It’s just another day in paradise..
.
So why didn’t we post anything yesterday? Shock & awe probably describes it best. We were in shock that the guv’s May revision went so far. We were in awe that the co-equal branch of government was utilized as justification for these deep cuts to the judicial branch. Of course, this is just the Guv’s proposal and the budget happens in the legislature, though last years veto showed how serious Brown really is about holding the line. As we were reading the tea leaves and feeling the heat of the political winds last week regarding the judicial branch budget we knew that something catastrophic this way comes.
Part of the issue that we have is that this proposed package is being presented to the judicial council as cuts and expenditures that they can and should manage, yet like any other sealion waiting to be fed their next mackerel, 21 people will be flown in to Sacramento to bark praise of their stellar (mis)management and the living legacy accomplishments of “Team George” while delegating the real responsibility to the AOC to divvy up the cuts and present them on a silver platter as options A,B, and C that our merry barking sealions can choose from. Not unlike the muppets they are, they will make the choice that they were told to make while speaking of sending messages to Sacramento about being co-equal or a threat to independence or any of the other hogwash spewed by Team George.
We’re going to expand on this post later and have a few other posts to put up as well – so stay tuned.
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
May 15, 2012
I encourage everyon e that can to attned the meeting on 5-17-12 at the AOC in Sacramento.
Thanks you for all your hard work JCW and everyone.
We all must fight on!
Nathaniel Woodhull
May 15, 2012
There is such great insight, intellect and common sense displayed within the Judicial Council Watcher posts! Here’s to JCW and all of you contributors in digital paradise!
I would describe the Governor’s May Revise Budget with “Shock & Aw”. Everyone should carefully read yesterday’s posts, especially those late ones by Wendy, Lando & Versal. Despite the angst felt by those at the trial court level when reading the dollars and cents of yesterday’s missive and reeling as they try and figure out how to even keep their doors open; there is one greater threat pending that we all should not lose sight of!
On the surface, it often feels like those within the Crystal Palace could not screw things up more if they were trying, when it comes to spending public funds and poking the Governor and Legislature in the face with a sharp stick. However, one should never underestimate the Evil Empire. As Wendy so aptly pointed out in her recent post, it may “appear” that things have changed within the organizational structure (power) at 455 GGA, but that may not actually be true. I wouldn’t put it past HRH-1 to still be sitting in a private throne room somewhere above the mezzanine. Certainly, Vickrey and Overholt are still hard at work, but just exactly what are they doing? And at who’s direction?
An illusionist’s success is normally based upon their ability to misdirect their audience. The same is true for the power brokers stalking the dark hallways in The City. Be ever vigilant, for this budget crisis may serve as the template for HRH and Company to finally attain what they have been overtly grasping for since 2003 (actually 1997). That is, complete and total power over the trial courts. The Legislature (and perhaps Governor Brown) may unwittingly provide the Judicial Council with the tools to truly become the “policy-making body for the trial courts.”
Unionman575 is absolutely correct, anyone and everyone should attend the meeting in Sacramento on the 17th of May. Contact your elected officials and let them know that the problem within the Branch is those making statewide policy decisions. These people should be given less power, not more power. As demonstrated in Afghanistan, maybe building up local fiefdoms is the answer, not the problem. Democracy operates the most efficiently when it is closest to the people. We should all keep that focus. Monies allocated to the trial courts should flow to those of us who stand for election and, on a daily basis, face those people whom we serve.
JusticeCalifornia
May 15, 2012
“Be ever vigilant, for this budget crisis may serve as the template for HRH and Company to finally attain what they have been overtly grasping for since 2003 (actually 1997). That is, complete and total power over the trial courts.”
That remark is spot on.
Our gambling barmaid and her thugs have done everything possible to piss the legislature off including publicly playing chicken with the legislature by “sending a message to the legislature” at a Judicial Council meeting last year, which message included moving forward with CCMS and the building of the most expensive courthouses in the nation. Our gambling barmaid and her thugs have been given ample opportunity to willingly make smart choices but sensible change has had to be forced at every juncture– CCMS and court construction as Exhibits “A” and “B”. Top leadership’s waste, mismanagement, profound self-dealing and arrogance have harmed the branch in every way. The CJ/JC/AOC have stayed fat and happy and firmly in control– while those in the trenches and the public are the ones paying for their mess.
