electronically and to retrieve those documents electronically as well.
But the statewide computer system originally envisioned, one that would allow judges and lawyers in all 58 counties to file and access documents electronically, has been put on hold indefinitely.
As it is, judges sitting in dependency court in one county who want to know whether the parent sitting before them has a criminal record in another county must wait for a paper file to be sent, rather than accessing the court files electronically.
A plaintiff’s attorney who files a lawsuit in Yolo County has no easy way to discover whether there is a similar case pending in Ventura County.
If a functioning computer system could have been installed, new state laws approved every year that modify court procedures or criminal penalties could be uploaded onto courtroom computers across the state simultaneously.
Citing a recent independent audit of CCMS, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said the system would have worked as designed.
“Unfortunately,” she told the Judicial Council, “we don’t have the resources to deploy it.” Those who voted to shelve CCMS said their decision was entirely budget driven. The courts have lost $650 million in state funding during the last four years. If the governor’s tax increase measure is not approved, there could be another $125 million cut. Judicial Council members faced an impossible choice — deploy the new computer system or keep courthouse doors open. They voted to keep courthouse doors open.
A delay of deployment for a year or more until state finances improved was not an option. To preserve the cash needed to keep courts functioning, court administrators say they had to dismiss the team of private vendors who developed CCMS.
To reassemble such a team a year or two from now would be very difficult, if not impossible, and it would substantially increase the already very high cost of the project.
Still, the courts cannot afford to abandon this effort entirely. The vote last month should not mean that statewide computerization will be scrapped. While it got less attention, the Judicial Council also voted to explore what can be done, short of statewide deployment, to salvage some parts of the new computer system.
Eventually, the state justice system must move into the computer age. Justice demands it.
Editorials are the opinion of the Merced Sun-Star editorial board. Members of the editorial board include Publisher Eric Johnston, Executive Editor Mike Tharp, Online Editor Brandon Bowers and Guest Editor Jessica Boerner-Grissom.
DRead more here: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/04/09/2301260/our-view-a-setback-for-justice.html#storylink=cpy
Judicial Council Watcher
April 9, 2012
That read was remarkably similar to the recent piece in the Sacramento Bee from their editorial board. Tani must be traveling the state again continuing to sell ccms to editorial boards. By canceling the program they’re expecting to generate outcry to get funding for the program ? We’re not convinced CCMS is dead. If we were convinced CCMS was dead we would be California’s seven billion dollar reality check.
JusticeCalifornia
April 9, 2012
It is not hard to read the handwriting on the wall.
Money will continue to be spent on CCMS, overtly and secretly.
V-4 will be readied for deployment, and “voluntarily” deployed in certain courts. I predict Marin will be one such court. kim turner already has a history of covering up improper IT contracts, destroying incriminating documents and spending an obscene $2 million a year on Marin’s sad little CMS system, which cannot even produce an online register of actions. kim turner and the cj can have a years-long publicly-funded document shredding/fact altering lovefest telling everyone how well it works.
unionman575
April 9, 2012
Yeah it’s a traveling road show for Tani & Co.
unionman575
April 9, 2012
Sorry Katy I am not up on my constitutionalist theory. You are on your own on that one.
Wendy Darling
April 9, 2012
Published today, Monday, April 9, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise:
Superior Court to Close Four Delinquency Courts
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Four juvenile delinquency courts in Los Angeles County will be closed, Presiding Juvenile Court Judge Michael Nash confirmed Friday.
Nash told various county agencies, in an e-mail dated Thursday, that the Sylmar, Inglewood, Eastlake and Pomona delinquency courts would be closed as part of the Los Angeles Superior Court’s ongoing budget cuts.
No date has been set, the judge told the MetNews, but it will likely be around July 1, when the court’s new fiscal year begins. New assignments for judicial officers now sitting in those courthouses will be made at a later date, Nash said.
Court records show that 13 judicial officers are assigned to the four courthouses, but some of those are dependency referees who have previously been notified that their employment will be ending because of the budget cuts.
In addition to the courthouse closings, the juvenile court will end its Informal Juvenile and Traffic Courts program. Those courts are presently located in Lannaster, Sylmar, Van Nuys, Pasadena, Pomona, Norwalk, Long Beach, Compton, Torrance, and Santa Monica, and at three locations in the Central District.
