The Bar Association of San Francisco, the defenders of truth justice and the Team George way are holding a rally in the steps of City Hall in San Francisco on the 18th of April.
When so many judicial branch movers and shakers, attorneys and court leaders present for a rally in the same public spot. it would be an ideal place to educate them about the real issues facing the branch – like an AOC that fleeces the public and the trial courts with expensive boondoggles. An AOC that enters into secret half-billion dollar contracts with vendors. An AOC that can only change a light bulb if it costs over 200 bucks.
Unfortunately when the Judicial Council and the AOC coordinate a rally of this magnitude to support judicial branch funding, they’re not advocating funding for the courtroom but a more loosely contrived judicial branch funding. And we all know the first stop for judicial branch funding is the boondoggles funded at the AOC over the needs of any court.
So how do we use this rally to our advantage to educate the movers and shakers about the need for direct court funding? How do we use this rally to our advantage to educate the movers and shakers about the boondoggles that cripple judicial branch funding?
Interesting litigation.
Periodically we here at JCW see or are contacted about legal cases of interest. Generally we discourage others posting their case or the events surrounding their case as our task here at JCW isn’t to strike out at a judicial system as a whole. If we wished to highlight the injustices of every case or take on judges for their role from the bench we could be the endless nag site offering no solutions. We believe our focus should remain on the things we think we can change – though to accomplish that we’re compelled to widen our understanding of things.
Recently our friends at the Leslie Brodie Report apparently got a little too close to the truth and were visited by jack booted thugs out to seize computers and computer files. Much of what Leslie Brodie has been covering as of late is a series of stories involving many of the same players and some allegations of outright theft and money laundering of state bar and AOC funds.
Anyways, a lawsuit was filed by a now disbarred attorney who was alleged to have been disbarred in relation to a suit against a bank. Many of the principals and directors of that bank have close ties to Chief Justice George, including the chief justice’s son Eric George. When this suit was relayed to us, we were informed that there might be a follow-up amended complaint possibly by other parties.
Submitted for your consideration :
Been There
April 11, 2012
Daunting question JCW. This event is well coordinated and well scripted, which means plans are already in place to diffuse the effect of any outside voices. I cannot see the ACJ gaining anything by a presence at an event where they will be denied a place on the rostrum. Sounds more like something that may be best covered by court workers and their representatives.
BTW: I see some named defendants in Mr. Dydzak’s complaint are very involved in the Aprl 18 th rally. Hello, Mr. Dunn . . . .
anna
April 11, 2012
I’ve mentioned this before, Dunn was appointed to the State Bar for “cleaning up the mess” of Scott Drexel. Drexel used the State Bar to go after lawyers, and others, who got to close to George’s illegal activity. He’s tied to Steinberg at the hip.
Dunn will do anything to cover up for Empress Tani.
It’s rumored, that he too, wants a COA appointment.
Been there, the players are all the same, and they all, involve the question of illegal payoffs and perks. [Not to mention, obstruction of justice]
Wendy Darling
April 11, 2012
There is no justice left in the California judicial branch.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
April 11, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, April 11, from Courthouse News Service, by Iulia Filip. The California Judicial Council and the AOC are setting the example of what not to do for other state courts. Probably not the “leverage” the judicial council and the AOC were looking for:
Georgia Judges Limit Clerks in Power Grab Over Records, Money
By IULIA FILIP
SAVANNAH, Ga. (CN) – Georgia’s judges have blunted a power grab by the state’s court clerks who wanted to gain control over electronic filing and throw off the authority of the judges. “The issue here is judicial control over court records and the clerks who maintain them,” a Georgia lawyer said.
As drafted, the “Clerks Modernization Act” allowed Georgia’s clerks to start an electronic filing system on their own and required the county to pay for it. The bill also cut out a host of provisions that allowed the presiding judge to discipline or remove the clerk.
“This is the issue that is at the center of the continuing e-filing controversy here,” said a Georgia lawyer who asked to speak without attribution. “The judges see court records as their records and see themselves as responsible for ensuring public access to them. The clerks see them as their records, in part because their control over access presents a revenue opportunity.”
The clerks’ bill is related to initiatives in state courts across the nation tied to electronic filing of court documents, generally considered a source of new funds. The technology changes have often gone hand in hand with administrative power grabs elsewhere.
California’s Administrative Office of the Courts, for example, pushed changes through a presiding judges’ committee last year that gave court clerks full control over technology issues at the court and reduced the supervisory power of the presiding judge to general oversight.
At the same time, California’s central court administrators pushed a $2 billion software project called the Court Case Management System intended to allow electronic filing and expected to generate millions of dollars for the courts. But the project was labeled a “fiasco” and a “boondoggle” and was halted last month.
Unlike clerks in California who are civil servants hired by the presiding judge, clerks in Georgia are elected officials. They argue that their bill is nothing more than an attempt to bring Georgia in line with the digital revolution.
“The act cleans up some old code sections that no longer apply in the 21st century,” said Greg Allen, Clerk of Superior and State Courts of Forsyth County. “Language is updated to include words such as ‘digital’ in mandated areas, and gives the superior court clerk the option of eliminating the costly printing of index books that are now available by computer.”
But some of the state’s lawyers and judges see the digital revolution as a stalking horse for clerks trying to increase their power. The proposed legislation is sometimes referred to as the “Clerk of the World” bill because it goes so far in aggrandizing the clerk’s role.
Georgia’s clerks are elected every four years in each of the state’s 159 counties. They are paid by the state, with salaries based on county population.
“The clerk of court’s job is a very important one, and we did feel we needed to make sure we had the authority to ensure that the job gets done,” said Douglas County Superior Court Judge David Emerson. “We expressed our concern that we have to have authority and we feel like we have reached a good compromise on those provisions.”
Emerson, who is the president-elect of the Council of Superior Court Judges, also serves as chair of the Technology Subcommittee of the Next Generation Courts Commission. He said the legislation does not directly involve electronic filing.
