It took them over a year to produce this report while getting nothing but resistance, redaction and runaround from the Judicial Council and their administrative offices, the AOC. It is alleged that not only was the SEC report intentionally released after hours proceeding a long holiday weekend but that the E&P Committee and certain other (for now to remain unnamed) committees are working to recast and re-characterize the released report as too much unnecessary change and that the AOC themselves has already charted the proper course.
.
.
Going into this months three day Judicial Council meeting we’re already beginning to see questionable “reports from the acting executive director” that 1) show that the AOC themselves (and by extension, their owned bitches on the judicial council) finds common ground and is implementing about 40% of the report before the AOC ever saw it. 2) That the various AOC departments and divisions provide invaluable services to the small courts and this is why there can be no further cuts to the AOC – due to small court support.
The toadies anointed into power appreciate the final SEC report just about as much as they appreciate AB1208 because they rely on the cover of large groups of persons to provide cover for individual decisions. After all, you can’t simultaneously fire 17 directors for gross mismanagement when all of them share some culpability but if you reduce the 17 directors for three chiefs, then the lines of ownership and accountability become bright lines of ownership and accountability. This is some of the same reasoning that our chief justice wants more people sitting on the council, so she can say she is more inclusive while hiding behind this group with her unilateral decisions.
___________________________________________________________
Judicial Council Watcher is dismayed by the layoffs of court personnel in Los Angeles and other court locations statewide. One of our objectives in launching Judicial Council Watcher was to call to your attention as well as the attention of many others, that there were curable issues that could have served to stem the loss of jobs and services in the court system statewide. While we acknowledge our successes in getting out the message, we also must own the failure of not achieving the objective of stopping back door tort reform (courtesy of our ultra-conservative friends at the National Center for State Courts) through the virtual elimination of the civil justice system.
We pledge to try a little harder and ask that if you haven’t joined the fight, consider doing so now.
___________________________________________________________
Judicial Council Watcher does not enjoy meddling in the affairs of local courts as that is not our objective. However, when we see something happen that is frankly alarming we feel it necessary to call your attention to it.
JCW wishes to call to your attention the election for presiding judge in San Francisco Superior Court. On one side of this election, we have a viable candidate that has been groomed for the position by being APJ for a few years; a responsible leader that sees the real issues and has been working with the current PJ to solve them.
On the other side of the election exists an AOC stalking horse that wants to blow smoke up everyone’s robe with promises of more city money to run the state courts in San Francisco,
Since an endorsement from JCW is tantamount to a kiss of death according to our readers, JCW heartily endorses Judge Harold Kahn, the AOC’s stalking horse for Presiding Judge for San Francisco Superior Court.
Related articles
- ACJ Article: SFCHRON:-AOC Needs a Trim. AOC e-news: Fair and transparent? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The AOC responds to the SEC Report (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The long-awaited SEC (Strategic Evaluation Committee) report is released (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- A short walk down memory lane….. (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
unionman575
June 17, 2012
More outstanding work JCW!
🙂
JusticeCalifornia
June 17, 2012
JCW, please don’t joke about endorsing Kahn, you could confuse people.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 18, 2012
Let’s be clear so that people aren’t confused. This is not an endorsement. 😀
unionman575
June 18, 2012
Thanks for the clarification JCW.
JusticeCalifornia
June 17, 2012
I have a couple of questions.
Is the CCTC that entity located in Arizona that Sacramento had such trouble with?
Why would the AOC use a place in Arizona to host anything to do with CA court files?
What does the CCTC currently host besides CCMS?
unionman575
June 18, 2012
1. CCTC is in AZ.
2. Ask Michael Paul
2. Ask MIchael Paul
unionman575
June 18, 2012
Page 10:
Large Superior Courts Assert That Local Hosting Is Critical to Their Ability to Improve the Civil System’s Performance
Four of the seven courts—Fresno, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Ventura—have their interim systems hosted at the California Court Technology Center in Tempe, Arizona.
Three large courts—Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego—each installed the system’s software on computers in their jurisdictions.
The AOC stated that the Judicial Council will require all courts to host CCMS at the Technology Center.
unionman575
June 18, 2012
JCW did a nice spread on your topic Justice here:
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/a-shadow-syndicate-shielded-by-judicial-immunity/
unionman575
June 18, 2012
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/27/36925.htm
According to Sacramento Superior, the primary problem is that its computers are now hooked up to the California Court Technology Center, a remote server in Arizona.
“Given that CCMS V3 for the Sacramento Superior Court is installed at the CCTC in Tempe, Arizona, the court has had significant performance and stability issues from day one. The Sacramento Superior Court has had to endure many outages which have totally shut down CCMS V3 and performance gaps which have impacted business operations,” said the court’s answer.
JusticeCalifornia
June 18, 2012
Unionman, thank you so much for the information. The reason I asked is related to another item you posted, on for discussion at the JC meeting this week: namely the “CART” team report and recommendations about San Joaquin.
CART members:
Alan Carlson, Chief Executive Officer, Superior Court of Orange County
• Michael D. Planet, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of Ventura County
• Kiri S. Torre, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of Contra Costa County
• Kim Turner, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of Marin County
• David H. Yamasaki, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of Santa Clara County
To support the CART effort, the AOC also contributed specific subject-matter expertise from:
• Curt Soderlund, Interim Chief Deputy Director and Director, AOC Administrative Services
Division
• Zlatko Theodorovic, Chief Financial Officer and Director, AOC Finance Division
• Althea Lowe-Thomas, Assistant Director, AOC Regional Office
• John Judnick, Senior Manager, Internal Audit Services Unit, AOC Finance Division
• Maureen Dumas, Manager, Reengineering Unit, AOC Regional Office
• Pam Reynolds, Manager, AOC Regional Office
Check out recommendations 49 and 51.
Tell me again why AOC toadies like Marin CEO Kim Turner are giving IT advice (like pushing local reliance on the AOC and CCTC) to counties like San Joaquin that have far superior websites to Marin County’s pathetic website. Go ahead– compare the scope of family law information available in San Joaquin and in Marin. Then go figure how Kim Turner is spending $2-$4 million a year on Marin’s IT and why she and certain other longtime branch problem children have been selected to give advice to other counties as to how to run their business.
JusticeCalifornia
June 18, 2012
So query: if a trial needs emergency assistance from the JC (say, because a bench officer was threatened and security costs unexpectedly increased suddenly and dramatically)– does that give the AOC license to push its AOC agenda on that court via CART “recommendations”?
Especially without giving hard numbers for that court to consider in deciding whether to adopt the recommendations? For example, can the AOC make a recommendation for CCTC hosting without determining and providing the cost of that undertaking, initially and on an ongoing basis? Does that make any financial sense at all???? Re San Joaquin recommendation number 51: $13,000 for a new server versus how much to move hosting to CCTC?
Also of interest: Check San Joaquin recommendation 54.
JusticeCalifornia
June 18, 2012
I meant to say “trial court” above.
“If a trial court needs. . . .”
Guest
June 18, 2012
Turner? Torre? Yamasaki? Soderlund? Aren’t these the same people who got us in this mess? Aren’t they the same “leaders” the SEC report slammed? Is the chief saying there are no other committee members to chose from out of the thousands of court employees in the state? Or are they the only sure thing “yes” votes? What do you call appointing all the same people to committees and expecting a different result? INSANITY!
Michael Paul
June 18, 2012
The CCTC is located in Tempe Arizona and is the location that Sacramento connects to with CCMS Version 3.
Putting the CCTC in Arizona defies logic and may be a violation of state law as the clerk of the court is charged with maintaining the records under their control from what I understand it. Records uploaded to the CCTC are not under the control of the clerk of the court. Moreover I understand that these public records fall under the purview of Arizona law because of where they’re located. I think Arizona permits the sale of public information and court records if I remember correctly Moving the CCTC makes no technical sense at all unless you’re dumb enough to believe that the state is going to break off at the border during the next big one and sink into the pacific.
The CCTC hosts Sustain Justice Edition that serves about a third of the courts in California at the CCTC. In addition, they host the phoenix financial system and a host of services like Microsoft Outlook / Exchange (that any court could probably get cheaper from Microsoft Office 365 or Google)
Think of the CCTC as an ultra expensive web hosting company..
Michael Paul
June 18, 2012
The capable employees of the AOC already reliably maintain a datacenter at 455 golden gate. Much like AOC employees have little to do with the development of CCMS, they have little to do with the CCTC as AOC management would prefer to contract all of those services out.
If someone could leverage all of the existing computing facilities that already exist in the judicial branch, a few flexpods and enterprise server licenses between the AOC and just a few courts would negate any need for the CCTC.