Nash explained that the court intends to move juvenile traffic infractions—about 12,000 of which were heard last year—to the adult traffic courts, while the remaining cases heard by the IJTCs—about 65,000, divided about equally between misdemeanors and infractions—will be heard in the delinquency courts.
The juvenile court cuts are a fraction of what the Superior Court is doing to close a projected deficit of $145.4 million for the next fiscal year. It announced last month that about 300 employees will lose their jobs and at least 50 courtrooms will be closed.
The court also said last week it would move limited jurisdiction civil cases—those involving $25,000 or less—out of the Pomona North Courthouse and have those cases heard in West Covina.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
April 9, 2012
More Pravda footsteps?
http://blog.saclaw.org/judicial-council-axes-court-case-management-system-project/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+saclaw%2FThLy+%28SacLaw+Savvy%29#.T4NHjO3-LzI
Pravda for Tani and Company will never give up.
unionman575
April 9, 2012
Zoom zoom! Rev up that AOC Spin machine more!
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/oc12-Apr_9.pdf
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye
to Receive National Award from
ABA Commission on Women Lawyers
SAN FRANCISCO—Chief Justice of California Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye has received the Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award, which is awarded each year by the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession.
JusticeCalifornia
April 9, 2012
Thank goodness a record (of what cantil sakauye knew, when she knew it, and how she acted upon it) was made before minimimi became cj.
The truth hurts. Sell-out cantil sakauye has desperately tried to make the most of her “I’m an immigrant ethnic female from the wrong side of the tracks who did good” veneer. But that is what it is– a veneer. It has apparently been VERY easy for this bought and paid for gambling barmaid to put aside her roots and support base, and get down on her ambitious kiss-ass, suck-up knees (the exact opposite of where genuinely intelligent, powerful women are and will always be), to excuse egregious court crimes and indiscretions.
unionman575
April 9, 2012
The AOC press club works 24/7 folks. CCMS is NOT dead yet as they “study” it for salvage value.
Hear us now JC/AOC: Stop spending money on this piece of shit now!
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120409/OPINION/120409539/1036/business?Title=PD-Editorial-A-technology-Titanic-in-state-s-courts
PD Editorial: A technology Titanic in state’s courts
Published: Monday, April 9, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
California is home to Hewlett-Packard, Apple and other titans of the computer industry. Yet when the state ventures into technology, the results often bring another famous name to mind — Titanic.
The latest disaster story comes from the courts, which just abandoned a statewide computer upgrade after spending $500 million — and connecting just six of 58 counties.
Pulling the plug was the right decision. In a scathing report last fall, the state auditor said it would cost $1.9 billion to complete the project, which would have linked the computer systems for courts in all 58 counties. Court officials disputed the auditor’s report, yet their estimate — $1.3 billion to finish the job — wasn’t much better.
A state that’s closing parks and struggling to find space for students applying to its colleges and universities can’t afford to waste money. That said, the lack of modern record keeping and communication technology in California’s courts is as disturbing as the mismanagement of the computer upgrade.
California law enforcement agencies can share crime reports, probation reports, corrections records and other vital information with one another at the click of a mouse, aiding investigations and enabling protection of potential victims.
There’s no similar integration in the state’s court system.
Attorneys can draft lawsuits, motions and other papers on their computers, with the ability to transmit them directly, but the courts aren’t equipped to receive them. Clerks, meanwhile, send thick paper files back and forth, much as they did in the Titanic era.
A judgment or protective order granted in one county can’t be automatically transmitted to courts in other counties. When a party in a child support case moves to another county, they must wait for court records to catch up. When paper records can’t be found, hearings are postponed, needlessly costing litigants and attorneys time and money.
A group of judges worked to scuttle the computer system, arguing that it was too costly at a time when budget cuts exacerbated backlogs in the courts. They also argued that the state ¬Judicial Council, the driving force behind the computer upgrade, is amassing power that should rest in county courthouses.
We’ll let the judges sort out their political battles, but there’s a larger issue here that shouldn’t be overlooked. Many other states have linked their courts. The federal courts also have an integrated system for filing and tracking civil and criminal cases. California would benefit from a similar system.
California may have better served by adopting and, as necessary, adapting a court management system already in use elsewhere rather than insisting on creating a customized computer program from scratch.
