Judge John Kennelly – You get it. Welcome to JCW’s Hall of Fame

1. 
   

   Wendy Darling
   

   May 17, 2012

   JCW, you are correct – Judge Kennelly gets it. The letter that all 58 Presiding Judges, and all Court Executive Officers, should be signing is Judge Kennelly’s letter.

   If there was an ounce of common sense at work at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, it would be Judge Kennelly that would be sent to Sacramento as a judicial branch emissary to talk to the Governor and the State Legislature.

   But then in the words of the late Wll Rogers, have you ever noticed that the only thing common about common sense is just how uncommon it is?

   Long live Judge Kennelly. And long live the ACJ.

   Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 17, 2012

  “But then in the words of the late Wll Rogers, have you ever noticed that the only thing common about common sense is just how uncommon it is?”

  Yes I noticed that Wendy. =)

  Reply
2. 
   

   wearyant
   

   May 17, 2012

   Long live Judge Kennelly and long live the ACJ.

   It’s painfully apparent that the JC/AOC intend to continue on intact with business as usual with the teensy CJ in accord. Any suggestion to cut the AOC is met with silence by the JC.

   If Judge Kennelly disappears down a rabbit hole after his brave stance, the good citizens of California will send a search party to rescue him.

   Now, perhaps the JC/AOC may perceive that AB 1208 would have been less draconian to deal with than a commission set up by the other two gov’t branches? In other words, it appears the third branch now has outsiders deciding how much is in the trial courts’ reserves and that those reserves will all be swept. Gee, could this be an intrusion on the third branch’s independence?

   Happy now, JC/AOC thugs?

   Reply
3. 
   

   unionman575
   

   May 17, 2012

   You know, it’s funny I am allergic to bullshit too!

   =)

   Reply
4. 
   

   Michael Paul
   

   May 17, 2012

   “Basically, I am struggling with our continued arrogance and demands when we should be apologizing and taking responsibility for the situation we have created, just like the lecture we give criminal defendants who appear in front of us.”

   Amen.

   Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 17, 2012

  Ditto!

  Reply
5. 
   

   JusticeCalifornia
   

   May 17, 2012

   Gosh, Judge Kennelly’s story about AOC tactics (sending out a proposed letter one day, and trying to rush everyone into signing it within 24 hours) reminds me of our con artist/gambling barmaid’s tricky rhymes-with-witch move regarding Consent Agenda Item A today.

   The truth is it is pretty hard to cry poormouth when the cost of just two planned courthouses (San Diego and Santa Clara) could infuse $1 billion into the branch.

   Of course the governor and the legislature — and honest members of the branch– know this.

   So why is top leadership inflaming the branch budget issues by a) blithely moving forward with new court construction, and b) flaunting perky news releases in the process?

   Tani Cantil Sakauye, May 14: “The proposed cuts to the judicial branch are both devastating and disheartening. They will seriously compromise the public’s access to their courts and our ability to provide equal access to justice throughout the state.”

   Meanwhile, back at our gambling barmaid’s AOC/Pravda fat and happy ranch:
   http://www.courts.ca.gov/16592.htm

   May 16: Construction Manager at Risk Selected for New Red Bluff Courthouse
   May 11: New San Diego Central Courthouse Design Approved
   May 11: New Redding Courthouse Site Acquisition Approved
   May 2: Public Meeting to Comment on Preparation of Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Placerville Courthouse

   Tani Cantil Sakauye and her band of thugs/thieves have played the budget “crisis” like a fiddle. We are in the middle of an NCSC wet dream of an orchestrated harmonic convergence. The cj/jc/aoc helped engineer a phenomenal branch crisis through mismanagement, self-dealing, and making an art form out of spitting into the wind via the CCMS/court construction/maintenance issues, and now a cj/jc/aoc takeover of the largest judiciary in the Western World is (predictably, according to the NCSC playbook) spitting distance away.

   From Wikipedia: “Traditionally, the word racket is used to describe a business (or syndicate) that is based on the example of the protection racket and indicates a belief that it is engaged in the sale of a solution to a problem that the institution itself creates or perpetuates, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage.”

   The branch’s heretofore silent judges and court employees can do nothing and remain signed up for 10.5 more years of being robbed and forced to beg a con artist/ gambling barmaid and her thugs for money, or step forward to democratize the branch and have a say in running their own show.

   Really, that is what it comes down to. The Governor and the legislature can limit top leadership’s ability to waste public funds by cutting the budget, throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the process, but it is NOT going to spare the branch the duty and responsibility of undertaking the structural reform of branch leadership.

   Reply
• 
  

  Wendy Darling
  

  May 17, 2012

  Let us all remember that while Rome burned, Nero fiddled.

  Long live the ACJ.

  Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 17, 2012

  CARROT & STICK…

  It’s a carrot for their kiss ass party line friends, and a huge stick for the rest of us.

  We are getting beaten to death financially in the trial courts.

  Reply
6. 
   

   unionman575
   

   May 17, 2012

   Now, more than ever, it is time for a Recall:
   https://recalltani.wordpress.com/

   Reply
7. 
   

   unionman575
   

   May 17, 2012

   It is time for all AOC Directors to go NOW out the door.

   Fuck the AOC EMG reorganizing as described today by Patel – they all have to go NOW.

   Reply
8. 
   

   versal-versal
   

   May 18, 2012

   In the decades I have served this branch i have never been so dismayed. The CJ and JC don’t get it. Their misuse of public funds have lost them all credibility with the Governor and legislature. AOC Lawyers living in Europe? 30 high level employees not paying into their retirement? Spending half a billion, half a billion on a computer system that doesn’t exist?
   I think the Governor deserves credit for wanting to make the JC/AOC crystal palace insular insiders accountable. Everyone sees it but them. The CJ needs to do us all a favor and just resign. It would also be great if the other designers of this mess , J Huffman, J McConnell, J Bruiners and the arrogant J Hull, would also just get off the stage so that the branch could start over. We need to. democratize the JC and recall the CJ!

   Reply
• 
  

  JusticeCalifornia
  

  May 18, 2012

  versal-versal, I am right there with you. I have seen a lot, but what I have seen recently — right out in the open, no apologies— is really over the top. We all have been writing about this for going on three years so it isn’t like this disaster is a surprise. It isn’t.

  What must be surprising to the legislature and the Governor is that the branch has been LETTING this professionally/ethically/managerially challenged crew run (and rob) the branch and the public, over and over and over again.

  One way to deal with thieves is to disable them and then call in law enforcement.

  Top leadership cannot be physically whacked upside the head, hog tied, and left in the middle of the road until the police come, but they can be neutralized via branch-supported legislation and concerted action by the majority of this state’s massive bank of judges. In addition, lawyers need to realize that signing their clients up to pay higher fees– instead of demanding fiscal and managerially sound policies and sensible, public-focused priorities (open courts, good judges, court reporters, court clerks) –is actually ENABLING top leadership to perpetuate the broken status quo at the expense of the public.

  In the end, the judges of this state are going to have to unite, take back the branch, and install respectable, professional leadership that will run the branch in a fiscally, ethically, managerially responsible manner. EVERYONE is waiting. Until that happens, things are only going to get worse. It is irresponsible for the Governor and the Legislature to throw more money at the branch while current top leadership remains in power, and current top leadership’s pet projects proceed, full speed ahead.

  It is a joke, really. Our con artist/gambling barmaid is berating the governor and legislature. . . .while begging with one hand, and essentially handing out bags of branch gold to fancy architects and overpriced builders with the other. It is stupid for anyone to think this is an effective approach to solving the branch budget problems.

  Reply
9. 
   

   unionman575
   

   May 18, 2012

   “The CJ needs to do us all a favor and just resign.”

   YES – she does!

   Reply
• 
  

  JusticeCalifornia
  

  May 18, 2012

  Yes, she does need to resign.