At this point the reserves are being targeted. If and when they are depleted to pay for the waste and mismanagement of top leadership — all courts are going to be teetering on the edge of despair, at the mercy of top leadershp. IF THINGS DO NOT CHANGE (read: if the trial court judges and personnel do not assert control and demand change– through the ACJ, the CJA and the unions) then our gambling barmaid and her Team George thugs who have wasted billions and helped engineer and carry out what the NCSC would characterize as a wonderful NCSC “budget opportunity” to assume full control — will be left sitting in the catbird seat, holding the power and what is left of the gold. Truly, Curt Soderlund’s reported arrogant boast: “The trial court judges can control their little courtrooms we will control EVERYTHING ELSE”, is a heartbeat away.
And of course, more and more “little courtrooms” are being closed every day — and judges can hardly “control” a courtroom properly without staff. . . .
Three years ago — when there was still time for top leadership to clean up its act, the ACJ brought the horrific issues facing the branch to the attention of everyone. When top leadership did nothing to correct the issues, the ACJ proposed a sensible solution–AB 1208. There is good reason this is our gambling barmaid’s “personal hill”– she and her thugs would lose at least some of their manipulative, grasping control over the trial court purse.
If ever there was a time for the branch as a whole to take a stand, it is now. Unless, of course, it is looking forward to 11 more years of the Tani Cantil-Sakauye/AOC special brand of management and administration.
What is happening is straight out of the NCSC playbook plan for administrators to take advantage of the budget crisis and assume control of the judicial branch. So here in CA, who is going to win the battle for control of the “biggest judiciary in the Western World”? The AOC, or the judiciary?
Let’s see.
Nathaniel Woodhull
May 15, 2012
I was reflecting further on the budget issues facing all of us. Here’s an idea that I proposed several years ago in jest, but maybe now it should be given serious consideration. How about having velcro patches for judicial robes that could be used for advertising and/or at the outset of each session, a broadcast could be made informing those from the public who are present that this session is being sponsored by…. Kind of like the segments on CBS Sunday Morning, where the pharmaceutical companies sponsor this moment of nature, or whatever.
It’s just a thought…but maybe we could make a gazillion dollars off of this and balance our budget.
Wendy Darling
May 15, 2012
Sounds like a good proposal to put before the Judicial Council, General Woodhull. After all, they’re already selling justice, or what passes for it these days in California, to the highest bidder. 🙂
Long live the ACJ.
x-ccms-insider
May 15, 2012
Talk about timing – the new San Diego courthouse design approval was put out in an AOC PR yesterday. Looks pretty fancy for a state judiciary who doesn’t quite get that it has to beg for its supper. http://www.courts.ca.gov/18070.htm
Wendy Darling
May 15, 2012
Hmmm … siphoning money into variouis accounts, including accounts located in Switzerland.
Long live the ACJ.
RICO Suit Filed Against Bet Tzedek Legal Services of Los Angeles
By Leslie Brodie
Using a law originally enacted to combat the mafia, a Marina Del Rey-based legal scholar recently took the rare step of suing “Bet Tzedek,” a Los Angeles-based Jewish non-profit entity, under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law (“RICO”).
Also named as part of the alleged racketeering enterprise were banker Alan Rothenberg, David Pasternak, Sandor Samuels, Ronald George, and his son Eric George (who serves as a member of Bet Tzedek’s Board of Directors).
RICO is a federal law that authorizes a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be held civilly liable for the crimes that they ordered others to commit or which they assisted in committing.
The lawsuit alleges that various defendants misused Bet Tzedek as vehicle for the purpose of bribery, embezzlement, money laundering and tax-evasion with the intended outcome of siphoning the money into off-shore accounts. According to sources, the various accounts are located in Switzerland and at the Vatican.
Specifically, and in connection with some of Bet Tzedek’s alleged racketeering activities, the suit maintains that Sandor Samuels — CEO and President of Bet Tzedek and former Chief Trial Counsel at embattled Countywide Financial Services — was appointed President and CEO of Bet Tzedek largely due to his working knowledge of how to operate an enterprise which engages in myriad financial crimes.