The state has had past disasters with computer networks for DMV and child support collections, spending millions in each case with little return.
The next step may be for the state auditor to review this fiasco and recommend a better approach for integrating technology into California government. But as we approach the 100th anniversary of the Titanic, the state’s courts need a 21st century record keeping system, for both safety and efficiency.
unionman575
April 9, 2012
Tani it’s movie time babe!
http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2012/03/31/one-failed-computer-system-cost-of-space-shuttle/152146/#more-152146
One failed computer system = Cost of space shuttle
March 31st, 2012, 9:43 am • • posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
We have been told not to speak ill of the dead, but we at The Watchdog tend to be wanting in social graces.
So even though the $2 billion computer project (which was to connect all of California’s courts and law enforcement into one seamless whole) was killed this week, we got a wicked giggle out of this biting little video.
A robotic cartoon judge is perched in her robotic cartoon courtroom when a robotic cartoon man enters.
Judge: “The court is closed for business today. Is there something I can help you with?”
Man: “I need one hundred fifty million dollars.”
Judge: “Why?”
Man: “For my case management system.”
Judge: “The taxpayers have already given you six hundred million dollars for that piece of trash. Why do you need another one hundred fifty million dollars?”
Man: “To make changes that conform to the needs of specified core activities in keeping with best management practices. Just put the money in the bag.”
Judge: “You need more money because your case management system is screwed up?”
Man: “No. The case management system is working. We just need to tweak it.”
Judge: “Tweak it with a sledgehammer. I think that will take care of it.”
Man: “It is a very popular program.”
Judge: “No it isn’t. It is only popular with those who profited from it. Including managers who staked their reputations on it and contractors who have been enriched by it. Employees hate it….You could have bought a space shuttle. You could have bought a high speed train. You could have educated children. You could have kept courts open. Where are your priorities?”
Man: “When case management goes live we will have an operationally sound value-added system….”
Judge: ”The federal courts have a case management system that has been in place for a long time. It works. Why did you have to build one from scratch?”
Man: “…Just put the money in the bag.”
When the computer system that would stitch the legal and law enforcement worlds was envisioned in 2004, it was supposed to cost $260 million and be operational by 2009. But the price tag grew and grew — to $2 billion – and its start date got farther and farther away, to 2016 at last count.
Horrible oversight of the project was attacked in a highly critical report by State Auditor Elaine Howle last year — and this week, the Judicial Council drove an official stake through the project’s heart.
California has spent about $560 million or so on it. We await a precise accounting.
The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion, NASA says.
Wendy Darling
April 9, 2012
Maybe the video will now go viral. And perhaps someone from law enforcement will finally demand, subpoena in hand, “Show us the money.”
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 9, 2012
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
Recall the Chief Justice.
unionman575
April 9, 2012
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2012/04/09/5485/plan-calls-major-cuts-la-county-juvenile-courts-sy/
Plan calls for major cuts to LA county juvenile courts system
9:18 p.m. | By Tami Abdollah
Los Angeles Superior Court
All 13 Informal Juvenile and Traffic Courts will be closed and four Delinquency Courts shuttered under the latest Los Angeles County Superior Court plan to deal with millions in proposed state budget cuts, according to an email sent last week by Juvenile Court Presiding Judge Michael Nash to L.A. County officials.
As a result, tens of thousands of cases that involve typically lower-level offenses that students are cited for in and around school campuses, for example daytime curfew violations or disorderly conduct, will instead be routed through the remaining 24 Delinquency Courts — a system that often deals with more serious felony violations that would be considered criminal if committed by an adult.
“We’re pushing those kids into a system that puts kids on formal probation and many times has to send kids away to juvenile probation camps, or take them out of their home,” said David Sapp, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.
The change would also nearly quadruple the case load of the Delinquency Court, which in 2011 heard about 17,000 cases among its 28 courts. County officials have also said that the increased pressure on the court system may result in less scrutiny or time spent on cases and the possibility that more serious cases will have to be prioritized.
In 2011, the Informal Juvenile and Traffic Courts heard about 77,000 cases, with roughly 12,000 of these traffic infractions and the remaining 65,000 split evenly between misdemeanors and infractions, according to the email. In this informal court, punishments usually range from fines to community service or a resource-based alternative, Sapp said.