  She is not qualified to be the Chief Justice, and she has been and is taking the branch down.

  Reply
10. 
    

    Dan Dydzak
    

    May 18, 2012

    It does not appear from reviewing the comments made at the Judicial Council meeting yesterday that the Chief Justice and CA Supreme Court intends in any manner to disband the AOC or reduce it in size. My lawsuit asks the Orange County Superior Court to do an independent audit of AOC converted funds and other converted government funds, including monies from traffic fines and similar matters that were not accounted for over many years.
    These are discoverable issues that can be looked into through depositions, interrogatories and document requests/subpoenas. Depositions of AOC employees, past and present, will be requested.

    The OCSC is being asked to appoint a Receiver or similar person, so if there are any major reserve funds in the local courts, such as LASC and Orange County, the Court has inherent and statutory authority to direct any Receiver or such other person accordingly as to disbursement and allocation of said funds. The union man is right that hard-working rank-and-file employees of the court–the people that do very indispensable work assiduously and conscientiously–are losing their jobs and having benefits curtailed due to mismanagement of government funds. RICO activities have occurred where a few financially and illegally benefit, while the court personnel who manage and run the courts are being sacrificed.

    By the way, I went to Subway yesterday for the 5 Dollar special sub, not a catered lunch.

    Daniel Dydzak

    Reply
11. 
    

    Nathaniel Woodhull
    

    May 18, 2012

    Listening to the webcast yesterday, I was struck how HRH-2’s reaction seemed much like that of another historical leader in April 1945. Perhaps their (AOC’s) war is lost…

    In other news, Deloitte was sanctioned $15,000 for failing to turn over “employee performance evaluations” to Levi Strauss in their $100 Million lawsuit against Deloitte for botching their software programming. Sooner or later, someone within Deloitte is going to turn on their former masters within the Judiciary… It’s getting way too hot for them in the litigation in both SF and Marin.

    Reply
12. 
    

    Dan Dydzak
    

    May 18, 2012

    Apparently, after I posted my last comment, I heard that Ms. Patel did a “window” dressing reduction of a small number of part-time employees or independent contractors from the AOC. This is clearly not enough. What about the AOC upper-management people who do not apparently contribute to their own future retirement benefits?

    Reply
• 
  

  Been There
  

  May 18, 2012

  Dan, for that matter how can Ms. Patel justify her title and current salary when the former AOC Executive Bill Vickrey, and the immediate past interim director, Ron Overholt, are both still showing up at 455 Golden Gate every day and still collecting their full salaries, despite Pravda’s disinformation campaign that each of these gentlemen has “retired.”

  Reply
13. 
    

    Mr. Bill
    

    May 18, 2012

    The recent ongoing scandal of CaliforniaALL should be factored into any discussion of the judicial branch’s financial acts. The State Bar, with help from high level judicial branch criminals, was allegedly money laundering public funds into offshore accounts using fake private, nonprofit(s). But the FBI has caught them! The entire judicial branch of state government can no longer be trusted; has lost all integrity.

    Reply
14. 
    

    Wendy Darling
    

    May 18, 2012

    Published today, Friday, May 18, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Kenneth Ofgang:

    Aggressive Collections Urged as Moneymaker for Trial Courts
    By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer

    A Los Angeles attorney yesterday urged the Judicial Council to make a policy change in the disposition of fines, fees, and penalties in order to obtain badly needed revenues for the trial courts.

    David Farrar told the council, which held an emergency meeting in Sacramento yesterday, that it needs to provide an incentive for local trials courts to pursue what he said amounted to about $7.7 billion in uncollected revenues. The council meeting was called by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Monday after the governor and Department of Finance unveiled the May revise of the governor’s budget proposal, including more than $500 million in new cuts for the judicial branch.

    A real-time transcription of the meeting was provided by the Judicial Council on its website.

    Farrar practices with Linebarger Goggan LLP, a national law firm that limits its practice to the collection of debts owed to government agencies.

    Little Incentive

    He explained that local courts have little incentive to pursue tough collections because they don’t keep the money. State law generally provides that if a trial court collects more than a specified amount of “fee, fine and forfeiture revenue,” half the excess goes to the statewide Trial Court Improvement Fund and half to the county general fund.

    Farrar, however, cited Government Code Sec. 77205, which allows the Judicial Council to return up to 80 percent of the Trial Court Improvement Fund share to the local court that collected it, or to distribute that amount among other trial courts.

    Former Los Angeles County Counsel Lloyd W. Pellman, who now practices in the Los Angeles office of Nossaman LLP, provided the MetNews with a copy of a letter he had sent to the chief justice.

    Pilot Project Urged

    Pellman, who does some work on behalf of Farrar and his firm, urged Cantil-Sakauye to support a pilot project that would return the full amount allowed by Sec. 77205 to the county of collection for a five-year period in order to allow those counties to stabilize collections. This would “provide at least a partial solution on at least a temporary basis” to courts that have been forced to slash budgets for the last several years even as they are owed “escalating unpaid debt.

    Pellman wrote:

    “If the current trend continues, this State is headed for a two tier system of justice. Only those whose attorneys can afford to underwrite the costs of court reporters and increased filing fees or who can afford to pay such expenses themselves will be able to proceed with litigation with a record for appeal. I don’t want to see that happen in my personal or professional lifetime.”

    Pellman noted that firms such as Farrar’s offer their services on a contingency basis.

    Cuts at AOC

    Also at yesterday’s meeting, interim state courts director Jody Patel reported that the Administrative Office of the Courts will reduce the size of its workforce by approximately 180 employees by the end of next month, with significant further reductions in the new fiscal year.

    “It’s important we make these changes,” Patel said. “It’s a painful process for everyone, especially those losing their jobs. But we have little choice. Our budget has been cut by 18.2 percent during the last four years. In addition, we feel that a realignment of AOC operations was long overdue. “

    As part of that reorganization, Patel noted, the AOC, which had 17 executive level directors at one point, will be down to 10 by the end of June.

    http://www.metnews.com/

    Recall the Chief Justice.

    Long live the ACJ.

    Reply
15. 
    

    Delilah
    

    May 18, 2012

    The AOC says a lot of things. I want to SEE the titles of the eliminated directors, their names, and the date of actual separation from employment.

    Reply
• 
  

  Wendy Darling
  

  May 18, 2012

  Very good point, Delilah. Very good point, indeed.

  Long live the ACJ.

  Reply
• 
  

  wearyant
  

  May 18, 2012

  The sickening fact is, these directors, etc., who are eliminated and separated may continue to show up in the dark hallways of the crystal palace for all we know. Is Sheila showing up on her broomstick there also?

  Reply
16. 
    

    Wendy Darling
    

    May 18, 2012

    Published today, Friday, May 18, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo. Please note: the Chief Justice will be “lead” the “team” sent to talk to the Governor and the State Legislature. Any thoughts on what the outcome of that will be?

    And hey, Justice California, the lone Court Executive Officer on the “team” in none other than Alan Carlson. Hmmmm . . .