The suit also asserts that other individuals engaged in racketeering activities, including David Pasternak — a Los-Angeles based “receiver,” as well as an officer of both Bet Tzedek and the Chancery Club — who allegedly used Bet Tzedek as forum to meet, collude, and otherwise bribe various judges and lawyers for the purpose of further appointing Pasternak as “receiver.”
The complaint also contains allegations that Ronald George — former Chief Justice of the State of California — unlawfully transferred funds from entities that were under his control (such as the California Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) intended for the CCMS computer system) into various accounts that were specifically maintained in Alan Rothenberg’s bank — 1st Century — a bank which Eric George owns in part. Said funds, as the suit alleges, were later embezzled.
As part of maintaining the scheme, the suit alleges, AOC employees Ronald Overholt and William Vickery were bestowed with various gifts, trips, kickbacks, bribes, excessive salaries, and the like. Similarly, and also as part of guarding the scheme, the suit alleges that defendants, at times, resorted to utilizing the services of Tom Layton — a former Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff/Senior State Bar of California investigator — to “illegally gather detrimental dirt” on various individuals who would oppose and/or object to the existence of said arrangements.
According to sources, Layton is part of an ongoing “ambulance chasing” scheme that the Girardi Syndicate operates in San Bernardino County vis-a-vis a satellite office located in San Bernardino and managed by Thomas Girardi’s son-in-law, David Lira.
Additionally, and per the sources, Layton has been previously utilized by the Girardi Syndicate to “assist” Sharon Major Lewis in selecting the names of nominees to be appointed as judges by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and to garner the support of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department in endorsing judicial candidate the Girardi Syndicate deemed worthy of such an endorsement.
The suit also alleges that defendant Holly Fujie — an officer of both Bet Tzedek and the Chancery Club — engaged in various acts of misconduct while assisting Ronald and Eric George to transfer funds from both the California Bar Foundation (where she serves as vice-president) and the State Bar of California (where she served as a member of a committee responsible for distribution of funds) to Bet Tzedek totaling hundreds of thousand of dollars.
Bet Tzedek is based in Los Angeles, California. It was founded in 1974, and is an affiliated agency of The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles. Bet Tzedek is the exclusive provider of free legal services to low-income seniors through contracts with the City and County of Los Angeles.
Wendy Darling
May 15, 2012
Published today, Tuesday, May 15, from The Metropolitan News Enterprise:
Courts Face More Cuts as Shortfall Drives Revised Budget Plan
From Staff and Wire Service Reports
California courts face $544 million in new cuts under the revised budget plan released yesterday by Gov. Jerry Brown.
That figure, which Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye pronounced as “devastating and disheartening” includes $300 million in onetime reductions that would come from trial court reserves, $240 million to be gained by delaying courthouse construction projects, and $4 million in increased costs to appellate court, Habeas Corpus Resource Center, and Administrative Office of the Courts employees. Those workers will have their pension contributions increased from five percent to eight percent, “consistent with other state employees,” the chief justice explained in an e-mail to judicial officers and court administrators, a copy of which was obtained by the MetNews.
Those cuts are part of the sweeping proposal to save more than $8 billion throughout state government following the weekend disclosure that the state’s revenue shortfall for the 2012-2013 fiscal year would be far greater than the $9.2 billion projected in January. Brown and the Department of Finance yesterday pegged the number at $15.7 billion, citing a slower-than-expected economic recovery.
More Cuts May Come
The governor is seeking to cut $16.7 billion from the budget, including a $1 billion reserve. But more than $6 billion in additional cuts would be triggered if the governor’s tax proposal isn’t passed by voters in November, according to a summary released yesterday by the department. The department had previously indicated that $125 million of the triggered cuts would come from the judicial branch.
The chief justice said she would convene an emergency meeting of the Judicial Council this Thursday to address the cuts, and that state Finance Director Ana Motosantos “will present information on the budget so we can analyze what his means for the branch and how we can go forward together in preventing the harms these cuts will bring to California’s residents.”
The chief justice also explained:
“Until we see the budget trailer bill language—which still has not been drafted—we do not know how the reductions will be accomplished for the trial courts,” she said.
Sharp Reaction
The revised budget proposal drew a sharp reaction from others in the bench and bar. State Bar President Jon Streeter said the cuts were “beyond unsustainable,” while Fourth District Court of Appeal Justice Douglas Miller, who chairs the Judicial Council Executive and Planning Committee, said the cuts “will be difficult, if not impossible, for the branch to absorb.”