“We are working on something to try to lay the foundation to an electronic filing system,” said Emerson, “but that doesn’t mean every county will be able to afford that.”
As drafted, the bill allowed the clerk to “install digital equipment for use in filing,” and it removed the section of existing law that said “with the consent and permission of the county governing authority.”
That was interpreted by lawyers and judges to mean the clerk could start an electronic filing service on his own and the county was required to pay for it.
In addition, a series of provisions were added that removed the judges’ authority over records and gave the clerk sole contol, including the power to move the records outside the courthouse without the presiding judge’s consent.
At the same time, the bill allowed the clerk to continue charging the old prices associated with paper filing, thus turning the electronic filing process into a money-maker funded by the taxpayer but controlled entirely by the clerk.
On that score, Georgia law specifically allows the clerk to make a “profit” off the sale of court records.
The state statutes provide, “Any contract to distribute, sell, or otherwise market records or computer generated data of the office of the clerk of the superior court for profit shall be made by the clerk of the superior court.”
The lawyer familiar with the legislation noted that, “Many of the provisions of the bill don’t directly relate to court records but do dilute judicial control over clerks. The present system is that clerks maintain court records but under supervision of the court. This bill seems designed to eliminate that supervision.”
In the compromise version that is now before Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, some provisions of the original bill have been watered down.
Judges now have the right to check out files, for example. And they are not required to obtain written consent from the clerk, as the original bill required.
The compromise bill also says the county “shall” supply the equipment needed to run the clerk’s office. But that is interpreted to mean that an efiling program would have to be approved through the budget process controlled by the county.
At the same time, a host of provisions expanding the clerk’s control of court records and cutting back on the authority of the presiding judge remain in the bill.
Under Georgia law, for example, judges fill superior court clerk vacancies pending election. Under the terms of the bill pending in the Senate, the position goes instead to the clerk-appointed chief deputy. If the unexpired term is more than two years. a special election is mandated.
Basically that provision allows the clerk to name his or her successor rather than the presiding judge.
Under current law, as a second example, a head judge can remove the clerk from office “for any sufficient cause.”
That power is handcuffed under the bill.
It changes the law to require that the Georgia governor first authorize an investigation by two other clerks as well as the state attorney general, and only if they recommend removal can the governor suspend the clerk. And only for a period of 60 days with a possible 30-day extension.
Only at that point do the original procedures kick in, allowing the head judge to remove a clerk after notice and trial before a jury. The clerk stays in office in the meantime.
Under current law, as another example, a judge on the judge’s own motion can fine the clerk for contempt: “Any clerk who fails to discharge the duties set forth in this Code section is subject to be fined by the presiding judge, on his own motion, for a contempt whenever the judge discovers that the clerk has failed to discharge his duties.”
That language is struck entirely in both the original and the compromise version of the bill.
It also deletes the current statutory provision whereby superior court judges tell grand juries about the court’s contempt power over the clerk and direct jurors to inform the court whether the clerk is properly discharging his or her duties.
Another section of the bill increases the power of a superior court clerk to take over the clerkship responsibilities for lesser courts.
“One problem I have with the process is a lack of emphasis on examining the history of various provisions and procedures,” said Judge Lynwood Jordan, Probate Court Judge of Forsyth County. He is particularly skeptical of the provision that excludes probate judges from the clerk’s appointment process when a vacancy occurs.
“Another example of historical considerations is the appointment process,” Jordan said. “Reasons exist for the present processes, including the geographic isolation of the great number of rural counties with no superior court judge living within two counties distant and having somewhat restricted knowledge of a particular county.”
“A probate judge is present in each county,” he added. “The probate judge is the county judicial officer with the intimate knowledge of that county.”
*************************************************************************************************************
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
April 11, 2012
I know I missed it somewhere, but the seizure of records and data from the Leslie Brodie Report was related to what alleged violation of the California Penal Code?
Or is this just a warning shot to investigative organizations and especially their sources, who now effectively have no guarantee of confidentiality. Starr Babcock & Co what are you doing?
IMHO, this needs more media sunlight.
Wendy Darling
April 11, 2012
All of it needs more media sunlight, Been There. It’s practically screaming for it.
State Legislature and law enforcement, what are you doing besides nothing?
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
April 11, 2012
Agreed Wendy. Most mainstream media (MSM) outlets do not do the kind of investigative research and reporting done by many of the entities that post on this site. These entities are small, relatively unknown outside an affinity group such as ours, and far more vulnerable to strong-arm assaults from entities such as the AOC, which is fully willing to use the powers of the state to stamp out a most inconvenient inquiry.
State legislators, law enforcement, and the Governor’s office, what are you doing?
anna
April 12, 2012
Starr Babcock used to be counsel for the AoC then moved to the State Bar. There are several pending issues where certain peolpe have documentation, along with the “internets” and the sharing of those, that the people at the state bar are very anxious to find. While the hierarchy at the AOC/JC and State Bar claim they want a state wide electronic system, they don’t others having access to the same system without their oversight.
George created this entire mess, so he could see what was happening all over the state and quash anything that could hurt him, prior to it becoming a full blown lawsuit.
anna
April 12, 2012
should read,”they don’t want others having access to the same system without their oversight”
JusticeCalifornia
April 11, 2012
Top leadership’s current basic pitch (sans CCMS) is factual and attractive:
The CA branch needs a modern IT system, even if it isn’t CCMS;
the branch budget has been cut,
and the trial courts need money.
From my perspective, it is illogical to argue against these things. The strategy should be to TAKE THAT BALL AND RUN WITH IT.
Yes, the CA branch needs a modern IT system. . .BUT that system is not CCMS, and current “top leadership” with its track record of disasters has proven it should not be making that important decision. Far better, less expensive alternatives could have been had a long time ago, when money was more plentiful. They are still out there and members of the branch certainly should be looking into them and creative ways of funding them. Rather than cutting services to the public, funding sources should come from trimmed fat. Like ridiculously expensive courthouses and the bloated AOC.