    Chief Justice Will Lead Lobbying Team
    By MARIA DINZEO

    SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California’s chief justice will lead a team to lobby the Legislature to overturn a budget proposal from Governor Jerry Brown that would centralize financial control of the courts and undermine local court independence.
    On Thursday, State Finance Director Ana Matosantos told the Judicial Council that the Governor expects individual trial courts to use their meager reserves to backfill $402 million of the $544 million funding reduction for this year. Matosantos also proposed an $80 million reserve fund for all the courts, with the money coming in all likelihood from the already cash-poor courts.
    Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said the small group of trial judges, justices and one court executive should have the flexibility to be at the Capitol at all hours.
    The members are Justice Marvin Baxter of the Supreme Court, Judge Kenneth So of San Diego, Presiding Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County, Presiding Justice William McGuiness of the First Appellate District, retired Judge Terry Friedman of Los Angeles, Judge David Rubin of San Diego, also president of the California Judges Association, and Los Angeles Court Executive Officer Alan Carlson.
    They will assist the lobbyist for the Judicial Council and the administrative office of the courts, Curt Child, who will work with the interim director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Jody Patel. They will all work under the direction of the chief justice.
    The group has only 45 days to make headway with the Legislature, as lawmakers are expected to pass a budget by June 15 and the fiscal year begins July 1. Monday’s unveiling of the Governor’s revised budget has thrown the courts into a panic, and at yesterday’s council meeting, many judges said their courts would be unable to stay open if they are forced to use their already-committed fund balances to offset the Governor’s cut.
    “There is a vast, misunderstanding of the trial court fund balances, what they call reserves. It’s not like money sitting in a savings account that we can just tap into and use,” Judge Rosenberg said. “What’s happening here is a huge shift in philosophy, being imposed by the Governor’s office. The Department of Finance wants the courts to spend the fund balances, it wants the courts to use them, and it’s creating a system where the courts will be forced to use them. That shows a lack of understanding of how courts operate.”
    For example, Rosenberg said courts use the fund balances to pay commissioners, whose salaries are reimbursed by the federal government. If they are unable to pay commissioners because that money is being redirected elsewhere, certain court departments will be forced to close.
    A bill sponsored by the reformist Alliance of California Judges, AB 1208, currently awaits assignment to a committee in the state Senate. The governor’s proposal runs counter to its purpose, which is to ensure that local trial courts receive money from the Legislature directly and have more autonomy over their budgets. “The Department of Finance’s position is anathema to 1208. AB 1208 is about giving autonomy to trial courts. The Department of Finance’s position is we’re going to make you into another state department,” Rosenberg said.
    For some judges, turning the judiciary into just another state-run program undermines the idea of the judicial branch as a constitutionally separate entity. “We are a branch, not a department or a program,” said Judge David Rubin in an interview Thursday, who added that the budget plan is “tinkering with democracy.”
    “Even if you wanted to move in the direction of more state control, you don’t do it over night,” Rosenberg said. “I’m going to communicate the fact that we’re a third branch of government and we should be given some deference in how we operate, just like the Legislature is given deference.”

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/18/46629.htm

    Recall the Chief Justice.

    Long live the ACJ.

    Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 18, 2012

  We can all grab our ankles now in the trial courts.

  Reply
• 
  

  wearyant
  

  May 18, 2012

  Assembling a team of her close guards is the best teensy Tani can come up with in this crisis? They’re on their way to blow hot air in the legislators’ faces (and up their asses) and hoping to persuade them to the JC/AOC crooked way of thinking? Ya know, Tani, cutsey-poo you are, but cutsey-poo doesn’t cut it in all venues. This situation has become worse than the friggin’ nightmare any of the courts supporters could have envisioned. Good work, Teensy! You’ll go down in California history!

  Long live the ACJ.

  Recall Tani.

  Reply
• 
  

  Wendy Darling
  

  May 18, 2012

  Hey, Ant, after a year and half of doing nothing to “lead” the branch, of mis-spending money, poking a stick at the State Legislature, and refusing to have any kind of a meaninful discussion with the ACJ, do you think the “I’m new and I need more time” argument will go anywhere up in Sacramento at this point?

  I’m thinking, probably not.

  Long live the ACJ.
17. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 18, 2012

    LAO ANALYSIS OF MAY REVISION –
    HERE IS THE JUDICIAL BRANCH ANALYSIS IN ITS ENTIRETY:

    http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/bud/may_revise/overview-may-revise-051812.aspx

    Criminal Justice and Judiciary

    Judicial Branch Reductions

    Proposal. The Governor’s May Revision proposes a $544 million ($125 million ongoing) General Fund reduction to the judicial branch in the budget year. (This reduction is in addition to the continuation of the $350 million ongoing reduction enacted in 2011–12.) The administration proposes to achieve the $544 million reduction in three ways.
    •First, the Governor proposes to use $300 million of local trial court reserves on a one–time basis to offset General Fund costs for the trial courts. The administration also proposes to eliminate the statutory authority allowing local courts to retain reserves in the future, as well as authorizes the Judicial Council to retain funds as a statewide reserve to address budget shortfalls of individual trial courts.
    •Second, the Governor proposes a delay of 38 court construction projects, thereby permitting the one–time redirection of $240 million in court construction funds for trial court operations in 2012–13. (Beginning in 2013–14, the Governor proposes to redirect $50 million in court construction funds on an annual basis.)
    •Third, the Governor proposes generating $4 million in ongoing savings by increasing employee retirement contributions for all state judicial branch employees.

    Additionally, the Governor proposes to establish a working group to evaluate the state’s progress in achieving the goals of statewide trial court realignment initiated 15 years ago by the Legislature.

    LAO Comments. While the Governor’s May Revision proposals for the judicial branch merit consideration, they raise several issues for legislative review. For example, while the proposals to eliminate local court reserves and create a statewide reserve move the state closer to achieving the legislative goals of statewide trial court realignment, they raise questions related to the respective roles of local courts and the Judicial Council in setting fiscal and program priorities. The Legislature will want to consider how the elimination of local reserves affects individual trial court operations and fiscal planning practices, as well as how the proposed statewide reserve will be implemented and administered. (For more information on recent budget reductions to the judicial branch, as well as how those cuts have been addressed, please see our recent brief, The 2012–13 Budget: Managing Ongoing Reductions to the Judicial Branch.)

    Reply
18. 
    

    Wendy Darling
    

    May 18, 2012

    Published today, Friday, May 18, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:

    Brown’s Budget Plan May End Debate Over Trial Court Autonomy
    By Cheryl Miller

    SACRAMENTO — For more than two years, the judiciary has been consumed by a public struggle over control of the branch, a push-pull between those who say judges should have a dominant role and those who want policy driven by the Judicial Council.

    In a single day, Gov. Jerry Brown may have made that fight moot.

    Overshadowed by the breathtaking $544 million cuts unveiled May 14 in Brown’s revised budget are the seeds of structural change the scope of which the judicial branch has not seen in 15 years. Brown wants to drain — eliminate, really — the bank accounts of individual trial courts, stripping them of locally controlled money that provides judges autonomy in an era of state-directed funding.

    Instead, Brown wants to give the Judicial Council authority over a single emergency fund of roughly $80 million. Local courts would have to plead with the council, appointed almost entirely by the chief justice, for a share of the pot.

    “It’s the taxpayers’ money available to fund taxpayer services across the state on an equal basis,” state Finance Director Ana Matosantos said. “That’s how we’re looking at it.”

    Brown, ironically, may be the governor who finally ushers in the centralized governance changes that former Chief Justice Ronald George sought for the judicial branch for so long. For years, George pushed state leaders for more power at the Judicial Council level, even seeking broad constitutional changes that would increase the judiciary’s stature in dealings with its legislative and executive brethren.

    But despite his well-known warm relationships with three governors, George’s ambition was limited by his need to keep the peace with trial courts like Los Angeles that fiercely guarded their independence. Now it is Brown, not known for having strong bonds with current judicial leaders, who may have dictated a new order in the courts.

    “This budget proposal,” said one judge speaking on the condition of anonymity, “makes Ron George look like a schoolboy dreamer.”

    On the surface, Brown’s plan appears motivated by a search for cash to fill a $16 billion state budget deficit, not by personal philosophy on judicial administration.

    The governor “is looking at what is it that we have available in terms of appropriations and how we can do the best we can to achieve savings and balance the budget to fulfill constitutional requirements in a manner that has the least bad program outcome possible,” Matosantos said.

    In fact, for the first year of his most recent tenure in office, Brown seemed more interested in shifting services and control to local government. Take prison realignment. The governor is counting on billions of dollars in budget savings by keeping so-called low-level offenders in jail or under local authorities’ supervision instead of sending them to more costly and overcrowded state prisons.