“This system is not built or structured to be able to handle that case load, and also, it’s not built to handle these sorts of cases,” Sapp said. Sapp said citations for jaywalking, tobacco possession, loitering and other such “victimless” or minor crimes would be handled by Delinquency Court under the plan.
Details from Judge Nash’s email:
1) Four Delinquency Courts will be closed, one each at Sylmar, Inglewood, Eastlake and Pomona.
2) There will be some judicial staffing changes that will be announced once details are finalized.
3) All of the Informal Juvenile and Traffic Courts (IJTC) will be closed. The courts are in Lancaster, Sylmar, Van Nuys, Pasadena, Pomona, Norwalk, Long Beach, Compton, Torrance, Santa Monica and Central (three courts).
4) Most of the cases, including misdemeanors and infractions, typically heard in Informal Juvenile and Traffic Courts would instead be heard in the Delinquency Courts. Traffic infractions would be sent to the adult traffic courts.
The changes are an attempt to deal with the $652 million in cuts to California courts since 2008, according to a memo sent out to all judicial officers and court staff in March. The plan calls for a $4.8 million cut to the juvenile courts system as part of an overall $48 million cut to the Los Angeles Superior Court. The system is expected to layoff 350 people in its restructuring of more than 50 courtrooms, the memo states.
If the governor’s tax initiative does not get approved by voters in November, the court system would be hit with another $125 million in cuts, the memo states.
Sapp said such purely budget-driven cuts are “really scary to contemplate” and work against recent reforms.
The proposed changes “undermine and, frankly, undo a number of efforts that have been building over the last year to improve the juvenile court system and ensure that youth are not unnecessarily pushed into the criminal system for minor offenses which are better addressed through resources,” Sapp said.
Judge Nash has worked to bring in a number of reforms to the juvenile court including issuing a directive for the courts to dismiss fines for truancy in certain circumstances as part of a countywide effort to focus on less punitive responses to student attendance problems. (Nash could not be reached for comment.)
As part of this broad-based effort, Los Angeles City Council recently adopted a new daytime curfew law that works to more holistically address such problems and identify the reasons behind why a student is late. The law takes effect this week.
Tami Abdollah can be reached via email and on Twitter (@latams).
unionman575
April 9, 2012
I like it right to the point Tani…
Your spinmasters can spin on this…
http://www.ediscoverycalifornia.com/insights/
The Bench: #California Judicial Council Kills ‘Tower of Babel’
Project: California Court Case Management System
Number of Years in the Making – Ten
Number of Computer Systems Utilized State-Wide – 70
Initial Cost Estimate – $260 million
Amount Spent to Date – $560 million
Amount Still to be Spent – $8.6 million
Estimated Cost to Complete – $2 billion
Number of Counties Upgraded – Six out of 58
Cancellation Date – Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Effect on the California Court System – PRICELESS!
unionman575
April 9, 2012
If they only had CCMS up in San Luis Obispo…. It’s a damn shame!
What will the AOC seek to plant next in the media?
http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2012/04/02/san-luis-obispo-court-responds-to-criticism-over-limiting-public-access-to-criminal-records-by-citing-privacy-concerns/
San Luis Obispo Court Responds to Criticism over Limiting Public Access to Criminal Records by Citing Privacy Concerns
For budgetary and other reasons, the court has discontinued its past practice of providing access to criminal case information at a terminal at the law library and public counters. The law limits the nature and amount of criminal records information that may be provided remotely. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.503(c).) The criminal case records provided at the courthouse meet legal access requirements.
Finally, the San Luis Obispo court has an antiquated records system. Efforts to update and modernize the system are challenging, particularly in the present economic environment. For the past ten years, we have been working with the Administrative Office of the Courts to implement the California Case Management System (CCMS) which would have provided public portals for remote access to court records. However, due to the downturn in the economy, the funds needed to deploy CCMS have dissipated and as a result, the Judicial Council voted to suspend its implementation. This leaves us with a system that is difficult and costly to program until such time we can find an alternative case management system.
unionman575
April 9, 2012
Guest
April 10, 2012
Is it just me or does the court manager in the video look just like Mike Roddy? “He” even uses the same sounds bites and arguments for CCMS as Roddy. What a coincidence. Too funny.