You want to save lots of money? Use just a few court datacenters replace the CCTC.
unionman575
June 18, 2012
“I think Arizona permits the sale of public information and court records if I remember correctly.”
Michael you are correct…
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/39/00121-01.htm&Title=39&DocType=ARS
unionman575
June 18, 2012
“Think of the CCTC as an ultra expensive web hosting company.”
My, my , my , how about this?
Disgusted
June 18, 2012
Q Why would the AOC use a place in Arizona to host anything to do with CA court files?
A The air quality control restrictions are far less restrictive than in Ca.
Wendy Darling
June 18, 2012
That can’t be the reason, Disgusted. The air is plenty dirty at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 19, 2012
The AOC is looking continuously for revenue streams to support their lavish lifestyle? e.g., they are looking to sell California public records held in the purview of the court clerks and CEOs of the California courts?
unionman575
June 17, 2012
Judicial Council to Hear SEC Report on AOC
Public Meeting June 21-22 in San Francisco
SAN FRANCISCO—At its public meeting beginning Thursday, June 21, the Judicial Council will hear a presentation by the Strategic Evaluation Committee (SEC) on its review of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).
The meeting will be held from 11 a.m. to 4:40 p.m. on June 21 and 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on June 22 in the Judicial Council Conference Center, Hiriam Johnson State Office Building, Third Floor, Ronald M. George State Office Complex, 455 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco. The live audiocast will be on the California Courts website and the agenda and reports are posted online.
unionman575
June 17, 2012
unionman575
June 17, 2012
Kahn:
unionman575
June 17, 2012
Shasta SC:
Dan Dydzak
June 18, 2012
Unionman and others, thought you would all like to know that, while many of the rank and file are simply trying to not lose their jobs, pay their rent and put their kid through college, make the car payment, property profiles show that Ronald M. George, or his family trust, are owners of three properties, to wit:
(1) Beverly Hills mansion
(2) Nob Hill Luxury condo
(3) Malibu Carbon beach residence, having an assessed property FMV of apparently 5 Million Plus.
One has to ask, how did the former Chief Justice on a judge’s salary make so much money?
Carbon beach is the area where it is so expensive to buy property on the beach that it is for the likes of Larry Hagman and Barbara Streisand and Larry Ellison.
The Malibu property and Nob Hill condos are the subject of articles on the Leslie Brodie Report.
Query, were any of these properties bought with illicitly gained AOC funds? This will be the subject of discovery.
Does the SEC Report contain any information on the audit and accounting aspects of AOC funds under the control of the present and past Chief Justices? Who writes the checks? Did Vickrey and Overholt write checks and where are those accounts? These are all proper lines of inquiry in my lawsuit.
The hard-working folks out there, keep on fighting and doing what is right. Unionman, keep on organizing and standing up for your obvious rights.
wearyant
June 18, 2012
Beverly Hills mansion? Nob Hill Luxury condo? Malibu Carbon beach residence? Acquiring all three is a true sign of unmitigated greed in the making. You know the kind, a greed that cannot be fulfilled, is never satisfied. If ronG has that character flaw, well, then it appears he may have taken full advantage of the centralization of the California judicial system to his own benefit. Greedy people are scary people.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
June 18, 2012
It would be interesting to follow the $$ on these purchases. I believe Mrs. George worked as an interior designer, so there was more than one income in the family. It would be interesting to see if any of the purchases were in part paid for by “friends” or “business associates” or acquired through some sweetheart deal with undisclosed business interests.
unionman575
June 19, 2012
OERS respondend when Ron O’s home address was posted on JCW…need I say more?
They are Gestapo like Wendy said.
anna
June 21, 2012
Are you kidding? R. George has always had that flaw. Not only for money but power. He’s as corrupt as they come.
unionman575
June 18, 2012
I COULD list it all here and more…but I am not playing the OERS game anymore JCW…
🙂
(1) Beverly Hills mansion
(2) Nob Hill Luxury condo
(3) Malibu Carbon beach residence, having an assessed property FMV of apparently 5 Million Plus.
wearyant
June 18, 2012
Unionman, what is OERS?
Wendy Darling
June 18, 2012
OERS is the AOC’s “Office of Emergency Response and Security.” Or, as the line sfaff call it, the AOC’s Gestapo.
Really, why do they carry guns?
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 18, 2012
I am hoping Unionman is kidding about an OERS response — by the way, thanks for the quick response, Wendy Darling — I thought Unionman was referring to perhaps a slap on his wrist for using descriptions of the AOC villains in the vernacular or by way of “calling a turd a turd.” I get passionate at times and tend to spew vulgarities, but neither of us deserve gun-toting triple A clumsily chasing us for that. I try to keep my anger in check in respect for JCW and the other posters and readers …
The OERS should be disbanded. Those at the top are simply guilt-ridden for what they’ve done to dedicated and caring people and feel paranoid, as well they should if they sport consciences. They think “we’re AFTER them.” What jerks. I wouldn’t cross the street to confront them. I’ll do all I can, though, to see the bad actors are brought to justice. Let those jerks get their own personal bodyguards if they’re that fretful. They can afford it on their pumped up, overblown salaries.
unionman575
June 19, 2012
Res Ipsa Loquitor
June 19, 2012
Someone should tell OERS that Google is a wonderful search tool, and in the Bay Area, at least, you can find almost anyone’s address via the Blockshopper site.
I am not trying to encourage OERS to shut down Blockshopper. I am simply saying that in the era of the internet, none of us can have any expectation of privacy with regards to any public information — and property ownership, valuation, etc. etc. is a public record.
Been There
June 19, 2012
Does OERS also provide the CJs security detail, or has that remained separate?
wearyant
June 19, 2012
I thought the local sheriff provided security for the trial court judges and the courts generally. Why would trial courts feel the need to ask OERS for input on security when the sheriff is right there in the courtrooms?
unionman575
June 19, 2012
OERS is the JC/AOC Palace Guard.
anna
June 21, 2012
Guy’s the sheriffs dept is a separate branch of govt. The trial courts are not suppose to have executive power. What the hell is going on. This ORES is unconstitutional and right up there with illegal law enforcement. There are reasons that the sheriff’s dept has to be a separate branch of govt.
Dan Dydzak
June 18, 2012
Apparentlyl, Ms. George was interior designer for the court and was therefore likely paid salary from AOC. I used to represent a very high-end interior designer in litigation and they don’t make that much money, unless you do interior design for restaurant/hotel chains.
Been There
June 18, 2012
Mrs. George did some work in putting together the photographs of county courthouses displayed in the conference center, but it is not clear to me whether this was a paid or pro bono project. She had an interior design partnership in BH, from which she withdrew but her partner continued the business.
Interior designers have several different ways of earning their fees and commissions, and it would be difficult for an outsider to tell whether the $$$ coming into the business was earned or “other”.
courtflea
June 18, 2012
Ms. George supposedly donated her time and efforts to bring art and the historical photos to the newly reconstructed AOC/state building. From what I hear HRH1’s family had money.
wearyant
June 18, 2012
If it is simply HRH1’s family “had money,” it shouldn’t be held against ronG, to be fair. No one can really control the circumstances they’re born in that I know of. He makes a fun pinata though, more so than HRH2. I liked the way he did an end run around Angelo Buono’s defense many years ago. I thought he walked on water for a long while after that …
Been There
June 18, 2012
Ant, you want piñata? Check out the photos on Leslie Brodie re Nob Hill condo — they include a photo of HRH1 dressed for the bondage-theme party at his condo. The party included a woman dancing in the shower in her underwear — photo included.
You can’t make this stuff up!
wearyant
June 18, 2012
Eeuuwww. I saw pictures of him in a tux (?) for some masquerade party, but I thought it was someone else’s house. That was his house where a woman danced in the shower? Oh. ugh. How the years change some of us …
wearyant
June 19, 2012
“The bash for 400 at Fulk’s South of Market design studio on Seventh Street had all the ingredients for the perfect 1990s bondage club party: men standing out front to greet guests, clad in leather vests and pants, bare chests and top hats; bustier-clad women with thigh-high leather boots and riding crops sitting saucily on sofas; and guests in all manner of costumed finery, wearing mysterious … .”
The above quote was taken from one of Unionman’s url’s listed below. So unless there were more than one of these “bondage bashes,” it wasn’t at ronG’s luxurious condo, as was my first impression. I guess a great time was had by all who attended. (Eeuuuuwwwww.)
anna
June 21, 2012
While he might have done an end run, what he did was pretty outrageous. His disdain for the constitution was in full regalia over that. When one takes the bench, they are suppose to refrain from being an advocate, and second guessing the prosecutors is pretty out there. His disregard for the constitution should have been the writing on the wall for what he has done since then. He’s no better than the criminals he’s prosecuted, and deserves a cell right next to them.
courtflea
June 18, 2012
can someone give me Leslie Brodie’s site? thanks!