    With the courts, Brown is taking the opposite approach with his centralized funding plan. Maybe that shouldn’t be a surprise. One of Brown’s top aides in his state-local realignment campaign has been Diane Cummins, a longtime legislative and executive budget adviser who came out of retirement to help Brown.

    Cummins was a key player in California’s 1997 conversion to state trial court funding. And she’s a current member of the chief justice’s Strategic Evaluation Committee, which has been scrutinizing the Administrative Office of the Courts for more than a year now. Cummins has been involved in developing the governor’s current plan for the courts, according to sources familiar with the budget’s development.

    That plan, while specifically targeting trial court funding, did not address the judiciary’s administration budget, a frequent target of critics who contend the bureaucracy has grown too large at the expense of courts. The absence of a direct administrative cut may signal the governor’s desire for a strong, centralized judicial operation.

    “Our thought is you have already made some reductions, ongoing reductions in other areas of the budget,” Matosantos told the Judicial Council on Thursday when asked about the AOC. “You have achieved ongoing savings with [the] Supreme Court and ongoing savings in the courts of appeal. The Judicial Council’s budget we see as having been reduced by $13 million — 10 percent from 2010-11 to 12-13.”

    What, specifically, the governor wants from a more centralized judiciary is unclear. He has yet to release actual budget language that might detail the criteria the Judicial Council will use in doling out the emergency money.

    Brown’s May budget revision included fuzzy language about creating a “working group” that will weigh “the ability of trial courts to provide equal access to justice.” A Finance Department spokesman offered few clues about the group’s authority or membership other than to say those details will be worked out once the budget, due June 15, is passed. Matosantos described it as a “fact-finding body to look at the administrative side of the house.”

    There continue to be counties that, as the Judicial Council itself recognizes, remain chronically underfunded, even as other trial courts have amassed healthy reserves.

    Speaking with reporters after Thursday’s Judicial Council meeting, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye would not offer an opinion on the governor’s restructuring plan or the effectiveness of the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act.

    “That’s not a judgment that we’re prepared to make,” she said. “But I know that the governor sees this [budget proposal] as bringing parity across the branch to seek equal justice for all. Fundamentally I have no disagreement with that. I have a disagreement with the means of getting there.”

    Judges are already preparing for a fight in the Legislature. On Friday, Cantil-Sakauye appointed Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter, Orange County Superior Court executive officer Alan Carlson, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Kenneth So, First District Court of Appeal Justice William McGuiness, Yolo County Superior Court Presiding Judge David Rosenberg, retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Terry Friedman and California Judges Association President David Rubin, a San Diego County Superior Court judge, to a committee that “will lead negotiations” on the governor’s budget.

    “There’s going to be some push back,” said council member and Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Mary Ann O’Malley. And it may be hard for the courts to speak with one voice against a plan that arguably penalizes some more than others. “There are courts that feel they’ve done everything they can to operationalize these cuts and yet save money to get ready for other cuts that were coming,” said O’Malley. So here you’ve got some courts that have done just that and now they feel like they’re being penalized, again, intimating that courts that really did nothing are going to be rewarded.”

    Beyond the immediate financial loss, judges are worried that the budget plan means they will no longer be able to tailor specialty courts or programs for their local communities, Rubin said. “These courts play a unique role in the counties in which they are located. They’re unique,” he said. “And a one-size-fits-all approach — a couple-of-sizes-fits-all approach — the branch really doesn’t lend itself to that. ”

    Los Angeles County Superior Court leaders have not spoken publicly about Brown’s revised spending plan. The court, expected to have the largest reserve in the state, has worked independently of the council in the past to advance its interests. In 2009, for example, the court hired its own lobbyist to persuade legislators to protect judges’ threatened benefits. With Los Angeles’ large legislative delegations, the county’s judges can hold significant political sway.

    A court spokeswoman said Presiding Judge Lee Smalley Edmon has been consumed by back-to-back meetings since May 14; she did not return messages seeking comment.

    Legislative committees will hold their first hearings on revised judiciary budget during the week of May 21.

    The courts historically have done a “really good” job handling budget cuts, Cantil-Sakauye said. “But we’re not that good,” she said. “And I guess the governor’s plan is not really about merit, or really about how we’ve performed. It is about the need for the state to meet its deficit.”

    http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202555170522&Browns_Budget_Plan_May_End_Debate_Over_Trial_Court_Autonomy

    Recall the Chief Justice.

    Long live the ACJ.

    Reply
19. 
    

    courtflea
    

    May 18, 2012

    I love how the CJ’s ad hoc budget committee is “representative” of the trial courts: 2 from San Diego, then add LA, Orange and Yolo. sorry but….what a joke (I am suprised Marin was not included)!! And it is the same old BS about needing to “move quickly” AOC code for making decisions without concern for the trial court’s input.
    The other thing I want to know, is who approved Patel’s “reorganization and alignment plan” for the AOC? The CJ? The JC? Why is this plan not being made public to the courts? I understand not revealing confidential personnel issues, but what is the “plan” in general? Don’t you think that the CJ would want to tout this purported plan to prove she is seriously listening to the requests (ha!) of the Alliance and others that are screaming for the disembowling of the AOC? Answer: window dressing as was said above with consultants and contract employees. And a PS what has happened to all of the assistant RAD’s, lawyers and other high paid staff at the regional offices?
    To Judge Kennelly, it is so refreshing to hear the truth and have someone man up!!! The wholesale taking of reserves/fund balances is the fault of HRH 1 going to former govs and legislature promoting centralization and trying to rip it off from the courts himself for his own power trip to control the trial courts via funding, and other courts encouraging the theft of the monies so their own courts could benefit. Right on Judge we need to get our own house in order.

    Reply
20. 
    

    Dan Dydzak
    

    May 18, 2012

    According to my sources, with all respect to the manoeuvres and machinations going around in Sacramento and elsewhere, my lawsuit avers that there was money-laundering, mail fraud, securities fraud and other RICO activity by former Chief Justice George, his son Eric George, banker and former State Bar President Alan I. Rothenberg, and many others, including misconduct by a purported non-profit organization. Why is not the CJ having any Alliance Judge on her so-called team of advisors, instead of certain judges wanting to build new court houses and spend monies?

    Further, sources advise, pending further discovery, that Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye hired a team of money-managers and analysts and is sending monies back to her ancestral home to the Philippines. Her main money-manager, according to my sources, operates out of Beverly Hills, is very influential and used to hide illicit monies for the Marcoses. Where is a HONEST and FAIR accounting of AOC funds?Why are the lobbyists, including the CJ, going to Sacramento and hiding a honest accounting?Perhaps Ms. Darling, unionman and others could shed some further light.

    The CJ and others make general statements about the courts being sacrificed. What is the hotel tab for Judicial Council members for that last meeting,which was to a large extent a PR move? How much did the catered lunch cost? Why could not everybody buy their own lunch in a regular restaurant in this time of austerity? I know Sacramento has some great Chinese restaurants with a lunch special.

    If this continues and the AOC continues pilfering taxpayer coffers, union members may very well end up picketing and initiating a recall of certain members of the judiciary, as allowed under the CA Constitution.

    For the moment, I thank many individuals who have contacted me with their support. I will
    be taking in due course Mr. Vickery’s, Cantil-Sakauye’s and others’ depositions, if necessary, to find out what went on all these years with the AOC funds. Justice Baxter tolerated the conversion of funds from the Georges and others, so it doubtful he can be an objective lobbyist. Are not the justices about making fair rulings as opposed to spending most of their time apparently safeguarding various financial interests?

    Have Mr. Vickery and Mr. Overhollt repaid the CA government all those personal meals and expenditures? I would like to have access to the present expenditure sheets of the present CJ for purported goverment expenses.