Yes, the branch budget has been cut. . .due in part to the current economic downturn, but also due in part to the documented waste and mismanagement of public funds by top leadership. Do any of the esteemed speakers and lawyer’s organizations really want to take on the BSA report of waste, poor planning, and mismanagement in connection with CCMS, or argue that it was ever a smart move to spend $24 million on a one courtroom courthouse in tiny Markleeville? I think not. Those are the questions that should be asked because those are fights smart lawyers, judges, and public officials cannot and are not going to want to fight in making arguments for a bigger judicial budget. So to restore confidence in the branch all steps must be taken to ensure that a) fat is trimmed from the current budget (and that includes expensive courthouses and bloated AOC); and b) the status quo is appropriately modified to ensure these debacles are not repeated. Fixes include democratizing the branch, implementing appropriate reporting requirements, providing safeguards and oversight, and perhaps handing over things like building construction to state entities that are already in that business and that qualify for federal money.
The trial courts need money — yes, of course they need money to ensure the basics. Service to the public should be the number one priority. To the extent possible the public should not have to suffer top leadership’s waste and mismanagement. A BUDGET INCREASE–IF THERE IS ONE–OR BUDGET CUTS, IF THERE ARE MORE– SHOULD BE CRAFTED TO ENSURE THE BASICS FOR TRIAL COURT LITIGANTS AND MUST INCLUDE LEGISLATIVE SAFEGUARDS PROTECTING THE TRIAL COURTS, THE PUBLIC, AND COURT EMPLOYEES.
These are just my thoughts, but the real bottom line is not to dispute the obvious, but rather place the focus on a) the BILLIONS wasted by top leadership that could have gone to a working CMS system and providing the public with the basics; b) crafting the proper “ask” to assure the branch and the legislature that this will not happen again; and thereby c) ensuring that precious public funds are used to provide basic services to the public, not to keep the massive AOC, and the Judicial Council and all its committees, and their massive PR division, fully employed and well paid, fed, and lodged, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PUBLIC.
I hope the press does its job in covering this event, and asks the tough questions. I really like some of the speakers– I hope some of them have the guts to talk about the elephant in the room.
unionman575
April 12, 2012
Here’s the BULLSHIT rally flyer from our gambling bar maid Tani…
http://www.ocbar.org/Portals/0/pdf/news/2012/BASF_rally_041812.pdf
unionman575
April 12, 2012
The JC/AOC spin machine has put this out there in the media big time…we have to slam them hard folks.
unionman575
April 12, 2012
As we ALL starve in the trial courts, the building boom continues on and on…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17483.htm
Sonora New Courthouse Site Finalized
Apr 11, 2012
New Sonora Courthouse Site Acquisition Approved
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17481.htm
Santa Rosa Criminal Courthouse Site Finalized
Print
Apr 11, 2012
Site Finalized for New Santa Rosa Criminal Courthouse
unionman575
April 12, 2012
Here is my message:
1. Recall Tani.
2. Sweep all AOC Directors and up OUT.
3. HALT CCMS completely – no more $ at all.
4. HALT court construction.
JusticeCalifornia
April 12, 2012
JCW, the attachments to those pleadings you posted look pretty serious. That is an interesting story to follow, especially since many of us have seen similar fact patterns (“special” treatment for certain lawyers or litigants; intertwined lucrative financial and personal dealings between lawyers, judges, family members and others) and players (I am personally aware that Marin baddies have been hiding behind Sarah Overton and her firm for years).
When the three-letter investigators finally take action, they should visit with Overton and other select lawyers who make lots of money defending the indefensible. At what point does defense become impermissable participation and a disqualifying conflict of interest?
I am once again reminded of the importance of making a record, sharing information, connecting the dots, and protecting the public and each other by publicizing egregious behavior.
For me, my interest in court reform has been driven by the knowledge that Marin’s decades-long legacy of corruption and self-dealing was known, protected, excused and facilitated by top leadership. Corruption starts at the top, so it is not surprising to learn about corruption at the top. Disappointing and stomach-turning, yes, surprising, no. We should all be fastening our seat belts because I think we will be learning a lot more about corruption at the top in the next year or two.. . .
It is sad when lawyers are sucked into the corruption, or into excusing or facilitating the corruption. I met Dunn, and found him intelligent and likeable, and I have also read some of the things he has written, including the Dunn/Kelso/Vickrey piece warning about the negative effect of the branch playing politics. I don’t know Steinberg, but know that he was once respected for the positions he took– before he became the branch’s lackey. I read his comments to the CIC report wherein he noted the utter lack of meaningful oversight of the branch. These two men are without a doubt intimately aware the dirtiest dealings in the branch and they understand the need for reform. How they have acted upon that knowledge and understanding is a topic for another day. . . . .
anna
April 12, 2012
Couldn’t agree more with your comments. Not only does Sarah Overton, advise and consult with the baddies. She gives legal advice and writes the orders for the judges in cases involving the Supreme Court Jusitices. That violates the judicial cannon of ethics. Judges are only allowed to consult with their clerks[not aoc clerks] and other judges [not disqualifed] when discussing cases before them.
Dunn knows the law, and all the violations these cretins have committed. He also knows this is wrong. However, he has turned a blind eye to this, and was hired to cover this up. He’s also very interested in finding all the information out there, so he can put out the fires before they become raging forrest fires. That is why they went after the LBR.
While Dunn may have been ethical at one time, he went to the dark side right after he left the legislature. He knows first hand that the State Bar has been acting outside it’s jurisdiction,and through ultra vires means.
Hopefully, one day he will have to answer for his complicity and actions.