Jimmy
June 18, 2012
lesliebrodie.wordpress.com
realitychick
June 18, 2012
Without other comment, I would like to point out that this site is publishing the insane attacks on the former Chief Justice of DANIEL DAVID DYDZAK [#121857], 51, of Marina Del Rey,, who was was disbarred June 11, 2010, and was ordered to comply with Rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
“Dydzak seriously compromised the rights of his clients and engaged in acts of moral turpitude, including making significant misrepresentations to his clients,” according to the opinion by the State Bar Court review department. “His misconduct is extremely serious and threatens the public because it has not only continued unabated during his decade-long involvement with the State Bar disciplinary system, but it has been increasing in severity.”
The court noted that Dydzak was the subject of five disciplinary proceedings in the last 10 years. In 1998, he was suspended for 30 days for wide-ranging misconduct in five client matters, including failure to promptly pay client funds, maintain client trust account funds, communicate with a client, return client files and unearned fees and cooperate with the bar’s investigation.
In 2002, he received a private reproval for neglecting to report $3,500 in sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal. Also in 2002, Dydzak was publicly reproved for failure to show respect for the court by making a scurrilous remark about a judge while leaving the courtroom. And in 2004, he received a one-year stayed suspension and two years’ probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) while on suspension from his first discipline.
The most recent discipline case involved misconduct in four matters: filing an appeal with an incomplete case information statement and then failing to file the documents in a timely manner, delaying his client’s appeal; failing to appear for his clients; settling and dismissing a case without their consent; and holding himself out as eligible to practice while he was suspended.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 18, 2012
We would respectfully disagree with your assertion that we’re publishing Mr. Dydzak. This is the internet. He is free to go on any number of sites and take ownership of the posts he makes. As to our opinion of his or other attacks on the former chief justice Ronald George? Again, Mr. Dydzak owns those statements. Ronald George owns the boondoggle known as CCMS, OCCM’s $2,500.00 lightbulbs and the AOC’s CCTC.
Some legacy.
anna
June 21, 2012
Great reply. Realitychick is a troll for the AOC/ JC and the State Bar, otherwise known as the defendants in Dydzak’s lawsuit. What a tool.
Lando
June 18, 2012
While I have been a critic of our former Chief Justice for his policy decisions and attempt to control the judicial branch, I don’t think it is fair to infer that he did anything inappropriate with branch funds. There is no evidence to support that and while I disagree with the insular anti democratic system he created, he always struck me as an honest man. Also his wife should not be the subject of discussions here. As I understand it she has a talent for photography and took some pictures of historic courthouses. There is nothing wrong with that . She played no role in making branch policy so she shouldn’t be criticized or speculated about. The SEC report points the way to the future. We need to keep focus on encouraging the current CJ and JC to implement those changes, support 1208 and the democratization of the JC .
Wendy Darling
June 18, 2012
As an eyewitness to the institutionalized misconduct at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, including that of the most recently departed Chief Justice, Ron George, I don’t have to “infer” that he did inappropriate things with branch funds. And while he once struck me as an honest man, that ship sailed, and sunk. after personally witnessing Ron George’s conduct, at least with respect to Vickrey, Overholt, and the AOC, and Ron George’s treatment of AOC line staff, my personal opinion, based on that eyewitness experience, is that I can longer consider him as such.
unionman575
June 18, 2012
Wendy I agree with you.
unionman575
June 18, 2012
Lando it’s not personal it’s just public business. We have to divert funds to essential services.
anna
June 21, 2012
The reader infers, writers here imply. R. George has been on the receiving end of so many bribes, and gifts, he’s a disgrace. The man has committed felonies, and knows it, and has allowed Huffman, and Co. to do the same.
unionman575
June 18, 2012
Is this worthy of public funds? Each person can decide.
I just said goodbye to 157 coworkers last Friday.
Art, or people that provide justice.
That’s the choice.
You decide.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/8002.htm
Temples of Justice Introduction
Introduction by Mrs. Barbara George, Chair of the Supreme Court Art Selection Committee
The great British Prime Minister Winston Churchill observed that “We shape our buildings, and afterwards, our buildings shape us.” So it is with the historic courthouses of California.
Inspired by the visits of my husband to all of California’s 58 counties during his first year as Chief Justice, this exhibit includes a photograph of a courthouse in each county, and each tells a small part of the state’s history. In the stories of these buildings we see the evolution from Spanish colonialism to pioneer society to statehood and to the realization of a culture unlike any that had come before.
The buildings in this exhibit are monuments to the way the people of California saw themselves at an earlier time, when the state was young and the ideals of the democratic society were not only embraced, but also enshrined in what was often the grandest building in town. “It is our temple of justice,” said Judge J. E. Prewett at the dedication of the Placer County Courthouse on Independence Day 1898. “It is the repository of our titles, the fortress of our personal and property rights, the fountainhead of our school system, the registry of our births, marriages and deaths, and its inmates stand guard by day and night over the peace and good order of our communities.”
Of the 60 courthouses in this exhibit, just 32 remain standing, the others victims of earthquake, fire, neglect, and modernism. Of the buildings that remain, 21 are designated National Historic Places and 22 are still used as courthouses. The Mariposa County Courthouse, a Greek Revival treasure built in 1854 by those who had come in search of gold ore, has the honor of being the oldest courthouse in continuous use in the state.
All these buildings are remarkable for the places they hold in the short history of California, and all are reminders of the ideals of generations past.
It is not possible to thank all those individuals throughout the state who assisted in this project. We are especially indebted to Michael Ginsborg and Gale Tunnell of the Supreme Court staff and to James Carroll of the Administrative Office of the Courts for their diligent work.
View the slideshow.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/4563.htm
unionman575
June 18, 2012
The rubber has met the road and we are all being shown the door in droves in every trial court throughout this state. We cannot afford the above anymore folks. We just can’t. That’s the way it is, like it or not.
unionman575
June 18, 2012
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Disorder+in+the+court:+Guess+who%E2%80%99s+behind+the+masks%3F+Ronald+and+Barbara+George.&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=855&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=PTOajfmkdMMr2M:&imgrefurl=http://blog.sfgate.com/chronstyle/2010/05/17/hale-on-earth-ken-fulk-hosts-devilish-party-for-denise-hale/&docid=xxt77cVgDXd14M&imgurl=http://imgs.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/chronstyle/2010/05/17/0253-Ken-Fulk-100509375×250.jpg&w=375&h=250&ei=5grgT9XkIuTI2AWw1bigCg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=196&vpy=161&dur=4276&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=132&ty=203&sig=117574168887496043257&page=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=230&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:74
realitychick
June 18, 2012
“We would respectfully disagree with your assertion that we’re publishing Mr. Dydzak. This is the internet. He is free to go on any number of sites and take ownership of the posts he makes.” But you do decide what goes on the site. I’m frankly surprised that you posted my comment because I have heard that a number of people have been unable to post corrections to factual inaccuracies published on this site.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 18, 2012
We approve only your first post because every first post gets stuck in a moderation queue. After we approve your first post you’re generally free to post without moderation. We welcome corrections and strive to be factually accurate so we’re not exactly sure where the ‘unable to post’ comments come from.
anna
June 21, 2012
Troll and a tool. Are you a defendant???
George Washington
June 18, 2012
I also am appalled by the assertion that art or historic preservation is somehow dangerous or unworthy. I have so much more to say, but please strive to make your words either intelligent or worthwhile.
unionman575
June 19, 2012
Here it is: I love Access to Justice for our citiznes more than Art.
🙂
unionman575
June 19, 2012
Here you go George:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/12973.htm
Limited Court Service DaysPrint Superior courts statewide continue to face significant financial challenges as a result of the current fiscal crisis, which the Legislature has recognized as one of the most serious and dire ever to affect the state. In an effort to meet these challenges while remaining open on all non-judicial holidays and to preserve as fully as possible access to court services for all litigants, some superior courts may adopt plans to institute limited services days. A limited services day is one on which a court might close one or more courtrooms or reduce the hours of one or more of its clerks’ offices, or both.
Under Government Code section 68106, courts must provide written notice to the public and to the Judicial Council at least 60 days before instituting any plan to reduce costs by designating limited services days. The council, in turn, must post all such notices on this Internet site within 15 days of receipt. This page will publish those section 68106 notices that courts provide to the council.