    It is very troubling that the present CJ appears more interested in lobbying than being a judge making rulings. The law is not about building a gigantic bureaucracy but being fair. Judges should not become judges predicated on mostly financial considerations, but should be
    fair and impartial evaluators of questions of law and fact in disputed matters, and facilitators in non-litigation and transactional matters.

    Respectfully, Dan Dydzak

    Again, thanks for all the support I have been receiving by many individuals. It is appreciated.

    Reply
21. 
    

    Wendy Darling
    

    May 18, 2012

    Four or five years ago if anyone had told me, including judges and others that I profoundly respect, that there was institutionalized misconduct going on at the highest levels of judicial branch adminstration, I would have flat out told them that they were delusional or insane. I simply would not have believed a word of it. After witnessing the ethical violations, misconduct, mismanagement, malfeasance, fraud, corruption, retaliation, and lying first hand, however, and seeing it with my own eyes, it has been the saddest realization of my life that it’s not only true, in all probability it’s worse than anyone truly knows.

    It is time for the judges of this state to unite and put a stop to this, and restore honor, ethics and integrity to the California Judicial Branch. It belongs to all of us.

    Long live the ACJ.

    Reply
22. 
    

    Lando
    

    May 18, 2012

    This new committee has some potential to help the branch. Sweeping the local trial courts reserves is an idea pretty much everyone can agree is a disaster. The CJ may be starting to listen to the views of someone other than the insiders at the crystal palace as Justice Baxter, J McGuiness and Alan Carlson are all hardworking thoughtful and honest representatives of our courts. It is too bad that the CJ didn’t include an Alliance Board member as this could have been a great opportunity to bring the branch together. Sometimes progress needs to be measured in small steps so maybe the arrogance of the Ronald George , J Huffman and Bill Vickrey years are finally starting to recede. One can only hope.

    Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 18, 2012

  I had hoped to see Steve White on this committee.

  Oh yea,h that was just a dream.

  Reply
• 
  

  Wendy Darling
  

  May 18, 2012

  So many of us hope you are right, Lando. More than you will ever know.

  Long live the ACJ.

  Reply
23. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 18, 2012

    From: Judge Lee Smalley Edmon Friday – May 18, 2012 4:56 PM
    To: Staff Users All
    CC: John Clarke; Judge David S. Wesley
    Subject: State Budget – Analysis of the Governor’s FY 2012-13 May Revision and Potential Impact on the LASC

    (Sent on behalf of Presiding Judge Lee S. Edmon, Assistant Judge David S. Wesley and Executive Officer/Clerk John A. Clarke)

    The state’s budget crisis continues to threaten our ability to maintain access to justice.

    Facing an unexpected increase of $7 billion to a deficit already estimated at $9 billion, Governor Jerry Brown on Monday released his May Revision, an update to his budget proposals for fiscal year 2012-13.

    In addition to severe additional cuts to the judicial branch, the May Revision includes harsh cuts to health and welfare programs, and aggressively redirects funds throughout state government. After four consecutive years of cuts totaling $653 million, the Governor now proposes an additional $544 million reduction to the judicial branch in fiscal year 2012-13. Starting 2013-14, the ongoing reduction to the branch will be $778 million.

    The branch and our court have been delaying and blunting the impacts of cuts previously imposed on the courts, allowing our court to manage the transition toward a smaller, more efficient operation. At the local level, that has involved judicious use of the reserves we had accumulated through previous years of reduced spending. At the statewide level, that has involved redirection of funding earmarked for technology and capital projects to trial court operations.

    At both levels, these strategies may have to end in fiscal year 2012-13, as a combination of cuts and fund sweeps is applied to the courts. The Governor’s May Revision includes four significant proposals: First, a new permanent cut to the judicial branch that will total $125 million. Second, a sweeping of trial court reserves by imposing a one-time cut of $300 million to be offset by local reserves. Third, a transfer of $240 million in construction funds to offset a one-time cut by canceling and delaying various projects. Fourth, the creation of a statewide 3% reserve to be administered by the Judicial Council which we anticipate will come from the Trial Court Trust Fund.

    The Director of the Department of Finance, Ana Matosantos, appeared before the Judicial Council ( http://www.courts.ca.gov/18044.htm )yesterday, May 17, to answer questions about the implementation of the May Revision proposals. Nonetheless, several significant uncertainties remain in how the Governor’s revisions would be implemented. But if they are adopted, preliminary analysis suggests that Los Angeles Superior Court will have to make additional expenditure reductions of between $70 million and $140 million — and will need to do that in the next fiscal year, since we will no longer have the reserve funding needed to bridge finance the reductions over multiple fiscal years.

    Here in Los Angeles, we will be simultaneously planning for the necessary reduction, and working with local legislative leaders to explore alternatives to these drastic cuts. On Wednesday, May 16, our LASC Budget Working Group joined the Executive Committee meeting to hear the elements of the May Revision. The Budget Working Group will be convening soon to identify options for dealing with these difficult challenges.

    Hon. Lee Smalley Edmon
    Presiding Judge
    Los Angeles Superior Court
    (213) 974-5562
    LEdmon@LASuperiorCourt.org

    Hon. Lee Smalley Edmon
    Presiding Judge
    Los Angeles Superior Court
    (213) 974-5562
    LEdmon@LASuperiorCourt.org

    Reply
24. 
    

    Lando
    

    May 18, 2012

    Great points Lando but how do you explain putting Mr Friedman on such an important working group? I don’t get how this guy keeps resurfacing. I would also like to give Judge Rosengram a piece of friendly advice. Can you please not hold forth and lecture the legislators your meeting with. I think they understand the role and importance of the courts. They like everyone in Sacramento are struggling with the lack of funds available for the needs of all Californians. Sometimes the less said is better ? The bottom line is we have to hope this group succeeds. The taking of trial court reserves changes our court system for the worse and gives the centralized planners at the AOC all that they have always wanted, total control.

    Reply
25. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 18, 2012

    Retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Terry Friedman does not represent LA – trust me he is a longtime puppet of the JC / AOC Death Star regime .

    Reply
26. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 18, 2012

    Friedman = Speak with one voice.

    Reply
27. 
    

    Lando
    

    May 18, 2012

    Sorry to congratulate my own ideas lol but wanted to make these additional points as it seems the CJ is moving in mixed directions. All this seems like the SEC process- making a great appointment with Justice Scotland and then moving in another direction or no direction at all as no SEC report has ever appeared. I find all of this back and forth very confusing and troubling for the future direction of our branch . It is like we are taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back all the time and then nothing ever changes . Sorry to be so frustrated.

    Reply
• 
  

  Wendy Darling
  

  May 18, 2012

  We are all sorry to be so frustrated, Lando, so don’t think you are alone in that frustration, because you have alot of company.

  Long live the ACJ.

  Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 19, 2012

  “1 step forward and 2 steps back “. That’s the JC way.

  It’s time to clean house.

  Reply
28. 
    

    Lando
    

    May 19, 2012

    Thanks Wendy and Unionman , You are both awesome. Hopefully we can someday meet and celebrate the hopeful democratization of the JC and reform of the crystal palace !

    Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 19, 2012

  You are welcome Lando. ‘

  Thank you for your insights here on JCW.

  Reply
• 
  

  Wendy Darling
  

  May 19, 2012

  It’s all of us together, or none of us at all. 🙂

  Long live the ACJ.

  Reply
29. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 19, 2012

    I’m buying dinner & drinks for you both!

    Reply
30. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 19, 2012

    3 day June Judicial Council Meeting:

    Weds-Thurs-Fri

    June 20, 21, 22

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/jcmeetings.htm

    Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 19, 2012

  Mark you calendars now for the June “3 day fiesta” on June 20, 21 & 22 in SF at the Death Star HQ there. I just love going on plane rides to show the powers that be that I do care.