JusticeCalifornia
April 12, 2012
April 18 is an opportunity to educate those assembled. I have found that the vast majority of lawyers are completely unaware of the CCMS issues, and the rift within the branch resulting in AB1208. So while a bunch of lawyers and others are getting together to support branch funding–a laudable effort, standing alone– it is incorrect to assume that rank and file lawyers have knowledge of what is discussed on this blog, for example. First and foremost it would seem that educating each and every speaker about the issues via a phone call and written communication– so they cannot say the did not know– and so they can address these issues if they choose to– is important. It would appear that union leaders and the ACJ would be very effective in this department. Leafletting and piggy-back protests or media contacts (well timed calls, letters, and e-mail comments sent to media that will be covering this event) might also be helpful. As in “yes, increase our budget, and at the same time create legislative protections for trial courts, the public and court employees, to ensure that the money goes where it is intended– and that is to serve the public”.
April 18 provides a platform for discussion about the fact that it is irresponsible to hand out billions of taxpayer funds to an insular appointed few who have proven incapable of handling it responsibly. It was never anticipated that the current governance structure would have the type of power and responsibility it now claims to have. Times have changed and the events of the past decade have proven that the governance structure must change as well.
JusticeCalifornia
April 12, 2012
LOL. Speaking of lawyers and judges and ex parte communications and conflicts of interest and why some of us do what we do. . . .
Interesting news day in Marin. Apparently longtime Marin attorney Judith Cohen has been selected by the Marin Court to serve as a Marin court commissioner.
Cohen is one of Marin’s infamous old time “Family Law Elite Attorneys” (they seriously used to call themselves “FLEAS” ) famous for partying and having ex parte communications about cases with Marin judges — and ironically, defending the Marin court and judges against charges of bias and cronyism.
http://www.kathrynshepherd.com/images/KBS-SFWeekly.pdf
“Shepherd was sitting across the table from Dufficy and an appointed court officer known as a referee, who did most of the grunt work for the judge. People were talking
among themselves, gossiping over their salads, when an attorney by the name of Judith Cohen abruptly sat down next to Shepherd and began raving about how she had almost gotten arrested at a deposition before coming to the meeting. The table was all ears, Shepherd says, as Cohen began describing her opposing attorney as a “madman.” Shepherd says she noticed the judge listening intently as Cohen went on to paint a “clearly negative characterization of the opposing attorney and client.” She says she didn’t know Dufficy was the presiding judge on the case, or that the man sitting next to him was the discovery referee.
Shepherd found that out later, when by coincidence she took over the case from the attorney whom Cohen had described as a “madman” — and found herself in negotiations she knew had already been tainted by what the judge had heard over dinner. She watched Dufficy and his underling ignore what she says was a mountain of evidence that showed her client deserved far more money than her husband was offering in the divorce case. She was so horrified by what she saw in court, she says — including a complete disregard of evidence that her client’s husband had illegally tried to conceal his income and assets — that things could never be the same between the judge and her again. “It shouldn’t have happened, but it did,” she says, referring to how the judge’s social life overlapped with his professional duties. “That’s how things were done in Family Court. Nobody stood up and said, “We shouldn’t be having this conversation.'”
See also: http://www.kathrynshepherd.com/images/KBS-PacificSun.pdf
Mind you, as the Pacific Sun article points out, it was this type of “FLEA” weekend party /socializing/ex parte Marin cronyism and bias that the public was told the National Center for State Courts was being retained to investigate in preparing their 2002 report on the Marin Family Court. But when the report was released, the NCSC specifically disavowed any attempt to investigate individual claims of bias and cronyism such as that set forth above.
http://www.marincourt.org/data/audits/1.pdf
The public also was never informed that then-Marin assistant CEO (now current Marin CEO and Judicial Councilmember) Kim Turner was an alum of NCSC, or was writing reports for NCSC. The NCSC’s hear no evil/speak no evil/see no evil approach –after leading the public to believe it was actually genuinely “investigating”–has allowed business to continue as usual, culminating a decade later in Judith Cohen being allowed to decide cases as a Marin Commissioner—oh yeah, she will be real fair and impartial. . . .and of course Kim Turner is now our gambling barmaid’s right hand Judicial Council thug. . .and Verna Adams was hand-selected by our gambling barmaid to sit on the SEC.
I will say it again—under current top leadership, it is not the cream that is rising to the top.
All right, I’m done.
Wendy Darling
April 12, 2012
As has been said before, there is no justice, or ethics, left in the California judicial branch.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 13, 2012
Wendy, you said:
“there is no justice, or ethics, left in the California judicial branch”. I believe there are just and ethical members of the branch, but an effort is underway to silence them in the interest of administrative control and “speaking with one voice”.
I was thinking about NCSC last night, and that given a) NCSC alum Kim Turner’s amazingly unethical professional record and amazingly inexplicable promotion in the branch; b) how the NCSC and Marin Court collaborated to dupe the public in 2002; and c) how the CA branch is paying millions a year to NCSC, while the branch has been taken to its knees. . . .who the hell does the NCSC think it is, and what is it doing?
So I just went to the NCSC website. We think our gambling barmaid and bumbling gang of thugs are presumptuous for trying to set policy and claim full power over the CA judiciary– look at that NCSC website. Forget taking over the power in just one state– the NCSC — which is ostensibly a nonprofit– is paving the way for itself and administrators to set and promote WORLDWIDE judicial policy. Check out the tabs on the website, including the international tab and services and experts tab. I thought this was interesting–the publications, especially.
http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and-Experts/Court-leadership.aspx
What is happening here in CA is straight out of the NCSC playbook and therein, perhaps, is the explanation for Kim Turner’s value– it doesn’t matter that she is a documented, unethical, document destroying, money wasting, disliked administrator– she is towing the NCSC’s worldwide party line.
The fly in the ointment for the NCSC grand plans– is what happens when– as we are witnessing live, real time here in CA– administration is corrupt, incompetent, self-dealing, ineffective and wastes billions of dollars at the expense of the trial courts and the public? How does that intolerable state of affairs fit into the NCSC plan for administrators to take over the judicial world?