Please note, however, that this page’s list of courts that have designated limited services days may not be exhaustive because it includes only courts that have provided the Judicial Council with advance written notice as required by section 68106. As that section became effective October 19, 2010, courts may have instituted other plans before that date. For complete information about a specific superior court, the number and location of its courtrooms, and its hours of operation, please consult the court’s website. A list of court websites is available.
Official
June 18, 2012
Oh great! First Realitychick can’t keep her finger off the Google button, and now George Washington is “appalled.”
Get over it, people. We’re worried about the public’s money and California citizens’ right to access the courts.
JusticeCalifornia
June 19, 2012
I’m with you Official. Top leadership has used cleaners, expensive perks, public relations experts, grim retaliatory tactics, awards and whitewash by the boatloads to perpetuate and cover up the conduct described in the SEC report — all at public expense. The regular posters here have seen what can only be described as blatant waste, corruption and/or brutality at the highest levels of the branch– firsthand — and write about it, sometimes indelicately. So what? This is a blog, for heaven’s sake, not a Rose Garden presidential event!
Neither AOC Watcher nor JCW have been/are “politically correct” but they have been calling out bad behavior and posting very serious factually correct information for three years now — and it is ever so ironic to see that what those whom Ron George called “bloggers in jammies” reported is now being echoed in the press and in EVERY SINGLE investigation that has taken place.
It is nice and sweet that Barbara George apparently donated her time and energy to do an art exhibit. . . . .but really, it would have been much more meaningful for her husband to be awake at the wheel and protective of the branch and the public with respect to CCMS, courthouse construction and maintenance, AOC bloat and corruption. . . .etc. etc. etc.
And priorities are the point right?
Let’s see– should top leadership throw more money at the CCMS boondoggle and the most expensive courthouses in the country and a mismanaged wildly overstaffed and overpaid administrative body. . . .or keep courthouses open and staffed and serving the public? The answer seems pretty obvious but it wasn’t obvious to George or Sakauye. George had to get out and Sakauye had to be schooled by the legislature.
Tonight the national press did a high-profile piece on the ninth circuit’s jaunts to Hawaii on the public dime. Two national lawmakers commented on how the branch is complaining about budget cuts and how that affects the public, at the same time it is sending 500 people to Hawaii for a conference. The lawmakers suggested that perhaps the ninth circuit should re-think its priorities. . . . .
Sound familiar?
unionman575
June 19, 2012
Woo hoo…you nailed it Justice…:)
“it would have been much more meaningful for her husband to be awake at the wheel and protective of the branch and the public with respect to CCMS, courthouse construction and maintenance, AOC bloat and corruption. . . .etc. etc. etc.”
unionman575
June 19, 2012
Right Official!
🙂
wearyant
June 19, 2012
” … I have heard that a number of people have been unable to post corrections to factual inaccuracies published on this site.”
Bring it on. Together we can discuss any so-called corrections to factual inaccuracies and get to the truth. Also, we could talk about Tani’s assertion that there are variations to the truth. Let’s list the variations. Let’s talk about Tani’s fact check or whatever she called that laughable document.
Bring it, folks!
Recall Tani!
Pass and implement AB 1208!
Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
June 19, 2012
Ant, they are ALL “strangers to the truth” in our current branch leadership.
wearyant
June 19, 2012
I’m appalled that Mrs. Barbara George was anointed Chair of the Supreme Court Art Selection Committee. It doesn’t pass the “smell test.” It doesn’t “hit my ear right.” It smacks of incest within the judicial branch. It’s nepotism at its finest. Regardless whether Mrs. George is paid through the AOC (that would stink!) or it is pro bono, it’s wrong. What happened to people who cared about even the appearance of impropriety? I’m sure there are other people in the whole state of California that could fill that position … oh, wait. Maybe in these dire economic times we should forego a Supreme Court Art Selection Committee. I loved the slideshow of the historic courthouses, the history, the architecture, but I bet there are other ways to find those pictures and the history. Right now, and for the past several years as the AOC fiddled and swilled down Grey Goose martinis, the point should have been to keep the trial courts open to the public! The motto, “We are here for the people we serve,” that is just bull-roar, right? The AOC should and must be disbanded.
Recall Tani!
Pass and implement AB 1208!
Long live ACJ!
realitychick
June 19, 2012
No one wants to post here, except for the few people who routinely do, because any one who disagrees is attacked and called names.You’re the people standing up for justice?
Been There
June 19, 2012
Please be specific reality chick. You have made two assertions: 1). You have heard that people have been unable to post corrections or contrary point of view on this site (I can understand that you may not want to disclose WHO told you this, but what was the substance and context of what they were not allowed to post? )
2). People who disagree are called names and attacked. Again, other than the general population of Digital Purgatory, to whom are you referring? Be specific please.
Thank you.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 19, 2012
This is the second time this has happened. First it is alleged that we censor when we don’t and when that doesn’t stick, we attack and call names. The amount of new posters has just about doubled here in the last sixty days and I’m not sure those posters would agree with reality chick.
Commercial IT
June 19, 2012
Unfortunately, Realitychick was pretty accurate when she observed that people are attacked on this site so they do not wish to continue commenting. That includes myself. This is the land of cyberspace and just about anything goes I guess. I eventually concluded that many posting here are not really looking for solutions to problems like automating our court system. They just want to vent. So I went back to MMOB. That being said, overall the JCW blog may have been a factor in what has happened recently. I’m really not sure. In any case, it’s at least a good source of inside news concerning the court system, in the spirit of the Pentagon Papers, etc.
The CCMS project was bound to fall eventually of its own weight because the design was battling head-on about four or five major technological barriers that are insurmountable directly but all of which can be avoided. For those in the greater Sacramento.Northern California area, you can read the technical discussion of this in my Daily Recorder technology columns. The current series is all about automating courts and law offices and setting up data exchanges with associated agencies. I will be discussing all of the technology in a series which is currently at the 6th column out of approximately 20.
As for the attacks, let me observe that many of the personal attacks are totally unwarranted. Although I readily agree that former Chief Justice Ronald George made some bad administrative decisions, including those concerning the CCMS project, his personal character is above reproach. I suspect that he got bad advice on the technology matters and his mistake was not questioning what he was being told. But that is not some evil act. It’s just a mistake. That situation has likely continued, with the current Chief Justice being given bad advice. She has to decide to whom she should listen.
When I suggested on this site the appropriate solution to the problem of automating the courts, I was attacked. Others I know in the IT industry were frankly appalled at the level of technology ignorance being displayed on this Web site. The rather obvious question to ask of those strongly asserting technologically incorrect positions would be, “How much modern data management software have you personally written in recent years?” And, “Please show us what you have written so we can try it out hands-on.”
I finally gave up attempting to educate bloggers here when someone here called me a vulture. I decided there was simply no point in attempting further to bring some light to a subject which has cost the taxpayers more than half a billion dollars. So, Realitychick, you have a point. It is well taken.
anna
June 21, 2012
Realitychick can’t be specific. The question is, are they a party to the Dysazk lawsuit, or an agent of the defendants.
JAD
June 19, 2012
There are a lot of us here realitychick – the others are just so articulate I do not feel the need to post. I have witnessed the information posted here and called lies turn out to be oh so true it must be embarrassing. So please don’t think unionman575, wearyant, JusticeCalifornia, Wendy Darling, Lando and the others are the only people standing up for justice, they are not alone.
Wendy Darling
June 19, 2012
Thank you, JAD.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 19, 2012
JAD, I’m hoping you check back in … sometimes I feel like a motherless child. Sometimes I feel like I’m screaming into the wind. 😉 Misery loves company. I’ve been miserable watching the California Judiciary go down the tubes! Would appreciate your thoughts especially where so-called lies turn out to be oh so true. I’m sure JusticeCalifornia, Wendy Darling, Lando, Unionman575 and others agree. Other voices are needed. Everyone has something valuable to share and from their own perspective and experiences in life.
Wendy Darling
June 19, 2012
I’m with you, Ant.
Irrespective of what else is happening in the branch, the First Amendment is alive and well here at JCW.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
June 19, 2012
I am disappointed. I have worked within our branch for years to oppose the arrogant and anti democratic policies of the last two Chief Justices. I have also done all that I can to promote positive change within the branch and my career has suffered as a result. Not withstanding that it is wrong to attack former CJ George for things no one has evidence of , specifically taking branch money for his personal use. No one here knows why and if he has 3 houses and its irrelevant to the issues we now face. Worse yet I object to dragging his wife into these discussions. Let us not practice the politics of personal destruction . We need to focus on honest reform of the branch and not be sidetracked . We need 1208 to pass, we need to democratize the JC and implement the changes suggested by the SEC without delay.