  =)

  Reply
31. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 19, 2012

    Death Star Communications presents…

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/18169.htm

    for release Contact: Lynn Holton, Public Information Officer, 415-865-7726
    May 17, 2012 AOC Trims Staff by 180 Employees

    SACRAMENTO—In an emergency session of the Judicial Council focused on the impact of the Governor’s May Revision, Interim Administrative Director Jody Patel reported that judicial branch budget reductions have significantly affected the Administrative Office of the Courts and will result in a fiscal-year workforce reduction of approximately 180 employees by the end of June 2012.

    She further indicated that more reductions will occur as the second phase of her reorganization and realignment plan is initiated in June. The reductions will come from voluntary and involuntary layoffs of fulltime, contractual, and temporary employees, as well as a handful of retirements. Patel added that as of June 30, the AOC will have reduced its executive level directorships by 59 percent—from 17 directors to 10. Patel told the council that the AOC budget of $112.27 million was cut by 12 percent this fiscal year and she’s preparing for bigger cuts next fiscal year.

    “It’s important we make these changes,” Patel said. “It is a painful process for everyone, especially for those losing their jobs. But we have little choice. Our budget has been cut by 18.2 percent during the last four years. In addition, we feel that a realignment of AOC operations was long overdue.”

    Justice Douglas P. Miller, the chair of the council’s Executive and Planning Committee, said he was pleased that Patel was taking a hard look at AOC operations. “We’re also expecting that the report by the Strategic Evaluation Committee (SEC)—which we hope to get soon—will further complement what Jody is doing. We will look at her reorganization plan and the SEC recommendations to see how we can streamline operations without completely jeopardizing the services the AOC provides for the council, the appellate and trial courts, and the public.”

    Reply
32. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 19, 2012

    We are “broke”, but it is…
    Business as usual up at the Death Star…

    Bidders / Solicitations
    http://www.courts.ca.gov/rfps.htm

    • New Judges Orientation Room Blocks RFP #ASU EG-020 (May 18, 2012)
    • Court Clerk Training Institute – September ASU TD 016 (May 18, 2012)
    • Criminal Assignment Courses RFP: # ASU TD 014 (May 18, 2012)
    • ADA Room Block RFP # ASU EG-015 (May 17, 2012)

    Reply
33. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 19, 2012

    http://www.cc-courts.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=7052

    Kiri Torre – How is the shredding going in Contra Costa?
    Shredding Services

    The Superior Court of Contra Costa is in need of on-site shredding services using consoles for offices for paper and microfiche and larger bins for high volumes of paper, files.

    43S-11/12 SRD
    • Full text of Request For Proposal
    • Attachment 1, Administrative Rules Governing Requests For Proposals
    • Attachment 2, Standard Terms and Conditions
    • Attachment 3, Proposer’s Acceptance of Terms and Conditions
    • Attachment 4, Darfur Contracting Act Certification
    • Exhibit A, Console Listing

    Important Dates:
    RFP Issued: May 4, 2012
    Deadline for questions: May 10, 2012, 12:00 noon PST
    E-Mail questions to: CCCourtRFPs@contracosta.courts.ca.gov
    Proposal due date: May 18, 2012, 3:00 PM. PST
    Anticipated Start of Service: June 1, 2012

    Page Revised: 05/04/2012

    Reply
34. 
    

    versal-versal
    

    May 19, 2012

    180 AOC employees to be cut? How about making that 580 so the AOC can b e reduced by 50%. 180 isn’t a meaningful step since CCMS and extravagant courthouse monuments are on hold and no longer require employees. Speaking of reductions , it would sure be nice if HRH-2 would kick Terry Friedman off her new budget group.. Hasn’t that guy done enough damage to the judges and courts of California already? . Look back at old JC/AOC YouTubes where he criticized those wanting to halt CCMS. If memory serves he sponsored JRS 2 but insured its timing would allow him to be the last Judge in JRS 1 .Archived metnews.com editorials have many insights about Mr Friedman. Yet, despite the fact he resigned his Judgeship long ago he remains on the JC and now in these other important roles. Pretty hard to figure or is it?

    Reply
35. 
    

    JusticeCalifornia
    

    May 19, 2012

    It is one thing to slash the branch budget due to gross mismanagement and waste of public funds. That is easy and convenient for the Governor.

    It is quite another for the Governor to tell 2,000 judges that they are going to be brought to their knees financially, will have to live hand to mouth, and will have to kiss the behind of the gambling barmaid and thugs who got the branch into this mess in order to get funding.

    I don’t think that will play well. In fact, I don’t think that will play at all. Not for long anyway.

    Nature is going to take its course.

    They say you want a revolution. . . . .

    Reply
36. 
    

    Dan Dydzak
    

    May 19, 2012

    With regard to the last observation by Justice California, it is to be noted that if the CJ and the Supreme Court of California would do the obvious–shut down the AOC or spare it down to its bare essentials and RETURN the monies converted by various persons (i.e., money-laundering and mail/securities fraud), including the traffic ticket revenue skimmed according to Ms. Turner and other sources, there would be no major crisis fiscally for the courts. As my lawsuit points out the obvious, the monies STOLEN over MANY YEARS, including advice by Sandor Samuels of Countrywide fame with Monzillo through FIRST CENTURY BANK and its delaware corporation, by R. George, Eric George and others. The computer debacle created by Jacobs Engineering and others==the suspicious overbilling for construction projects–and obviously those contractors gave kickbacks pending discovery–this all created the crisis.
    Mr. Vickrey and Mr. Overholt apparently still make a lot of money–$ 900,000 each plus other side benefits–why? To hide the previous misconduct and continue the present misconduct.

    It is to be further noted that Judy Johnson, a party in my lawsuit, has just been appointed apparently a Superior Court Judge in Northern California. I doubt very much that Governor Brown was aware at the time of the appointment that Johnson was a named party in my lawsuit and was involved in the mysterious disappearance of millions of dollars–including her DIRECT involvement in the $780,000 CaliforniaAll misappropriation of funds.

    Governor Brown will be alerted to the above.

    Mr. Dunn and the State Bar Defendants in my case are playing games with service, requiring service of process on them in my lawsuit very SHORTLY.

    To state what Justice California said in a different manner. Cicero once stated apparently, “The universe is unfolding as it should.” Well, the problems the CJ and others created will have repercussions such as my lawsuit and with the union membership and HONEST judges of the Alliance doing what is RIGHT and VIRTUOUS. It seems inevitable that there will be at some point union picketing and recall activity.

    Faithfully yours, to all honest persons in the judiciary and union and to all honest taxpayers of CA,

    Dan Dydzak

    Reply
37. 
    

    wearyant
    

    May 19, 2012

    I could be wrong of course and welcome factual correction, but didn’t the AOC slickly get around a hiring freeze by taking on temporary and contractual employees? Then the AOC tried to keep it from the public at large? Thus the AOC should be called on their attempts to claim they’re cutting their work force so drastically. Also, they’re throwing in normal attrition to the numbers and those who are bailing out while they still have 100% of their retirements funded by the California taxpayers. If we could subtract all those from the 180 claimed, how many are really being cut? More smoke ‘n’ mirrors from the crystal palace. As Unionman said, it’s business as usual — monkey business.

    I never would have believe all of us could agree on anything judicial — but I believe everyone — EVERYONE — agrees that the sweeping of the trial court reserves is a huge mistake. It’s disaster in the making.

    Reply
• 
  

  Wendy Darling
  

  May 19, 2012

  Based on being an eyewitness, there never was a “hiring freeze” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, only the pretense of one.

  Even the best marionettes are still, in the end, just pieces of wood dancing at the end of someone pulling a string.

  Long live the ACJ.

  Reply
38. 
    

    Nathaniel Woodhull
    

    May 19, 2012

    Great comments everyone! Yes Wearyant, they did get around the “hiring freeze” in the manner you suggest, and they have never accurately given up the numbers on how many people receive paychecks from the AOC.