Wendy Darling
April 10, 2012
How about Bill Vickrey with a Mike Roddy mustache?
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 9, 2012
Mark your calendars and get ready to roll (again) to the Death Star…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/jcmeetings.htm
2012 Judicial Council Meeting Dates
Monday April 23, and
Tuesday April 24
Wednesday June 20,
Thursday June 21, and
Friday June 22
Friday July 27
Thursday August 30, and
Friday August 31
Thursday October 25, and
Friday October 26
Thursday December 13, and
Friday December 14
wearyant
April 10, 2012
Aren’t some fun things happening on Friday, the 13th?
unionman575
April 10, 2012
Since the AOC is loaded with CASH, better hire more security and NOTE:
The Judicial Council of California and the California Appellate Courts are exempt from the personnel services contracting requirements in Government Code Sections 19130-19134.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17447.htm
Non-sworn, unarmed, uniformed security guard services, OERS-201101-RB
The AOC seeks the services of one (1) firm to provide the following services:
The Judicial Council/AOC (the “State”) seeks the services of a qualified contractor to perform non-sworn, unarmed, uniformed security guard services for the offices of the Judicial Council/AOC, the California Supreme Court, and the California Courts of Appeal, at a total of nine (9) sites across the State. One contractor is to provide this service statewide. The estimated annual value for the services in this RFP is expected to be between $900,000 and $1,000,000.
The Judicial Council of California and the California Appellate Courts are exempt from the personnel services contracting requirements in Government Code Sections 19130-19134.
A Pre-Proposal Conference will be conducted at the AOC in San Francisco, CA on April 16, 2012. Each person wishing to attend or participate via conference call in the Pre-Proposal Conference or receive required confidential information related to this RFP must first submit a completed Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) by April 12, 2012. The NDA is identified as Attachment 8, Non-Disclosure Agreement in the RFP.
Logistics for the Pre-Proposal Conference will be provided to each person that submits a completed NDA by close of business on April 12, 2012. Completed, signed and scanned, Non-Disclosure Agreements must be sent via e-mail to Solicitations@jud.ca.gov. The AOC will acknowledge receipt and provide additional required information and logistics regarding the Pre-Proposal Conference.
Attendance at the Pre-Proposal Conference is MANDATORY for all Proposers. Each Proposer must be certain to check in at the pre-proposal conference, as the attendance list will be used to ascertain compliance with this requirement. The AOC will reject a proposal from any Proposer who did not attend the pre-proposal conference.
Proposals must be received by no later than 1:00 p.m. Pacific Time, April 27, 2012. Please review the RFP for other key dates and events.
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden, RFP No. OERS-201101-RB
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Further information regarding this solicitation is set forth in Request for Proposal (RFP) No. OERS-201101-RB
Wendy Darling
April 10, 2012
One can’t help but wonder what the justification for “security guards” at a million dollars is, when the CHP is located right in the state building at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, and already provides “security” for the building, along with the highly paid staff in the AOC’s ERS.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 10, 2012
That’s a million less for us in trial courts.
They are doing a good job of SPENDING HUGE LOADS OF CASH ON BULLSHIT.
unionman575
April 10, 2012
Let’s all ask the AOC Office of Emergency Response (“OERS”) why this guard bullshit is necessary…
OERS main line, 415-865-8991, oers@jud.ca.gov
Management Issues
Malcolm Franklin, Senior Manager, 415-865-8830, malcolm.franklin@jud.ca.gov
Regional Coordination
• Bay Area/Northern Coastal Region Edward Ellestad, Sr. Security Coordinator, 415-865-4538, edward.ellestad@jud.ca.gov
• Central Valley Area Nick Barsetti, Sr. Security Coordinator, 415-865-7432, nick.barsetti@jud.ca.gov
• Northern Region Joe Thims, Sr. Security Coordinator, 916-643-8001, joe.thims@jud.ca.gov
• Southern Region Dennis Duncan, Sr. Security Coordinator, 818-558-3023, dennis.duncan@jud.ca.gov
anna
April 11, 2012
WTF? They are not court rooms. The bailiffs provide security for those spaces. How does this aid the “administration of the courts”? No, there is something more sinister going on here. Bet you they don’t want any type of recording devices etc. inside the building, or want to put a surveillence system in to spy on employees.