What is going down here in California with AB 1208– a power struggle between a bloated, corrupt administration and members of the largest judiciary in the Western world– is undoubtedly being watched by the NCSC and others worldwide.
If members of the branch do not take the opportunity now to insist on the democratization of the branch, and passage of legislation giving them a democratic voice in policy and spending issues, the gambling barmaid and her ethically compromised administrative thugs are going to rule the largest judiciary in the Western world. Those are the stakes, that is the name of the game and Tani Cantil Sakauye and her thugs plan to win it.
Wendy Darling
April 13, 2012
Justice California: You said “I believe there are just and ethical members of the branch, but an effort is underway to silence them in the interest of administrative control and “speaking with one voice”.”
Agreed, Justice California, there are just and ethical individual members of the branch, and there is a concerted effort to silence them.
However, those just and ethical members of the branch do not occupy positions of power, authority, and control in the branch. They are not the ones making the decisions that have brought, and continue to bring, the branch into utter disgrace and disrepute. They are not the branch “leadership” that is sent to the State Legislature or put before the public as judicial branch representation. They are not the ones flying the airplane. Heck, for the most part they are not even allowed to fly on the airplane, and the few that are are regulated to the baggage compartment.
Current branch “leadership”, the ones flying the airplane, are devoid of any ethics or sense of justice. They have demponstrated over and over and over again that they can, and will, lie, and engage in intellectual dishonesty, as easily as breathing. They are guided only by greed and the acquisition and retention of power and control, and the unmitigated willingness to punish and retaliate against any who would challenge them or stand in their way.
This is the California judicial branch we have today. To the extent that there are just and ethical members of the branch, branch leadership has marginalized them to the point of irrelevancy as far as judicial branch administration, policy, and practice. And until and unless the just and ethical members remaining in the branch decide to stand up, speak out, and act against what is going on at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, or until and unless the State Legislature takes corrective action, this will not change, and there is, and will be, no justice or ethics left in the California judicial branch.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 13, 2012
I agree 100%, Wendy.
Been There
April 13, 2012
What is needed is someone like Art Scotland, an outsider, yes, but one with the knowledge of all things AOC, and more credibility than anyone there, to step forward as a voice to end the current madness.
Wendy Darling
April 15, 2012
“What is needed is someone like Art Scotland, an outsider, yes, but one with the knowledge of all things AOC, and more credibility than anyone there, to step forward as a voice to end the current madness.”
Agreed. It is well known at 455 Golden Gate Avenue that Justice Scotland told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God, in his SEC report. Which is exactly why Scotland was then invited/told to immediately exit the picture, and why that report is being revised, redacted, and sanitized to the point of being unrecognizable from Scotland’s original report. Justice Scotland should step forward, and insist that the original report be released, and if that is not done, he should release it himself. Otherwise, Scotland is as much a party to the cover-up as the Office of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC.
A very wise person once told me: “The law is what happens when a person gets caught. Ethics is what happens, or doesn’t happen, when a person thinks no one is looking.” We all know what has been happening, and is continuing to happen, when those at 455 Golden Gate Avenue have thought no one was looking, and it hasn’t been ethics. If the truth can’t be told about ethical violations and misconduct by and within the judicial branch itself, then the truth matters for nothing, including in court.
And Justice California, you are absolutely correct, that the only reason any changes have taken place, or, more accurately, “changes” are made to look like they are taking place, is because they are being FORCED to do it. This, in itself, is a reflection of continuing bad management and atrocious administration. Good and ethical administrators and managers make meaningful and constructive changes because they have recognized that they have done something wrong, or what they have been doing does not reflect sound thinking or good practice, and they make appropriate corrective action. Being FORCED to do something, and then only reacting by doing the minimum necessary to make things just look good, but not addressing the underlying misconduct, poor administration, or idiotic thinking is a reflection of just continuing the failing administration and management that caused the problems in the first place. In the words of Albert Einstein: “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
As has been said before, until and unless the just and ethical members remaining in the branch decide to stand up, speak out, and act against what is going on at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, or until and unless the State Legislature takes corrective action, this will no meaningful change in the current failed administration, and there is, and will be, no justice or ethics left in the California judicial branch.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 12, 2012
http://www.spwb.ca.gov/archives/calendars/documents/2012PublicCalendar.pdf
As we all search for answers, a multi prong approach will be needed to HALT or slow down AOC court construction expenditures.
The Public Works Board votes or “green lights” all court construction projects throughout the state.
Here’s the AOC “batting average” to date: Every project they have presented to the Public Works Board has been green lighted. It is time to change that quickly.
If the legislature can’t or won’t be persuaded then look here at this Board for the last stand at the Alamo.
It is do or die time for us all. We need the construction $$ to keep trial courts open and functioning.
Wendy Darling
April 13, 2012
Some news from inside the Crystal Palace:
From: E-News
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:13 AM
Subject: E-News for April 12, 2012
E-NEWS FOR THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2012
FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF CALIFORNIA
E-News is a daily clipping service of news, editorials, and commentary that deal with or affect the state or federal court systems. E-News does not verify or endorse the accuracy or fairness of the news items, and the views expressed in the editorials and commentaries are those of the writers only. To subscribe or unsubscribe, please e-mail enews@jud.ca.gov.
Due to the Daily Journal’s reprint and distribution policy, we lack permission to include copies of Daily Journal stories in our attachment to E-News. If you do not have a subscription, the Daily Journal newspaper is usually available in a nearby law library.
CALIFORNIA
Court leaders consider scrapping some planned courthouses State court leaders to discuss cutting or scrapping projects—Emily Green, Daily Journal (subscription required)
Dozens of new courthouses slated to be built throughout California are once again on the chopping block, as state court leaders continue their drive to scale back major infrastructure projects. Court leaders and administrators are scheduled to meet Friday in a closed-door session to discuss downsizing or scrapping 39 courthouse development projects. In October, court leaders voted to abandon plans to build new courthouses in Alpine and Sierra counties, citing those projects’ costs.