The OBT
June 19, 2012
I agree with Lando. Our country has suffered way too much as politicians try and destroy one another, often using dirty tactics. As a branch we represent something better I hope. We don’t judge people or events without evidence.
Dan Dydzak
June 19, 2012
In response to reality chick, you must be a friend of the Georges and Alan Rothenbeg. Please remind Eric M. George, who engaged in RICO activities that his DEFAULT has been requested in the pending lawsuit because he failed to timely respond to the lawsuit. In addition, should he fail to appear at his deposition, a certificate of nonappearance will be taken.
Judicial Council Watcher lets me post my views as is my First Amendment Right. Others make comments which I do not control in any manner.
Two, the State Bar Court deliberately misstated facts, fabricated evidence and made false, misleading statements about my bar record. Major misstatements. The record is too substantial and consumes approximately 7 volumes and post-appeal proceeedings to try to remedy the State Bar Journal and State Bar Court’s major misrrepresentation of the facts and evidence.
In addition, the State Bar Journal often distorts facts in stories and is a propoganda vehicle for the Bar. Where is, for example, any story by the Journal of the misappropriation of monies of some $ 780,000 by California All–involving, among others, the present executive director of the Bar, Joe Dunn? Where is any story by the State Bar Journal that the State Bar refuses to even process a bar complaint against Joe Dunn or that he practices law regularly in Newport Beach and Santa Ana, even though he is presently a government employee–clearly an ethical violation? Where is any story about Judy Johnson and her misappropriation of funds to her personal use?
State Bar Judge Miles had improper ex parte communications with Howard Rice partners before putting me on inactive status. The State Bar prosecutor acknowledged that my prosecution was political and that I was targeted because I had sued former State Bar President Alan Rothenberg for clients, who it turns out was alllowing Ronald M. George to be part owner with his son, Eric M. George in his bank. This is a definite conflict of interest.
The State Bar prosecutor stated that he would file charges against me on any client complaint, even if it was meritless. Drexel was in effect “fired” for abusing his position.
Former Chief Trial Counsel Scott Drexel met regularly and illegally with
Beth Jay, George’s attorney, and had improper ex parte communications as to who to knock off. I was on their enemies list as were certain judges. To cite but one example of the distortion of facts, I was written up for alleged unauthorized practice of law when I was in federal court, in good standing with that court, and was never cited for unauthorized practice by that court. Judge Remke and others illegally invaded federal jurisdiction. Remke and others refused to disqualify Miles and set aside his decision although Miles had improper conflicts of interest. Miles had done work for Charles Schwab and the latter also used his influence with his Bar-connected attorneys to get me prosecuted. Schwab is also being sued in my lawsuit and has been served.
Three, a former AOC employee and others have given me evidence of major misappropriation of AOC funds. That is why my lawsuit is VERIFIED. I have been informed by various sources that Ronald M. George with Vickrey and Overholt used government funds time and again for their personal use. Ronald M. George can explain in deposition how he managed to make so much money and his extravagant lifestyle.
If Ronald M. George, Eric George and others can produce discovery that all sums were legitimately earned, they are free to do so. Given their “STALL” tactics to date in responding to the lawsuit, I doubt very much that they will meet that burden. As well, the son of Matthew Werdegar has been sued and served. He can explain in deposition how his mother, Kathryn Werdegar, can justify why she and George did not disqualify themselves, due to their financial conflicts of interests with respectively Charles Schwab and First Century Bank.
Many of the comments posted by Judicial Council commentators are corroborating and expanding upon much of the allegations in my verified lawsuit. I take extremely seriously the filing of any lawsuit and have a reasonable basis in fact and law for my allegations.
I knew Melvin Belli, one of the greatest attorneys of this state, and the Bar officials tried to get him disbarred twice–once over a scotch ad. Mr. Belli would have been appalled that the former Chief Justice George is accused of financial improprieties and the conversion of state funds.
It would be nice to see a honest Plaintiff’s attorney on the Judicial Council but I doubt that will happen.
JusticeCalifornia
June 19, 2012
Dan, I cannot and will not comment about the merits of your case, but if you do get to depose George, maybe you can ask him about the Shapiro Fund, and why the gifts were not properly and timely disclosed. Also, did he pay back the loan he took from Shapiro for his retention election? If so, when?
I can ask about that loan because I personally saw the campaign disclosures revealing the loan, but no paperwork in those disclosures evidencing repayment. Along those lines, Lando, I appreciate your comments about blind speculation. I view your comment as a gentle reminder. I remember as well on AOC Watcher when some of us would veer off into extensive discussion about causes that had great personal meaning to and/or impact on us. Judge Maino or Horan would ask that people remain on track.
They did that without suggesting censorship.
What concerns me at the moment is that this week there is a JC meeting about the SEC report, which contains verification of all of the things that JCW has written about. Yet, the topic of this blog, at this moment, is whether or not comments on JCW are politically correct or appropriate.
That is the sign of a good troll or two.
(Commercial IT, I do not include you in that comment. Although I disagree with you about George’s integrity, based upon my own educated observations and experience over the last decade. But we can agree to disagree.)
Let’s focus on the forest, folks. The SEC verification of very serious problems with top leadership, the selection of the new AOC director, the democratization of the Judicial Council, and making sure the basics are provided to the public– open courts, good judges, court reporters, and court clerks.
Commercial IT
June 19, 2012
Yes, JusticeCalifornia, we can agree to disagree about Ronald George’s integrity. And any time you are ready to take a look at the software I discussed with you privately, let me know. It’s up to build 37 and is quite extensive by now. It and the technology behind it will be the subject of extensive discussion in my columns. It has many advanced features which I think you might appreciate in your particular specialty. I can close up the code and give you a demo version of the present alpha code in short order.
courtflea
June 19, 2012
Lando, I agree with not bringing someone’s family into things but when you bring them in, they become in spite of their good efforts, subject to folk’s opinions good or bad.
Wendy Darling
June 19, 2012
Published today, Tuesday, June 19, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Presiding Judges Debate Vote on Reform of CA Court Bureaucracy
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California’s presiding judges are embroiled in debate over a vote on whether to push forward with extensive reforms recommended after a year-long investigation into the central bureaucracy of the courts. Some trial judges say the vote, which is to be presented at a Judicial Council meeting Thursday, was skewed in order to protect the bureaucracy.
The proposed reforms came in a report last month from the Strategic Evaluation Committee, an independent group of judges appointed by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. The report blasted the Administrative Office of the Courts for hiding its finances and number of employees, and exercising a “culture of control” over the state’s trial courts. It called for sweeping reform with over 100 recommendations, including cutting the staff by one-third and eliminating entire divisions.
“It seems to me that our branch is at a pivotal point where change is imminent,” said Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento County.
In an email debate among the presiding judges, she added, “I encourage ALL PJs to not let this opportunity to get involved pass us by. We should support our colleagues on the SEC and roll up our sleeves.”
The email exhortation was part of a vigorous debate among the state’s presiding judges over a recent survey sent out by Presiding Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County. The manner in which he was interpreting the results were seen as an attempt to dilute the hard-hitting conclusions of the SEC report and protect the administrative office from the sweeping changes recommended in the report.
Rosenberg is the current chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee, made up the 58 presiding judges in all of California’s far-flung counties. Earl is the incoming chair.
In the survey, Rosenberg asked the presiding judges to say first if they want to implement the recommended reforms “with all deliberate speed,” and second if they support the reforms “in principle.”
The first survey question asks, “Should the TCPJAC recommend to the Judicial Council that the Judicial Council endorse and adopt the SEC Report in its entirety and make every effort to implement all of the recommendations with all deliberate speed?”
The second question asks, “Should the TCPJAC inform the Judicial Council that the TCPJAC supports, in principle, the thorough analysis and recommendations for change contained in the SEC Report?”
A final question asks, “And if you answered both of these questions with a ‘yes,’ which of the two is your preference?”
A tabulation of the votes shows that, of the 40 presiding judges who voted, 4 voted yes only for option 1 — full speed ahead, 12 voted yes only for option 2 — support merely “in principle.”
But fully 24 voted yes for both 1 and 2. Of those who voted for both, only 2 said they preferred the “in principle” option, while a huge majority of 22 voted their preference for option 1 — “all deliberate speed.”
Earl declined to be interviewed about the debate over the vote. “The discussion was one that could and should be resolved by the PJs rather than debated in the press,” she said.