Delilah
April 10, 2012
Hey, Unionman, if you haven’t already discovered it, go to the site map at the very bottom of their web page, find AOC bidders/solicitations there, and check the history. Seems to me that some of the older “solicitations” have disappeared since the first time I went there. Ain’t it great to have so much money at your disposal while courtrooms and clerks’ windows close all over CA, and the building of future empty palatial courthouses and hemorrhaging of local court workers continues unabated?
Any update on the three-lettered agency? Or was that just wishful thinking?
Wendy Darling
April 10, 2012
Thanks for asking about an update on the three-letter agency, Delilah. Some of us have been wondering about that too.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 10, 2012
Everyone sign up for procurement alerts (I did) and be the first to know how they WASTE TONS OF MONEY…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/11576.htm
Sign up for procurement alerts
CONTACT INFO
Administrative Office of the Courts Office of Court Construction and Management
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor
San Francisco, California
94102-3688
PHONE
415-865-4900
EMAIL
occm@jud.ca.gov
CUSTOMER SUPPORT CENTER
For courts to report facility issues:
888-225-3583 or csc@jud.ca.gov
To join our email list of alerts and announcements related to requests for qualifications and proposals for courthouse construction and renovation projects, please send a request to occmrfq@jud.ca.gov containing the following information:
• Name
• Title
• Firm name
• Discipline (architecture, engineering, construction management, general contractor, etc.)
• Email address
• Postal address
• Phone number
Wendy Darling
April 10, 2012
Some of us know better than to believe that anything has really changed at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. For example, while some would like to believe that Bill Vickrey and Ron Overholt have left the building, the truth is that no such thing has happened. One, or the other, or usually both, can be seen almost daily roaming the dark hallways of the 3rd and 4th floors of the AOC.
And as for the SEC report, it is rumored in the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate Avenue today that one of the reasons for the most recent “delay” is so that several people in the Director, Assistant Director, and Senior Manager ranks haven’t faired very well in either Justice Scotland’s original SEC draft, or in any of the re-writes following Scotland’s departure. Those so afflicted are being given time to “retire” or take the latest “voluntary separation” buyout so that they can be pre-emptively excised from the SEC report under the guise that they have “left” so there is no reason to include them, or their positions, or their misconduct, in the final SEC “report”/revision. And they’ll all just skip out of there on the public dime, without ever being held accountable for anything.
It’s not hard to figure out why so many people, especially in the trial courts, have so little confidence in judicial branch administration.
Long live the ACJ.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
April 12, 2012
Very interesting post, Wendy. I have to ask “why” Bill Vickrey and Ron Overholt still have not left the building. I had heard that Mr. Vickrey was on the payroll due to unused vacation time; so why is he showing up? I have not heard much about Mr. Overholt’s activities since there were some nice people in suits dropping by his home to admire his kitchen.
So what is going on? I doubt Jody Patel is anxious for their advice and counsel all things considered. Is there a Cleaning Operation going on at 455 Golden Gate that they are overseeing?
Wendy Darling
April 12, 2012
Under the State Government Code, when a state employee, for example, Bill Vickrey, actually separates from state employment, any unused vacation time is cashed out. It is a violation of the State Government Code to continue a state employee “on the payroll” once they have separated from state service. It is also a violation of CalPers regulation to collect “vacation time” on the payroll while at the same time collecting CalPers retirement benefits. Additionally, one cannot use “vacation time” to report for work. The obvious answer is that Bill Vickrey, and Ron Overholt, haven’t gone anywhere, including off the payroll, or stopped working at the AOC. It’s just another lie, among so many others. The only real question is how many people are stupid enough to believe the lie that Vickrey and Overholt have “left.”
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
April 12, 2012
And Res Ipsa if there was a “Cleaning Operation” going on 455 Golden Gate Avenue, anyone with an micro-speck of common sense would think that such a cleaning operation would begin with Vickrey and Overholt.
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
April 12, 2012
Wendy, this must result in an awful lot of people on that Executive Office payroll:
1. Bill Vickrey
2. Bill Vickey’s (former) interim replacement, Ron Overholt
3. Ron Overholt’s interim replacement, Jody Patel
In other words three overpaid people who cannot do the job
PLUS – a cast of thousands! Clark Kelso! Dennis Jones! Super Secret Consultants!