Construction on new Sonoma Co. courthouse could start in 2014 First of $380 million in North Bay court projects to go to bid in early 2013—North Bay Business Journal
The State Public Works Board in Sacramento today approved acquisition of three Santa Rosa properties needed to build a $178.7 million new Sonoma County criminal courthouse. It’s one of an estimated $380 million in projects for two new courthouses and one major renovation in North Bay counties in the next few years, according to the state Administrative Office of the Courts, which manages courthouse projects.
See also: Press Democrat
Final EIR posted for courthouse project—Ukiah Daily Journal
A final Environmental Impact Report for a planned new Mendocino County Courthouse in Ukiah is now posted online, the Judicial Council of California’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) announced Wednesday. According to the AOC, “the final EIR consists of the oral and written comments received on the draft EIR and presents responses to environmental issues raised in the comments.
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
JusticeCalifornia
April 13, 2012
I want JC members who have supported CCMS, Cantil Sakauye, and the brilliant 2011 advice of Michael Roddy and Kim Turner to show the legislature who was boss to step forward in these troubling economic times and offer up their planned new courthouses. My gosh, think how far that money could go in providing basic services to the public.
Wendy Darling
April 13, 2012
Published today, Friday, April 13, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Legislative Analyst Says More Money Should Go To CA Courts
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – In a report released late Friday, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office is pushing for the Legislature to exercise more control over the judiciary’s finances by recommending that it reject Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to give the Judicial Council the authority to allocate this year’s budget cuts. The Legislative Analyst also recommended that any money the council is not going to spend on a terminated statewide court IT project should go directly to keeping trial courts running. “Given the magnitude of the proposed budget reductions and the limited availability of special fund balances to offset the ongoing reductions, decisions about how the cuts are allocated would likely have significant impacts on public access to the courts, as well as court operations and projects. We recommend the Legislature establish its own funding priorities for the judicial branch rather than leaving such discretion entirely to the Judicial Council, the LAO report said.
Anita Lee, who prepared the report, said the Legislature needs to have a say in how to deal with this year’s massive $302 million cut to the branch. In the past when the Legislature has appropriated money to the judiciary, the council has decided how to allocate that money among the trial courts, supreme court, courts of appeal, and its administrative office. If the LAO’s recommendation is adopted, lawmakers will play a greater role in how the money is allocated.
“It’s more that the Legislature should have voice in the process. So in that recommendation, it does say the Legislature is doing this in consultation with the branch. The Legislature would basically be providing funding priorities,”said Lee. “The overarching role of the Legislature is to appropriate funds. On top of that there is the magnitude of the reduction that still needs to be addressed this year. $302 million is quite large.”
The bureaucracy at the top of the courts have been fighting for the council to keep its power over the budget. At a recent council meeting, lobbyist Curt Child with the Administrative Office of the Courts said he has been negotiating with lawmakers and the Governor for the council to retain its authority over administering the budget cuts.
“I think what is crucial as an important component in our discussions that we’re having is that in fact this body be given the discretion to make the determinations, how to best allocate the reductions,” Child said.
Child could not be reached for comment Friday.
In an interview Friday, Judge David Lampe from Kern County Superior Court, director of the reform-minded Alliance of California Judges, rejected the argument that legislation intended to ensure courts are fully funded will strip the council of its constitutional power.
“The Judicial Council has no constitutional authority over the budget or the trial courts. They’re not our boss. They’re given statutory authority by the Legislature. For anybody to say they have constitutional authority over the budget- it’s absolutely wrong,” Lampe said. He added that the LAO’s findings are in line with AB 1208, a bill sponsored by the Alliance that if made law, will allocate all money meant for court operations directly to the courts.
“That’s basically what we’re saying with AB 1208, that the Legislature should direct the money to trial courts and not give it to the Judicial Council,” Lampe said.
The bill, introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon (D-Los Angeles), passed in the Assembly in February and awaits assignment to a committee in the Senate.
“The LAO wisely concludes that the Judicial Council should not be given authority to apportion budget cuts to the trial courts,” said an Alliance statement issued Friday. “Instead that policy decision should be made by the legislature. That position is in line with AB1208, the Trial Court Rights Act, and recognizes that the Judicial Council has repeatedly failed in its mission to prioritize spending and preserve public dollars.”
At a judges conference last fall, Assembly member Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), hinted that the Legislature would step in on budget matters if necessary. “If the Legislature sees mismanagement,” she warned, “that’s another thing.”
The LAO’s report also recommended that the $46 million the council planned to spend on its discontinued Court Case Management System this year be handed over to the courts. The council voted to pull the plug on the project last month, citing a lack of money, but many judges decried the system as a boondoggle and blasted by the State Auditor last year. The council spent over $500 million on CCMS over 9-year period, but the auditor said costs would likely reach $2 billion.
The LAO further urged that a $16 million rebate from the system’s developer Deloitte also go to the courts.
“In the wake of the more than a half billion dollars wasted by the council on CCMS, any funds that were slated for that failed project must be redirected to the local courts,” said the Alliance statement. “Budget language must be in place to ensure that the project is truly terminated and those dollars get to the trial courts immediately.”
Other recommendations included approval of $50 million in increased civil filing fees and cancellation or delay of courthouse construction projects. The LAO’ s report said the roughly $1.6 billion budgeted for 12 new courthouses could go toward keeping existing courthouses open.
The Alliance expressed reservations at that suggestion. “The LAO’s recommendation that construction funds be redirected to the trial courts, unless construction is actually underway, bears serious consideration,”their statement said. “While we acknowledge that some courts need new facilities because of significant security risks, the Alliance opposes the exorbitant costs associated with the construction program run by the Administrative Office of the Courts. We believe that the legislature should carefully scrutinize this program in light of other instances of mismanagement by the AOC. Building expensive new courthouses while other courts are closing cannot be justified.”