However, a lengthy email exchange discussing the vote was widely circulated among the state’s judges and forwarded by judges who are not on the presiding judges committee. The email exchange shows that Earl advocated vigorously to include the tally for question 3 where judges who showed their preference between the “all deliberate speed” and “in principle” options.
In that exchange, Rosenberg argued that question 3 was only meant to kick in if neither the full-speed or the go-slow option received a majority. “The third question would have only kicked in if BOTH Option 1 and Option 2 had received at least a majority vote,” he wrote in the emails. “But that did not occur.”
That method of tallying the vote would favor the “in principle” option rather than the “all deliberate speed” option.
Earl countered, “First, the crafting of the language of Questions 1 & 2 lend themselves to a particular result, in that almost everyone preferring Option #1 would also predictably vote for Option 2, (since Option 2 is almost subsumed within Option 1) while the converse would not be true: People preferring Option 2 would not normally also vote for Option 1.”
“However the bigger problem lies in the way the data has been chosen to be interpreted and reported,” Earl continued.
“40 PJs voted, 26 of them indicated a preference for Option 1 by either voting for that option alone, or by voting ‘yes’ on both questions, but indicating Option 1 as their preferred option,” she wrote. “The remaining 14 judges indicated a preference for Option 2 either by voting that option alone, or by voting ‘yes’ on both questions, but indicating Option 2 as their preferred option.
“The way you are choosing to report the data, as indicated below, makes it appear that a majority of respondents preferred Option 2, which is incorrect,” Earl wrote. “Without a doubt, of 40 PJs voting, a majority clearly indicated a preference for Option 1. For those of us who voted for both, but expressed a preference for Option 1, our ‘yes’ vote on Option 2 essentially erased our vote for Option 1.”
She concluded, “As a result, I believe it is more accurate to report to the council, that the TCPJAC recommends to the Judicial Council that the Judicial Council endorse and adopt the SEC Report in its entirety and make every effort to implement all of the recommendations with all deliberate speed, as reflected by the majority vote.”
Judge Daniel Goldstein of San Diego commented with some disbelief on the judges who voted for supporting reform “in principle” but voted against reform at “all deliberate speed.”
“Who voted against implementing remedies against waste, mismanagement and abuse of taxpayer dollars? That’s what’s striking,” he said. “That a presiding judge would vote against saving their budget and stopping waste, mismanagement and abuse of taxpayer dollars, that’s amazing.”
He called Rosenberg’s methodology for counting the vote “erroneous.”
Specifically, he took issue with the way the “in principle” question was phrased.
“It’s really an ambiguous question,” he said. “You can’t look at two without looking at one. Question one is an objectively verifiable question. It has an answer — either you’re for implementation or against implementation. It is clear. Question two is amorphous. It doesn’t require action.”
“Further complicating the matter is a erroneous computation of the vote,” he added. “I would assume the presiding judges who voted yes on question one are going to take issue with this.”
The disagreement has led some presiding judges to ask for another vote.
Presiding Judge Beth Freeman in San Mateo County wrote in the email exchange, “I think our voting procedure has caused an anomalous result. I would request a re-vote on question 1 — to urge the Judicial Council to adopt the SEC Report and Recommendations.”
Rosenberg answered, “I do not intend to have a revote. I do intend to present the voting results of BOTH option 1 and 2 to the JC so that all votes yea and nay can be presented.”
However, in an interview on Tuesday, Rosenberg said he will present the numbers on all three options to the Judicial Council later this week, adding “It would have been a lot less complicated if we only put one issue out there.”
“It’s my intention simply simply present everything, the raw vote on all three issues that were put before the presiding judges,” Rosenberg added.
“I’ve also urged all presiding judges to write their letters to the Judicial Council if they support the report, if they oppose certain portions, whatever their position is,” he said. “That’s what the members of the SEC requested. These simple yea or nay votes don’t mean that much — it’s more significant if people address the substantive issues.”
Presiding Judge Sherrill Ellsworth from Riverside is one of the authors of the SEC report that recommended sweeping reforms to the Administrative Office of the Courts.
In the email exchange over the vote, she says, “I agree with Earl’s comments and appreciate them. In many respects a report such as this is a pretty thankless labor. It is far too easy to Monday Morning Quarterback.”
“I can tell you no one on our committee had an axe to grind. I can also report that our chair Judge Charlie Wachob and our vice chair Judge Brian McCabe were consummate professionals capturing the information we were given and translating it into the report I hope you have all read. This report was labor intensive, thorough and the result of hours and hours of work.”
“To me it is simple, we were given a task by our Chief and we fulfilled that task,” she said. “Some may not like the findings or the tone but, the report is neither diluted nor inflated. It is a tool for change, self examination and restructuring the future of the branch.”
Ellsworth also declined to be interviewed on the controversy.
Presiding Judge Richard Scheuler of Tehama County voted “no” on question one, but “yes” to the second question, supporting the committee’s report only in principle.
“I have great confidence in the chief justice and great confidence in the Judicial Council and the vote gave them the discretion to do what they do best, which is governance,” said Scheuler in an interview Monday. “I appreciate the hard work that went into that report. I appreciate that the chief justice asked for it. They’re in the best position to implement the recommendations.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/19/47609.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Official
June 19, 2012
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but what in the hell kind of survey questions were those???
Objection, Rosenberg! Question 2 was asked and answered and Question 3 is unintelligible.
It’s definitely worth tuning in to the meeting just to see how this information is presented to the Council.
wearyant
June 19, 2012
I agree, Official. They were bizarre. What was the point of them other than obfuscation? I’ve already informed my spouse that I must hog the Internet on Thursday and Friday. The continuing judicial soap opera is addictive indeed.
Official
June 19, 2012
Cute, Ant! Way to give your spouse a heads-up, too! LOL. I won’t be able to log on the entire time, but I think if you leave your screen up and scrolling the rough-draft feed you’ll be able to cut and paste some excerpts for us later!
wearyant
June 19, 2012
Will cut and paste if you’re interested. I was a little embarrassed by my efforts last time, but if it helps, I’m glad to.
Wendy Darling
June 19, 2012
It was useful last time, Ant.
Wendy Darling
June 19, 2012
Published today, Tuesday, June 19, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Judges Group Elects Sonoma’s Hardcastle as Next President
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Allan Hardcastle was elected the 81st president of the California Judges Association on Tuesday by the organization’s executive board.
Full article is subscription access only: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202560092947&Judges_Group_Elects_Sonomas_Hardcastle_as_Next_President&slreturn=1
Long live the ACJ.
George Washington
June 19, 2012
This site is becoming unbearable with misinformation, poor journalism and rabid posters. Maria, judges work for and are government employees of the State of California. Their salaries are paid out of taxpayer dollars. If you want to ride on the high horse, be prepared to fall down.
wearyant
June 19, 2012
George, let’s get down to specifics. Is there one item in particular that you regard as misinformation? One item. What is one example of misinformation here? Let’s open a discussion without rabidity.
Maria is at Courthouse News. She’s probably better reachable there. I like her. Was there something in her article that offended you or presented as misinformation?
Welcome to JCW, by the way. I’m not an official greeter though, just another frustrated citizen that believes our judiciary is in big trouble.
JusticeCalifornia
June 19, 2012
Whoa there George. . . .that sounds a lot like a Team George kind of threat.
If you have specific information about alleged misinformation posted here, please do tell. I do believe many of the bloggers here have lots of documentation, and would extend that invitation to all.
anna
June 21, 2012
GW, you need to read the Govt. code. While Judges are employees of the State, they are not considered, govt. employees.
Peppermint Pattie
June 19, 2012
Gosh, and I thought George Washington couldn’t tell a lie.
George Washington
June 19, 2012
I took an oath a long time ago to tell the truth. Let’s start with the misconception that judges are somehow not protected government employees. Until they agree to work a 40-hour week on the bench, in front of the public, I don’t want to hear their complaints. People also need to back off on the anger being directed at AOC employees. Most are working class people who work hard for the courts. Many live month to month. Finally, there is serious damage being done right now to the branch. At some point, people have to stop trying to blame the AOC for past damage and take responsibility for their own houses. I don’t see judges crying for court reporters or case clerks who are losing their jobs. Thanks for listening.
Official
June 19, 2012
I hear you, George W. We’re listening. We’re reading. We’re blogging. You can do the same thing. You don’t have to be so defensive.
I agree there are some judges who won’t stand up for what they should in these trying times. There are absolutely some judges who don’t care about their clerks, reporters, and other court staff. Agreed. There are bad apples in every basket of life. I’m sure there are very hard-working AOC employees. I don’t think this blog was started because of the “working class” AOC employees. Please relax and just… blog.