Inquiring minds want to know: Where is Laura Rigdon? Executive Office? Reassigned?
Wendy Darling
April 12, 2012
Been There – Laura Ringdon has been spending a considerable amount of time on the 3rd and 4th floors at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. You know, where Vickrey and Overholt have been “relocated.”
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
April 11, 2012
More spinning from The Ministry Of Truth: published today, Wednesday, April 11, from The Sacramento Bee, by Bill Lindelof. As indicated by the “theme” of the event, Kool-Aid will be served.
California’s chief justice to speak at Yolo County Law Day event
Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court Tani Cantil-Sakauye will be the featured speaker at the Yolo County Bar Association’s Law Day event.
The theme for Law Day this year is “No Courts, No Justice, No Freedom.”
The Law Day gathering is scheduled from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. April 26 at the Woodland Community & Senior Center, 2001 East St.
The bar association hopes to draw lawyers from Yolo County and neighboring counties.
Cantil-Sakauye, the first Filipina American and second female chief justice in California, is a graduate of C.K. McClatchy High School, Sacramento City College and the UC Davis School of Law.
Tickets are $40. Make reservations at hwelton@yolocounty.org.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/11/4405213/californias-chief-justice-to-speak.html#storylink=cpy
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 11, 2012
Everyone should be very, very concerned with the RFP for “security guards”. One of HRH-1’s and Bill V’s pet projects was to create a “Court Police Force” to take over the security functions for the trial courts. Several of us managed to 86 that proposal at the time, since we had the strong support of the Sheriff’s throughout the State. I can just see MiniMe, (who unlike all of those below the appellate level, receives personal protection from the CHP), would be a big champion of creating such a new empire, especially since she won’t be affected by it. If they hire minimally or unqualified personnel to provide security at the trial court level, look how much money they can save!!!! Why the money they save could be diverted to more fabulous retreats and dinners for the members of the Judicial Council. Maybe even a new statewide court computer system!!!!
Security is nothing to be playing around with. The public has a right to expect that they will be safe when they come to court. Hiring unarmed, minimally trained, “security guards” would be about the last straw.
Given the fact that the CHP already provides security at the Crystal Palace, members of the Legislature should be asking, why has this RFP been circulated and who authorized it?????
anna
April 11, 2012
Not only does this matter, the Sheriffs dept is NOT part of the judicial branch. There is a reason. NO? When the bailiffs take the jury they promise that no one will interfere. If, what you are alluding to is true, we have a far bigger problem then you state. Judges are not suppose to have “direct” control over bailiffs. Bailiffs do not answer to the judiciary. They are
part of the executive branch for a good reason. Checks and Balances!!! This bitch and the JC/AOC don’t like it. If a bailiff gives something to a jury during deliberations, upon a judges orders, without all parties knowing, that is considered jury tampering. They can’t fall back on the excuse of ” the judge told me to do it”. They have a duty to protect the jury and the verdict that comes from the excutive branch.
Many problems arise in San Diego, that involve bailiffs, doing just that sort of thing, and several complaints have been forwarded to the CJP, because judges have had bailiffs send messages, and improper questionaires, including conducting investigations of jury deliberations, and then report back to the judge before the verdict is rendered.
I’ve mentioned this before Nathaniel Woodhull.
This happened in Phil Kay’s caeses, and one that is pending now. The Judiciary in San Diego are involved with this up to their eyeballs. It was a pet project of Huffman, McConnell and ex PJ Einhorn. Einhorn created form quesionaires to be delivered to all juries asking improper questions in deliberations before verdicts were rendered, and they never told anyone. Phil Kay only found out by accident. One judge stated, “you’re rude and hurting your clients case”, when he questioned one of her rulings, and he responded, “so be it, we will let the jury decide”. She then stated that she would be vindicated by the jury questionaires she handed to them. He stated he would object to them being handed out, because they could not be considered, and she would still have to rule on matters after a verdict.[No one ever thought she would hand them out during deliberations mid-trial, in a two phase trial. She did. We only found out by accident, that she told her bailiff to do it during deliberations later. They did not vindicate her, the jury found Kay to be the utmost professional throughout the trial, and defense counsel deplorable. We later found out that she does this in captial cases. [handing out these questionaires during mid-trial,] This illegal jury tampering was created by PJ Einhorn along with Huffman.They want nothing more than to cover this up.