The Judicial Council was not immediately available for comment on the report. Appellate Justice Brad Hill, a member of the council’s construction committee, said in a statement, “We are now in a significantly different economic climate. After years of budget cuts in the courts, we now need to look more carefully at whether we can build smaller court projects and still meet court needs, or how else we may be able to save money. We should take strong action to ensure that we are spending public money as prudently as possible.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/13/45618.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
April 13, 2012
And published today, Friday, April 13, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Officials Want to Rethink 13 Court Construction Projects
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — A Judicial Council committee on Friday recommended that plans for 13 courthouse construction projects in nine counties be “reassessed,” a process that could lead to their downsizing, redesign or even scrapping in favor of a leasing option.
Full article is subscription access only: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202549017097&Officials_Want_to_Rethink_13_Court_Construction_Projects&slreturn=1
Long live the ACJ.
Erin Baldwin
April 13, 2012
Journalist, Erin Baldwin, Told the Truth About the CA State Bar & CA DRE and their participation in, and liability for, California loan modification fraud. Her case Erin K. Baldwin v. The State Bar of California, et al., is currently before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. For more information about what can happen to you if you dare to tell the truth, see article: “Retaliatory Prosecution on Steroids: 40 Actions in 2 Years Against Journalist Erin Baldwin For Telling the Truth” http://www.scribd.com/doc/88777525/Retaliatory-Prosecution-on-Steroids-40-Actions-in-2-Years-Against-Journalist-Erin-Baldwin-For-Telling-the-Truth
It’s heating up – about ready to blow!
JusticeCalifornia
April 13, 2012
Gotta love the LAO. Gotta love the ACJ. Excellent Courthouse News article.
And here is the JC construction info/ list:
http://yubanet.com/oc12-Apr_13.pdf
versal-versal
April 14, 2012
Hmm, A JC Committee led by JC/AOC insider Brad Hill is now recommending cutbacks in the Courthouse construction process. Since billions are at issue here one should carefully look at just exactly how much will really be cut back. The timing on all this is also curious. Three things may be at work here. 1. The passage of 1208 in the state Assembly has finally caused the CJ and her supporters on the JC to see that branch funds need to stop being wasted. 2. The first versions of the SEC report on the AOC are absolutely clear on the incredible waste and mismanagement of branch funds so damage control is starting now before the report is released. By the way wasn’t the SEC report to be released by now ? 3. These courthouse construction cutbacks are in the big picture minimal . San Diego and Santa Clara among others will continue to build spending billions so these cutbacks are only an illusion of change. However this evolves, we need to democratize the JC and recall the CJ.
anna
April 14, 2012
Don’t forget #4. They want to do their own investigation, to see if the graft is readily apparent, and then figure out how to cover it up. Or, at least give themselves time to cook the books so they can create “plausible deniability” for themselves.
JusticeCalifornia
April 14, 2012
And number 5. Just like with all the other changes that have taken place, they are being FORCED to do it. And this is just the beginning. Exactly how do you cry poormouth when Judicial Council members are getting billions of dollars in overpriced party favors? Judge Lampe was right. Stop everything. Regroup, investigate, reevaluate. Which courts have critical needs? Which courts can get by with maintenance/tune-ups/updating? And for heaven’s sake– check into the amazingly STUPID price tags the Judicial Council has come up with.
Merced was able to build a pretty, modern courthouse–58,000 square feet, 6 courtrooms, holding cells, court support functions, jury deliberation room, for what– $14 million?
http://www.nlarch.com/portfolio/cj_mercedcourt.html
Compare that to multiple tens and hundreds of millions of dollars that the JC has on on the court construction drawing board (click on each line item courthouse):
http://yubanet.com/oc12-Apr_13.pdf
And ask–WTF? Heads should be rolling.
JusticeCalifornia
April 14, 2012
In fact, the Merced architects said:
“Merced County could no longer wait for state funding so they managed to secure $11 Million for a new 60,000 s.f. building.”
Merced provides a perfect example of why the Judicial Council and AOC should NOT be in the business of courthouse construction. Merced took matters into its own hands and got their courthouse built for a small fraction of what the Judicial Council is spending on comparable or much smaller buildings.
Two things need to happen:
First, top leadership must be stripped of its power to waste billions of dollars and engage in “business” about which they clearly know nothing (IT, courthouse maintenance, courthouse construction–as a start).
Second, there should be a VERY serious audit by the BSA regarding who has been or would have been (if the project went forward as planned) getting rich on California courthouse construction. Identify and cross reference ALL the players of all the courthouse projects, completed, in progress, or as planned. I do believe that this, my friends, would be a very good and enlightening investment of time on the part of the BSA.
And if anyone destroys documents related to such an inquiry–now or later–they should be jailed. Not only would those documents be important to the BSA– they would be important to a responsible economic assessment that the judicial council is supposedly undertaking about all those courthouses in the pipeline.
unionman575
April 14, 2012
LAO Report:
http://lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/crim_justice/managing-ongoing-reductions-041312.pdf
unionman575
April 14, 2012
WHEN: Monday, April 16th from 1:30-2:00 p.m.
SACRAMENTO – Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Senator Loni Hancock (D-Oakland), Jon B. Streeter, President of the State Bar of California, and attorneys David Boies and Theodore Olson will hold a press conference Monday to discuss the decline in public access to the justice system following years of budget cuts to the third branch of government and the implications of that diminished access.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/chief_event041212.pdf
April 12, 2012 Contact: Teala Schaff
p. 916-651-4002
c. 916-541-5231
MEDIA ADVISORY
Access to Justice in the Wake of Budget Cutbacks
SACRAMENTO – Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Senator Loni Hancock (D-Oakland), Jon B. Streeter, President of the State Bar of California, and attorneys David Boies and Theodore Olson will hold a press conference Monday to discuss the decline in public access to the justice system following years of budget cuts to the third branch of government and the implications of that diminished access.