JusticeCalifornia
June 19, 2012
Official, once again and as stated, I’m with you.
wearyant
June 19, 2012
George, you don’t have to take an oath to tell the truth; it’s just good general practice and saves one from having to remember anything. As far as judges agreeing to work a 40-hour week, the ones I worked with, they’d be thrilled. They reviewed files in the early morning before they took the bench. They took one-hour lunch hours, sometimes less, which peeved me because I had to work during lunch always. I preferred an hour and a half so I could eat lunch and rest somewhat for an hour. They would excuse the jury, then stay on the record. Then they worked up to five o’clock always and many, many times longer. Never could make lunch plans with coworkers. Never could make plans to do anything after five, like exercise class or a community college class. Stuck in court and couldn’t even make a phone call to apologize or let anyone know we were going over — AGAIN. Those judges would be excited to work only 40 hours. What judges balk at 40 hours? What county?
Let’s start there. Then we’ll get to the AOC and the damage that’s been done to the branch. Yeah, there’s anger there all right.
unionman575
June 19, 2012
🙂
Commercial IT
June 20, 2012
Agree. Several judges complained in person to the Legislature about courts being closed on Wednesdays to save money to put into CCMS.
unionman575
June 19, 2012
http://www.hulu.com/watch/215178
unionman575
June 19, 2012
From: Staff Users All Tuesday – June 19, 2012 9:22 AM
To: All Judicial Officers; All, Staff Users
Subject: FUNERAL SERVICES – GREGORY V. NEMO
Sent on behalf of Christopher M. Anderson, Chief Purchasing Officer.
As most of you already know, the Court lost a very valuable and loved employee on Friday, June 15, 2012, Gregory Nemo. Greg had started his career with the Los Angeles Municipal Court over 28 years ago and has touched the lives of many employees over the years as part of Facilities and the Central Stockroom.
Funeral arrangements for Greg are Sunday, June 24, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
Seventh Day Adventist Church
4491 Kansas Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
Greg’s wife has asked that we let those who knew and loved Greg, that the family would like financial assistance with the funeral arrangements. Therefore the following are two ways you can send support to the family:
Send gifts of condolences directly to:
Ms. Lossie Nemo
5017 Manitoba Drive
Fontana, CA 92336
-OR-
Ms. Lossie Nemo
c/o Tony Humber, Warehouse Supervisor
Stanley Mosk Courthouse/Central Stockroom
111 North Hill Street, Room 325
Los Angeles, CA 90012
A very large sympathy card will be placed outside the Stockroom customer service window until Friday, June 22nd at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Room 325 if you would like to express your thoughts and prayers to the family.
wearyant
June 19, 2012
Unionman575, thanks for posting this!
Recall Tani!
Pass and implement AB 1208!
Long live the ACJ!
Best wishes to all trial court workers and working class AOC employees! May the wind be at your back and the sun shine warm upon your face. And don’t let AOC management grind you down!
unionman575
June 19, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18454.htm
San Luis Obispo Case Management System Replacement RFP#: ISD-06192012-SLO
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), through this Request For Proposals (RFP) is soliciting proposals to replace San Luis Obispo Superior Court’s existing legacy systems with a CMS/DMS solution. The selected CMS/DMS and associated services should be modern, efficient, reliable, economical and proven. It is also the goal of this RFP to engage an experienced vendor capable of executing an efficient project within the thirteen-month timeframe and also within budget. This RFP establishes a general scope and terms of services that should form the basis for each proposal, and the AOC will select a contractor based upon the highest scored proposal pursuant to the terms of this RFP.
Register for the July 9th Pre-Proposal Teleconference by emailing Solicitations@jud.ca.gov by no later than June 27, 2012.
unionman575
June 19, 2012
Very interesting….
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18445.htm
Statewide Access Systems, Video Surveillance Systems and Maintenance Program RFP #ERS-041007CK
The AOC is requesting proposals from highly qualified proposers with expertise in two primary areas. First to design, install, integrate and maintain new video surveillance systems and/or access systems on a statewide basis. Second to repair, replace, or expand existing access and/or video surveillance systems that currently exist within Courts facilities.
Proposers may elect to team with distributors or other proposers to meet the requirements of this RFP
MANDATORY pre-proposal tele-conference will be held on June 26, 2012 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. PST. Proposer’s who do not participate in this MANDATORY pre-proposal tele-conference will be eliminated from the RFP process.
The tele-conference number will be sent out upon confirmation of Proposers attending the tele-conference. Plan to call in promptly, as we intend to start on time. Note that although we will open the conference to a question and answer session any questions requiring written responses must be submitted in writing by the date specified in the RFP document.
The deadline for proposers to register for the MANDATORY pre-proposal conference is June 20, 2012 on or before 1:00 p.m. PST to solicitations@jud.ca.gov. We strongly recommend that if you have questions regarding the RFP, you should email them to solicitations@jud.ca.gov before the deadline. Failure to register for this MANDATORY pre-proposal tele-conference will eliminate you from the RFP process.
The AOC will email out conference address from solicitations@jud.ca.gov to all registered proposers.
Questions regarding this RFP should be directed to the solicitations@jud.ca.gov no later June 28, 10:00 a.m. PST.
Hard copy proposals must be received no later than July 25, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. PST.
wearyant
June 20, 2012
Unionman, this is weird. Reeks of the “palace guard.” Also, note to AOC, “Proposer’s who do not participate … .” If you don’t know how to use apostrophes, just cease using them altogether. At least you’ll probably be correct about 50 percent of the time.
unionman575
June 19, 2012
The Borg is hiring here:
https://careers.jud.ca.gov/psc/recruit1/EMPLOYEE/PSFT_HR/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?FolderPath=PORTAL_ROOT_OBJECT.HC_HRS_CE_GBL2&IsFolder=false&IgnoreParamTempl=FolderPath%2cIsFolder&
The OBT
June 20, 2012
There is a lot going on here. First, Wendy as usual is right as the First Amendment is alive and well here at JCW. That being the case all need to respect and welcome differing views like George Washington. Next I wish to express an opinion which I can thanks to the First Amendment.This guy Judge Rosenberg aka Judge Rosenblab , who our CJ appointed to the JC is out only for himself. His misuse of his position as Chair of the Presiding Judges group is “transparent” . Thanks to Presiding Judges Earl,Ellsworth and Judge Goldstein for seeking to do what is right and calling him on his blatant attempts at obfuscation. Said obfuscation only allows the JC to delay the reforms the SEC report makes clear are necessary.The bottom line is we need to implement the SEC report recommendations and move on to see that the branch works for the benefit of the public we serve.We need to pass 1208 and democratize the JC to avoid the mess we are now mired in.
Lando
June 20, 2012
Amen OBT. The mess you refer to needs to be cleaned up. The SEC study needs to be respected and implemented. The Judicial Council needs to be democratically selected and AB 1208 needs to get a fair hearing in the State Senate having been adopted by the State Assembly. Finally, Judge Rosenberg needs to please get off the stage. From his Rosengrams lol, to his continued need to be front and center in defending a failed regime at the crystal palace at 455 Golden Gate,our branch deserves much better.His appointment to the JC by our Chief Justice shows how nothing has changed from HRH 1 to HRH 2. We need to democratize the JC and recall the CJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 20, 2012
One comment about the SEC report. The most egregious issues and biggest complaints about top leadership involve the marked lack of proper record-keeping, fiscal responsibility, accountability and transparency. Most large companies and organizations have a dedicated Chief Financial Officer who is directly responsible for these things. Lord knows the AOC desperately needs a CFO with an impeccable background in finance, accounting and business administration who has all of the records in order and is monitoring and can answer questions and assist in the planning of every financial aspect of AOC/branch operations. Why isn’t there a dedicated individual of this nature and title who reports directly to the chief and the judicial council?
Who is going to be this person under the current plan?
Wendy Darling
June 20, 2012
“Lord knows the AOC desperately needs a CFO with an impeccable background in finance, accounting and business administration who has all of the records in order and is monitoring and can answer questions and assist in the planning of every financial aspect of AOC/branch operations.”
The AOC, and branch administration, also needs a CFO, or any administrator for that matter, that has impeccable integrity and ethics. Otherwise, all those other qualifications won’t matter one bit.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 20, 2012
you are absolutely correct.
wearyant
June 20, 2012
JusticeCalifornia, about their record-keeping, then there is the issue about the shredding …
JusticeCalifornia
June 20, 2012
indeed.
They say that a key component to promoting political civility and resolving policy conflicts is the engagement of neutral factfinders to resolve issues involving disputed facts.