Los Angeles attorney Paul R. Kiesel, co-chair of the Open Courts Coalition, said in a statement:
“The Governor’s massive cuts to our state court budget threaten to shut the lights out on hundreds of courtrooms, locking out Californians from our justice system and eliminating the safest place for citizens to resolve their disputes.”
The Alliance of California Judges issued a statement saying “the day of reckoning has come to the Judiciary,” and said the courts faced “not only a budget crisis, but a crisis of confidence” due to “[y]ears of mismanagement and misplaced priorities by the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts.”
The alliance said:
“Over half a billion dollars wasted on a failed computer project, lavish salaries, pension spikes and retroactive pay raises for San Francisco bureaucrats, exorbitant construction and building maintenance programs and an unwillingness to rein in the excesses of the AOC will cause local courts to cut essential courtroom staff and hours of operations. All of this could have been avoided had our leaders rejected staff recommendations to raid legislatively appropriated local court funds for their pet projects.”
The alliance took the occasion to again call for passage of the court decentralization bill, AB 1208, and said that in the long term, reform must include “democratization” of the Judicial Council.
In explaining his proposal to reporters in Sacramento yesterday, Brown made another pitch for his tax-hike initiative that he said would send more money to public schools if voters approve it in November.
The governor said:
“I said at the beginning when I ran for this job that it has taken a long time, more than a decade, to get into this mess. We’re not going to get out of it in a year — or even two years. But we’re getting there. We’re making real progress.”
The revised shortfall for the fiscal year that starts July 1 is roughly 17 percent of California’s $91 billion general fund, the state’s main checkbook for paying day-to-day operations. Brown said the sagging economic recovery and court judgments that prevented him from making cuts to programs such as Medi-Cal and In-Home Supportive Services led to the widening budget gap.
The anticipated deficit for the coming fiscal year marks a continuation of budget problems in the nation’s most populous state, where the unemployment rate and home foreclosures are among the worst in the country.
The Legislature had cut tens of billions of dollars from schools, social services, higher education, courts and health care programs for the poor since the recession began in late 2007.
The higher education cuts in particular have sparked demonstrations at regents’ meetings and on college campuses throughout the state.
The Democratic governor said the size of the deficit makes it virtually impossible to balance the budget with spending cuts alone, so his budget balances the cuts with the revenue he anticipates if voters approve his proposal to increase the statewide sales tax by a quarter cent and boost income taxes on those who make more than $250,000 a year. Both tax increases would be temporary.
Brown’s budget proposes $8.3 billion in cuts, $5.9 billion from the tax increases and $2.5 billion in a variety of other solutions.
If voters reject his tax initiative, Brown is proposing an automatic cut of $5.5 billion to K-12 schools and $250 million each to the California State University and University of California systems.
By comparison, public schools would see a 16 percent increase in funding if voters pass Brown’s initiative.
Brown called his latest budget plan “modest, fair and temporary.” The income tax hikes on the wealthy would be in effect for seven years, while the quarter-cent sales tax hike would remain for four years if voters approve.
In exchange, the governor is proposing a balanced approach that incorporates a wide range of cuts, from prison spending to child care for mothers trying to get off welfare.
His plan to send lower-level offenders to county jails instead of state prison will save $1 billion in prison spending in the coming year, while his tax initiative would constitutionally guarantee that some of the new revenue flows to counties to help them pay for that realignment.
Brown said his administration will work with state employee unions to achieve the five percent savings, either through a straight pay cut or reduced work hours. He issued a detailed plan for public employee pension reform earlier this year, but his proposal has not gained much traction in the Legislature, which is controlled by Democrats.
Attorney General Kamala Harris, like Brown a Democrat, late yesterday criticized a portion of the plan that would divert $410 million that the attorney general secured from five major lending institutions as the state’s share of a settlement regarding allegedly illegal home mortgage practic es.
“While the state is undeniably facing a difficult budget gap, these funds should be used to help Californians stay in their homes,” Harris said in a statement. “I plan to work with the Governor and Legislature toward a balanced budget that honors our obligations to California’s homeowners.”
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.