    I am gravely concerned that one of the unintended consequences of the Governor’s proposed May Revise could actually result in the AOC/JC gaining powers which they have sought since 2004. Terry B. Friedman = Mouthpiece for HRH-1, is one of the worst “public servants” in the history of this State. Check out the historical postings referred to by Lando on the MetNews. When President of the CJA, Friedman allowed Vickrey to write the agendas for the Executive Committee meetings and it was 100% a wholly owned subsidiary of the AOC. Friedman mysteriously “retires” from the bench, yet remains on the Judicial Council and is posted to all of these “essential” new committees by HRH-2…no change there.

    If not watched closely, the JC/AOC will obtain unfettered power over the local trial courts, taking their reserve money and undoubtedly moving to “select” their local leaders to ensure that the tight “fiscal controls” imposed on the trial courts are going to be followed. Hello to local CEO’s and even PJ’s selected by the all-knowing CJ. (You know that British prison ship is looking better and better by the day.)

    Keep up the fight, it is almost time for a new generation of warriors as some of us are about to fade to black…

    Reply
• 
  

  Wendy Darling
  

  May 19, 2012

  Where does it all end, General Woodhull?

  Reply
39. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 19, 2012

    Where does the money come from for this BULLSHIT???

    Death Star Communications presents a new website:

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/courtsbudget.htm

    May 14, 2012

    InFocus: Budget Crisis in the Judicial Branch

    On May 14, after four years of ongoing budget cuts, the California Courts learned of the Governor’s proposal to cut another $544 million from an already crippled judicial branch. The website InFocus: Budget Crisis in the Judicial Branch was launched to provide details on how these cuts are threatening public safety and access to justice for 38 million Californians. California Courts

    Reply
• 
  

  wearyant
  

  May 20, 2012

  Tani and her JC crew keep harping on what cuts have been made and when. Just where Tani and her JC/AOC thugs have actually spent all the public funds they’ve received and when would be interesting and informative right up there next to their (boo-hoo) cuts they’ve delineated. The BS artists want to exemplify the cuts now, when, all during that time Tani and the JC/AOC continued to party-hearty as though there was no end in sight. Different people kept ringing the alarm and they were met with stony silence and called whiners, heretics, ill-informed, shrill and God knows what else behind their backs. That bloated bureaucracy has GOT TO GO! That would be just a fundamental step to bring the California judiciary back from the sewer it’s rapidly disappearing into.

  Where’s the SEC committee report?

  Recall Tani.

  Long live the ACJ.

  Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 20, 2012

  Even when we get the sanitized SEC report, it will be suitable for wiping your ass with Ant.

  =)
• 
  

  Jimmy
  

  May 25, 2012

  SEC report is posted on the AOC website.
40. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 19, 2012

    Ah choo. See JCW I am allergic to bulllshit too. That new website is a real peice of work. Check it out.

    Reply
41. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 19, 2012

    http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/19/4500822/myths-and-facts-about-judicial.html
    Saturday, May 19, 2012

    Viewpoints: Myths and facts about judicial branch amid budget cutbacks
    By Dave Rosenberg
    Special to The Bee
    Published: Saturday, May. 19, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 11A

    Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/19/4500822/myths-and-facts-about-judicial.html#storylink=cpy

    Reply
42. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 19, 2012

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-0519-saturday-courts-budget-20120519,0,804734.story

    Letters: California courts feel the cuts
    May 19, 2012
    Re “Brown’s bloody budget,” Editorial, May 15

    Reply
43. 
    

    unionman575
    

    May 20, 2012

    Reply
44. 
    

    JusticeCalifornia
    

    May 21, 2012

    While the trial courts are in financial dire straits, and the NCSC is talking about what a wonderful opportunity the budget crisis presents to “restructure” [read: so court administrators can take over the world. . . . .]

    Court administrators have the opportunity to live it up in Florida, at this year’s National Association for Court Management event.

    http://nacmnet.org/sites/default/files/conferences/pdfs/2012NACMOrlandoAttractions.pdf

    Interestingly, the contact information for this organization is located at the NCSC address:

    http://nacmnet.org/contact/index.html

    This fun event is listed as a key date on our state court calendar.
    http://www.courts.ca.gov/10134.htm

    Guess which fair-haired child from CA has ties to this organization? Hint: look for the name and title in the biggest and boldest typeface. Or switch the initials in CA—what do you get? AC.

    http://www.nacmnet.org/CCCG/cccg_nacmpdac.html

    Now check out the 2011 attendees—click on that link here:

    http://nacmnet.org/conferences/current.html

    Am I imagining things, or does Orange County dominate the attendees from CA?

    (And of course Ron O was there too. . . .)

    I wonder how much it costs to attend this six-day conference, and I wonder who is paying for it. . . . .I wonder if past, current and potential new members of Justice Management Institute and NCSC and other “consulting” organizations are training and are being trained on the public dime at these fun locations, and then turning around and getting hefty consulting fees. . . .

    I am not trying to stir up trouble of any kind, and I don’t know the answer to these questions. It is just interesting sometimes to connect dots.

    It just sure must be expensive (and fun) to attend these weeklong events at places with such great amenities. Yep, I wonder who’s paying for it.. . .

    Does anyone know?

    Reply
• 
  

  JusticeCalifornia
  

  May 21, 2012

  As far as I can tell, about 20 Orange County court employees went to the July 2011 NACM event at the Red Rock Casino/Resort/Spa in Las Vegas.

  http://www.redrocklasvegas.com/photo_gallery/

  I wonder if they took vacation time off, and paid their own way. . . .or if they were paid their regular wages and also had their registration/airfare/accomodations/etc. paid for as well? Or a combination thereof?

  Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 22, 2012

  It’s usually something like “Z” time – offical court business. That way they don’t have to burn “their” time vacation of “flex” time.
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 22, 2012

  I have seen the “Z” time trick over & over again at an undisclosed large local trial court.

  Wink Wink…
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 22, 2012

  Justice, definitely keep us all posted on this “training and educational process”. I am in inquiring mind and.and kind of like and electric eye when it comes to misuse or questionable use of public funds. I like to follow the money.

  =)
• 
  

  Been There
  

  May 22, 2012

  FWIW, Justice California, when I was sent to NACM conferences — in my official capacity as an AOC drone — my employer paid my registration and “event” fees (usually social events such as dinners, mini tours, etc., which were part of the “official” event program), and air fare. Upon my return to SF I would file an expense reimbursement form for my hotel, per diem, and miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses (such as airport shuttles, bellman’s tips, etc.). Days spent at these conferences were treated as regular work days and not chargeable to annual leave.
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 22, 2012

  As to each trial court here in CA, it usually comes out of EACH local trial court budget for “professional or executive ongoing education.”

  The AOC lists it as something similar as well for its executive and senior management humps.

  It’s even more “vital” than keeping courtrioom doors open and clerk’s offices staffed – YOU UNDERSTAND – RIGHT? I am of course pulling your leg Justice about that.

  Reply
45. 
    

    Dan Dydzak
    

    May 22, 2012

    Greta van Susteren just interviewed Senator Sessions re: Maui conference of 9th Circuit Judges and others, questioning whether or not monies spent for same should be borne by the federal government. I have alerted his colleague, Senator Grasley, who is very much against government corruption and government overspending, about my lawsuit and excessive “freebies” of certain judges and government officials. Apparently, Senator Grassley is looking into return of TARP monies illegally converted by First Century Bank and other such entities. Apparently, certain federal and state judges place their monies at said bank.

    It would seem that the AOC and other judicial-connected persons/entities should be careful about spending monies in this time of austerity, especially since unionman has pointed out the dramatic loss of jobs and cutbacks to his union members and the hard-working rank-and-file—the persons who do a lot and most of the work in the court system.