I wonder if that’s what Katy meant, when she stated that cases are “treated like derivatives”.
This is how they know what the outcome of trials are down there, or will be before the verdict.
Technically the bailiffs are in the hot seat, they violate their oath, to keep the isolation of the jury sacred, however, the judge are the ones asking for the crimes to be committed.
We are in a world of SH*t.
anna
April 11, 2012
Is this why he picked his administrators from the Sheriff’s dept??? What the hell was George also doing? Did he create the idea of jury questionaires??[see below] This is a huge violation of seperation of the branches of gov’t. Law enforcement is part of the executive branch, and for good reason. What the hell did he do in LA prior to being appointed to the COA?
Is, or was he, even aware of the concept of seperation of power?
The legislature needs to wake up. Or, do all of them think they will become judges after they are termed out?
anna
April 11, 2012
Should read “[see above]”. Sorry.
unionman575
April 11, 2012
I knew everyone would have an interest in that RFP.
=)
unionman575
April 12, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/120412-message-from-justice-douglas-p-miller.pdf
Message from Justice Douglas P. Miller on Future of Information Sharing with Partners
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, the Judicial Council met in a special, full-day session to review options for statewide court technology in the context of the state fiscal crisis and unprecedented budget reductions to the courts. We made the difficult decision to stop the deployment of the California Court Case Management System (CCMS). An integrated, statewide case management system has been the vision of leaders in the courts and state government for more than a decade.
The initial goal of replacing costly and sometimes failing local case management systems was expanded over the years to include services for many justice system partners and the public. As development of the system reached its critical final phase, the state fiscal crisis and severe budget constraints delayed completion of the final product. In recent years, the council redirected more than $170 million from the project to ameliorate budget reductions to the courts. When the final product, CCMS V4, was delivered last November, the council initiated an independent review of the costs for deployment. That analysis by Grant Thornton provided the factual basis for our discussion today. At an estimated cost of $343 million for deployment to 11 courts over the next 10 years, the state cannot afford to continue its investment in CCMS now, even if it is to achieve longer term efficiencies and cost benefits in the future. Instead, the Judicial Council directed that CCMS V4 be terminated, and that the software and technology be leveraged for data exchange, document management, e-filing, electronic access, and other critical needs.
As significant as the decision is to end CCMS, in my view the more important decision coming out of the council meeting is the council’s direction to develop a new branch technology vision and roadmap. This will occur over the next several months under the leadership of Judge James Herman, chair of the council’s CCMS Internal Committee.
The data exchange work already performed to date as well as ongoing work regarding data integration and the exchange of information with our partners supports the efforts going forward in leveraging existing CCMS components separate from deployment. Much of the work completed between the trial courts, branch, AOC and partners to date continues to address issues such as efficiencies, accuracy of data and the electronic sharing of information. It is my hope that the relationships and support our partners have provided will continue as we create our vision to enhance justice partner and public access and transparency of case information.
Regards,
Justice Douglas P. Miller
4th District Court of Appeal, Division 2
unionman575
April 12, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17308.htm
March 27, 2012 Judicial Council Meeting Public Meeting Audio Archive (MP3)
• Public Comments (various speakers) (39 min)
• Introduction (Item A) and Item B: Current CA Fiscal Environment and Judicial Branch Budget Update (29 min)
• Item C: Historical Context of California Court Case Management System (22 min)
• Item D: CCMS Deployment Cost Analysis by Grant Thornton LLP (1 hr 22 min)
• Item E: CCMS Deployment Options (1, 2, and 3) (2 hr 13 min)
• Item F: Maintenence and Operation Costs for Courts with V2 and V3 Interim Case Management Systems (13 min)
• Item G: Election of Delay Cost Reimbursement on CCMS Development Contract (7 min)
To download MP3 files:
Windows: right-click and choose “Save Target As…” Mac: hold Ctrl, click link, and choose “Save As…”
Wiesław Poszewiecki
February 27, 2013
So California is not able to develop software many countries larger then CA implemented and use for many years for a couple of milions dollars (M$3-M$5). What a greed an shame!