With California recovering from a historic recession, the fiscal implications have resulted in significant cuts to essential programs, including cuts to the Judicial Branch. Diminished access to justice across the state has resulted in court closures, layoffs, reduced availability or elimination of self-help services, and other cost cutting measures that directly impact the ability of the courts to adequately serve the public where justice delayed is becoming justice denied to millions of Californians.
The press event precedes a joint informational hearing on “Public Access to Justice in the Wake of Budget Cutbacks” of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety and the Judiciary.
WHO: Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice of California
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety and the Judiciary
David Boies & Theodore Olson, Co-Chairs, American Bar Association, Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System
Jon B. Streeter, President of the State Bar of California
WHAT: Press conference on public access to justice in the wake of budget cuts.
WHERE: California State Capitol-South Steps (N street side)
WHEN: Monday, April 16th from 1:30-2:00 p.m.
JusticeCalifornia
April 14, 2012
I know cantil-sakauye, Evans, Hancock, and Streeter are–or should be–well-informed about all issues relevant to CA branch funding issues.
I hope Boies’ and Olson’s aides have prepared them. So they don’t sound stupid, or support the insupportable.
unionman575
April 14, 2012
More waste!
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17526.htm
Resources to Help Self-Represented Litigants Participate in Alternative Dispute Resolution OGC-ADR-01(A)-LM
The Administrative Office of the Courts seeks the services of a qualified consultant with expertise in Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) to prepare a resource manual, including existing forms and materials, for statewide use by courts to help self-represented litigants access and effectively prepare for and participate in court ADR programs.
Questions regarding this RFP should be directed to Solicitations@jud.ca.gov by April 24, 2012, no later than 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time.
Proposals must be received by May 4, 2012, no later than 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time.
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden, RFP: OGC-ADR-01(A)-LM
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Further details regarding the solicitation and program requirements are set forth in the RFP and related documents provided, below:
RFP: OGC-ADR-01(A)-LM
unionman575
April 14, 2012
Optimize this you AOC executive management humps…
I am glad they have a shitload of cash to waste!
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17527.htm
Optimizing Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs to Efficiently Use Court Resources OGC-ADR-01(B)-LM
The Administrative Office of the Courts seeks the services of a qualified consultant with expertise in Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) to analyze currently available information and data about California court-connected ADR programs for general civil cases and small claims, unlawful detainer, and civil harassment proceedings and prepare a report, of statewide relevance, to help courts determine the optimum program types and service models to efficiently use their limited resources.
Questions regarding this RFP should be directed to Solicitations@jud.ca.gov by April 24, 2012, no later than 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time.
Proposals must be received by May 4, 2012, no later than 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time.
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden, RFP: OGC-ADR-01(B)-LM
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Further details regarding the solicitation and program requirements are set forth in the RFP and related documents provided, below:
RFP: OGC-ADR-01(A)-LM
unionman575
April 14, 2012
Everyone enjoy the daily double this week!
Bullshit on Monday 4-16-12 and on Wednesday 4-18-12 both. Nice!
anna
April 15, 2012
who the hell is going to attend? and why?
unionman575
April 15, 2012
Here is a hint…someone has to oppose the “Speak with one voice” crowd. That would be all us here on JCW my friend.
anna
April 15, 2012
I understand why the opposition would be there, but who is going to attend a rally for the CJ? Usually a rally is for an issue and/or those out of power. Those who are in power don’t need to “gin up” support, they already have it. Why does one have to hold a “press conference” when one has access to the press through their PR dept., and the press runs with any “announcement” they issue?
These people really are stupid. However, they have a lot of power, which makes it even worse.
Since most of the attorney’s who are on the JC come from defense firms, you now can see why I have such disdain for them. This is why they lose cases against smart lawyers.
It’s counter-intuitive for people with power to hold press conferences, or rallies. It’s the equivalent of telling everyone you are going to hold a rally to say the sky is blue.
The tools of those who are out of power, do not work for those in power, it’s just seen as a waste of time and energy. This is the reason, that those who are in power, have to “create” grass roots groups to claim they have a “movement”, for something. Corporations, do not hold rallies.
Hasn’t anyone, either in the JC, AOC or the CSC taken a poli-sci course?????
It’s why Wall street doesn’t have to hold anything, they already occupy the economy.
Huffman used the right term, clowns, he just should have attributed it to himself and his fellow idiots.
anna
April 15, 2012
Unionman,
If this wasn’t so serious, this would be hysterical. This is the stuff made of stupid comedies. Where all the “kids” come up with the idea of “Lets hold a rally” to save the [you fill in the blank]. We all find these stories “cute”, and inspirational. However, you don’t find the “adults” in the story[movie] endearing.[those with the actual power]
Political tools that unions use, are because, they do not control the company, or industry. [otherwise known as the underdog] Is the AOC and JC so clueless, that they don’t know that the political tools of the underdog are not interchangable, with the political tools that the powerful have????
Is the CJ, AOC/JC trying to claim they are powerless? Against whom? The legislature? Good luck.
The most powerful judge in the state is claiming, she’s powerless???? Poor little her? Then, she’s admitting she incompetent to wield the power she already has.
What a sick joke on this state and public.
unionman575
April 15, 2012
Thanks for speaknig o behalf of unions: “Political tools that unions use, are because, they do not control the company, or industry. [otherwise known as the underdog]..”
We can always use your help Anna.
Thanks again for all yur support Anna.
anna
April 15, 2012
Typo; should read, “she’s incompetent to wield the power she already has”.
unionman575
April 15, 2012
Thanks for tying in Wall Street too in your post Anna.
I used to work there for 4 years in the 80’s befoere becoming a public servant and the Union Man. I do appreciate your analysis.
anna
April 16, 2012
Prior to my current work, I belonged to 4 different unions, [still do].