    Reply
• 
  

  Been There
  

  May 22, 2012

  Sadly, Dan, anyone would be hard pressed to find any conference for either judicial officers or court drones that is not held in a “convention city” or vacation destination. The planners argue that they need a site with adequate airport, hotel, and convention facilities, and truthfully, some of these sites offer financial incentives/discounts to convention planners. So you will routinely see conferences in Chicago, New Orleans, Charleston, Santa Fe, and Vegas, but much less likely in smaller venues. As for the relative cost of a conference in Maui, as always the devil is in the details. Given the geographical swath of the area in the 9th Circuit, it is conceivable that Maui offered significant financial incentives to bring the conference to a State anxious to lure tourists at a cost comparable to other “convention” destinations in the 9th circuit.

  And knowing Senator Sessions, any locale for a Ninth Circuit judicial conference outside of Hell would be cause for investigation.

  Reply
46. 
    

    JusticeCalifornia
    

    May 22, 2012

    Thank you for the information, Been There, unionman, and Dan.

    Here is the story on our own 9th Circuit and Maui.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_20675210/senators-target-federal-judges-tropical-get-together

    So how much did Orange (or rather the public) spend on sending 19 or 20 employees to the conference last July, I wonder? The vacation aspect of the conferences is one thing— sending not one or two, but 20 employees is another.

    One would think a national court administration training group (especially a “non-profit”) whose focus is serving the public and educating the courts would be sensitive to cost , record the event, and make it readily available at a reasonable cost to courts and entities that want it.

    Oh, wait! They do record them. . . . .so why does it make sense for Mr. Carlson to take 19 employees to the conferences? Maybe Mr. Carlson can explain. I am not picking on him, I am just curious as to why this prominant member of top leadership thought that was a good idea during the budget crisis.

    Hey, did you know: Mr. Carlson “served three years with the Administrative Office of the Courts as an assistant director for court services where he was responsible for trial court funding, trial court consolidation, evaluating trial court civil delay reduction, and developing a training institute for court staff.”

    http://www.occourts.org/media-relations/current-news-releases/alan_carlson_judicial_admin_award.pdf

    I have no idea if Mr. Carlson wears a white or black hat, or some shade of gray. No one has provided any information on this blog about him, but he appears to be exactly what top leadership would like in terms of an AOC director, so I have opened up the discussion if anyone wants to have one.

    Does anyone know if he applied for the position?

    Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 22, 2012

  I personally do my best “thinking” and professional “growth” while on a nice fully paid European locatiion, like Italy or Spain.

  =)

  Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 22, 2012

  Carlson marches to the beat of the Death Star drummer 100%. Do NOT be deceived Justice.

  Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 22, 2012

  Justice, here’s the official rag on Carlson since you asked:

  http://www.orangecountysuperiorcourt.info/News.html

  Orange County Superior Court Appoints A New Chief Executive Officer

  Nationally recognized court administrator Alan Carlson has been selected by the judges of the Superior Court of Orange County as the new Chief Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court/Jury Commissioner. His appointment will be effective September 8, 2008. “Mr. Carlson’s exceptional leadership skills, wealth of experience, and progressive thinking in court management will serve our Court and community well,” said Presiding Judge Nancy Wieben Stock. She added, “His vision is aligned with our Court’s goal of providing high quality justice and service to the public.” Mr. Carlson is currently the President of the Justice Management Institute (JMI), an independent, non-profit organization that provides technical assistance, workshops, research, professional publications and continuing education programs to improve the administration of justice. In this role Mr. Carlson specializes in matters of privacy and justice information sharing, court finance, criminal case flow management and urban court management. From 1993-2000 Mr. Carlson was the CEO of the San Francisco Superior Court. Mr. Carlson’s trial court experience also includes executive responsibilities in the administration of the Monterey and Alameda Superior Courts and three years with the Administrative Office of the Courts as an Assistant Director for Court Services with responsibilities for court funding, court consolidation, evaluating trial court civil delay reduction and developing a training institute for court staff. Mr. Carlson holds a Juris Doctorate from UC Hastings College of Law and a Bachelor’s Degree in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research from UC Berkeley. He is an active member of the California State Bar. Chief Executive Officer Alan Slater, who has had a distinguished career of more than 36 years with the Court, has announced that he plans to retire from court service in October 2008.

  Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 22, 2012

  Justice, Carlson drafted this POS (and I don’t mean proof of service):

  http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120228-itemK.pdf

  Give it a read and THEN decide what you think about Carslon based upon his recent official scratchings for the JC.

  Reply
47. 
    

    ddydzak@yahoo.com
    

    May 23, 2012

    Responding to comments by Been There and others, I realize and have no problem with government employees occassionally going to seminars to further their knowledge and skills and interact with others in their field. However, given the financial problems at hand, there should be some circumspection. There is no excuse for persons such as Messrs. Vickrey and Overholt charging the taxpayers for expensive dinners on a regular basis in SF and hotel accomodations on the government tab. And my sources tell me there were questionable party girls in attendance at luxurious hotels and put through payroll–also a lot of free room service and freebies. What ever happened to the internet or Holiday Inns? My sources advise that former Chief Justice George used to take private jets to go between BH and SF. Is this not improper and unethical for judges to deal with rich individuals and private attorneys such as Charles Schwab,Tom Girardi, Esq. Ron Burkle and Jerome Falk, Esq. on a personal level, then consider legal petitions from these attorneys or their firms before them. The answer is obvious. Getting major financial considerations from benefactors obviously creates conflicts of interest or the appearance of same for judges. For example, I am still awaiting Mr. Schwab’s answer to my lawsuit on serious allegations of impropriety leveled against him.

    I assume Mr. Carlson is a long-time, hard-working clerk of the Orange County Superior Court, and will do what is right in that capacity for the citizens of Orange County. He should follow the ethics of his position and not bow into political considerations. From my experience, the Orange County Superior Court is well run and has many fine judges. It does seem troubling that Mr. Streeter, retired Senator Dunn and CJ Tani have been travelling to O.C. lately for apparently lobbying efforts. A friend tells me the CJ and Dunn were recently lobbying and cavorting at a function at the Richard Nixon Library as opposed to doing real work.
    These individuals all have a connection to my lawsuit–is this coincidental? I will assume that Mr. Carlson will do what is proper and right for this state and the fair administration of justice in OC.

    Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  May 23, 2012

  Here’s the deal my friends…we are required to have trial court employee training/professional education each year.

  The question is how it is done. I say we “slum” it in one of own local trial court facilities for free. Pay for our own lunch and that’s it. End of story. Damn I am a taxpayer too folks!

  It’s all in HOW it is done. Low costs/no cost or extravagant BULLSHIT AOC STYLE.

  Reply
48. 
    

    Dan Dydzak
    

    May 24, 2012

    Good point unionman. Dunkin donuts and a coffee is fine by me. Everything else, buy my own lunch at the local restaurant down the street.

    Reply

1. “Wendy Darling” Comment on Judicial Council Watcher Re Institutionalized Misconduct Speaks Volume ; Separate Comment by “Mr. Bill” About FBI – CaliforniaALL Peculiar/Suspect « The Leslie Brodie Report →
   June 18th, 2012 → 11:54 am

   […] https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/judge-john-kennelly-yo… Share this:StumbleUponEmailLinkedInPrintDiggFacebookRedditTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]

2. Time is running out for court funding group & Council Meeting Commentary | Judicial Council Watcher →
   February 21st, 2013 → 10:39 pm

   […] I’m reminded of the letter from Judge Kennelly and how the good judge has drawn a path to salvation with his point here. Yet we fully expect more damnation for the branch as a whole when it’s all swept under the rug and will serve as another notch in a future rico indictment. Frankly, I could go on for days about this report but I’ll spare you the anguish. Over a hundred and fifty people throughout the AOC produce these reams of useless information, put it under the nose of everyone else and tell them to endorse it -or worse- make a choice between three bad choices. Which brings us to our last exorcism of the damned. […]

Leave a Reply to JusticeCalifornia Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Google account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.