If Sakauye is genuine about promoting “process” and resolving policy conflicts, she is going to have to allow detailed neutral factfinding into controversial top leadership activities that have reportedly led/contributed to the current judicial branch financial breakdown. That means more than an SEC conclusion of bad branch behavior– that includes a neutral investigation into the financial details–who, what, where, when, how and why.
At that point we will see if, and to what extent, relevant info has been destroyed.
unionman575
June 20, 2012
“a neutral investigation into the financial details–who, what, where, when, how and why.:
FBI…
Wendy Darling
June 20, 2012
About time. Published today, Wednesday, June 20, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Lawmakers Move to Restrain Council’s Shifting of Funds
By Cheryl MillerContact
SACRAMENTO — After lawmakers sent the governor $544 million in judicial budget cuts last week, they now seem posed to place fiscal handcuffs on the Judicial Council.
Full article is subscription access only: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202560170861&Lawmakers_Move_to_Restrain_Councils_Shifting_of_Funds&slreturn=1
Anyone out there have access to the full article?
Long live the ACJ.
Robert Turner
June 20, 2012
Two interesting stories below (San Diego cuts 70 – AOC cuts 7) Something is very wrong with these figures. It should say AOC cuts 70 and San Diego Superior Court cuts 7 but it is the exact opposite:
SAN DIEGO — The San Diego Superior Court will have to close 10 courtroom, shutter the business office every Friday at noon and layoff scores of employees because of state budget cuts.
The court will have to cut $14 million from its budget in the coming year but expects a more severe hit of $40 million in fiscal year 2013-14.
“These cuts will significantly reduce or eliminate access to our court system and are devastating to those of us who have worked so hard to convince the governor and Legislature that such cuts threaten the stability of our third branch of government,” said Presiding Judge Robert J. Trentacosta in a statement.
Among the cuts set to begin July 1 that the court announced Wednesday:
•All business offices will close to the public at noon on Friday.
•A total of 10 courtroom will close. That includes six criminal courts and one civil courtroom in the downtown courts.
•Probate court operations in the Vista court will close and all cases will transfer downtown. A juvenile dependency court in Vista will also close.
•The Ramona branch court will be shuttered.
•Layoffs of 75 non-courtroom staff positions and a “significant reduction in management employees.”
•The elimination of all court provided reporters from civil courtrooms at some time. Litigants who want a transcript of their cases would have to hire their own reporters.
In the following year the cuts will go deeper:
• A total of 30 courtroom are targeted for “closing and restructuring.”
• All civil business offices in El Cajon and South Bay courthouses will close, transferring operations to downtown and Vista courthouses.
• Layoffs of about 90 positions. All court workers would take two furlough days beginning July 2013.
In a statement Trentacosta said the court is cutting its budget by 21 percent, from $190.5 million in 2011-12 to $150 million in 2013-14.
Additional Layoffs at Administrative Office of the Courts
Downsizing continues; more layoffs likely
SAN FRANCISCO – Interim Administrative Director of the Courts Jody Patel today announced the layoff of seven employees who had been working on the California Court Case Management System (CCMS). Including today’s layoffs, the AOC has reduced its total CCMS workforce by 33, which includes fulltime employees, contractors, and temporary workers.
The Judicial Council voted to terminate CCMS on March 27 and directed its CCMS Internal Committee to wind down the project and recommend ways to use the CCMS technology and the state’s investment in the software system. The committee will present an update on its activities at a Judicial Council meeting on June 22.
“This is another sad day for us,” said Patel. “The employees we let go today have been valuable and dedicated workers. And it’s not the end of our downsizing. The proposed state budget calls for more reductions to the AOC.”
Today’s layoffs are part of a second phase of reductions in the AOC’s workforce. The first phase occurred on June 7. With these actions–added to the ongoing layoffs of contractors and temporary employees, voluntary separations, as well as retirements–the AOC will have reduced its number of employees by about 235 (regular, temporary, and contractor) by the end of this fiscal year on June 30.
# # #
The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts, the largest court system in the nation. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. The Administrative Office of the Courts carries out the official actions of the council and promotes leadership and excellence in court administration.
wearyant
June 20, 2012
“Today’s layoffs are part of a second phase of reductions in the AOC’s workforce. The first phase occurred on June 7. With these actions–added to the ongoing layoffs of contractors and temporary employees, voluntary separations, as well as retirements–the AOC will have reduced its number of employees by about 235 (regular, temporary, and contractor) by the end of this fiscal year on June 30.”
This is an absolutely incredible statement apparently attributable to Jody Patel; 235 employees? I hope someone, with the ability to demand it, will ask for and receive a list of the names, positions, and payroll information on these individuals. And if not provided to the public, which I wish it would, at least provide this info to the ACJ, a credible group of judges looking for true reform in the judicial branch.
wearyant
June 20, 2012
San Diego’s woes:
http://www.10news.com/news/31209954/detail.html
They can close the criminal courtrooms, but the criminals are still out there doing their thing …
Wendy Darling
June 20, 2012
With sincere thanks to the thoughtful JCW viewer who kindly shared Cheryl Miller’s article for the benefit of all:
Lawmakers Move To Restrain Council’s Shifting Of Funds
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO – After lawmakers sent the Governor $544 million in judicial budget cuts last week, they now seem posed to place fiscal handcuffs on the Judicial Council.
Near-finalized language in a so-called budget trailer bill will force the council to seek legislative approval before spending any trial court money on statewide projects, according to an official who has seen the draft policy legislation.
The bill will authorize the council to redirect an estimated $50 million to already planned programs in the 2012-2013 fiscal year. But the council will have to obtain new legislative approval for such projects in future years.
Council lobbyists had fought the spending restrictions. Including those provisions in trailer bill language is a clear sign that lawmakers – who have heard from plenty of judges angry with the council’s and the Administrative Office of the Courts’ spending decisions – want more oversight of judicial branch budgeting.
The trailer bill’s contents largely mirror proposals endorsed by the state Senate last week. Starting in July 2013, trial courts will only be allowed to keep reserves equaling 1 percent of their total budgets. Litigants will be charged $30 for court reporter services in proceedings lasting less than an hour. And new appellate fees will generate about $1 million for state courts.
New language has been added to encourage courts to keep civil courtrooms operating – a not to the trial bars that agreed to $50 million in new fees to support court operations. And negotiations were ongoing Tuesday on the fate of approximately $8 million the council had allocated earlier this year to “wind down” the ill-fated Court Case Management System. The state Senate had voted to strip almost all the money in an effort to effectively shut down all work on the network.
******************************************************************************************************
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 20, 2012
Actions speak louder than words. And that is why top leadership continues to have zero credibility.
Tani Cantil Sakauye has ensured that Team George remains firmly in charge of the AOC.
Scotland departed the SEC and Patel (who supposedly didn’t know what was going to be in the SEC report) suddenly became psychic and started window dressing the AOC. LOL, yeah sure right.
Sakauye has put some of the worst branch baddies on a team that is supposed to be giving advice to county courts in financial trouble. Even after all the CCMS brouhaha these brilliant team members are proposing IT options to financially strapped courts without fully analyzing or putting a price tag on them. . . .
Judicial Councilmember Rosenberg (whom I applauded for his JC motion to stop all funding for CCMS) tried to play manipulative word games with 40 presiding judges who voted re implementation of the SEC recommendations- BAD, BAD idea.
And what is with the constant Vickrey/Overholt sightings? These two masterminded and perpetuated the egregious behavior set forth in the SEC report.
What is top leadership thinking?
I used to discipline my children by giving them two warnings to stop their offensive behavior before grounding them. In this manner they had control of their own destiny and could decide whether to stop the behavior, or defiantly continue the behavior for a third time and forfeit their freedom. At that point they had nobody to blame but themselves.
In watching what is going down in the branch, I have a distinct feeling of deja vu.
You cannot blame the legislature at all for responsibly taking away Team George’s spending privileges. Team George has had countless warnings, and the time-out didn’t work.
Next up for those who can’t take their eyes off this reality-show trainwreck: the public JC meetings.
Been There
June 20, 2012
Q. Will Vickrey II be announced at this upcoming meeting? Anyone have any info on this?
Curious
June 20, 2012
Someone asked if there new head of AOC will be selected this week.It is possible–I note that the entire first day of a three day Council meeting is closed to all but Council members. Typically that means legal discussions, or personnel matters.
Commercial IT
June 20, 2012
What IT options are being proposed?
Michael Paul
June 20, 2012
First, I’d like to see them vote for some other kind of handcuffs. Metal ones.
Second, I do not buy that the JC or the AOC has 50 million of spending pre-programmed FY 12-13 utilizing trial court funds because they’re obsessive about every contract, every obligation ending at the end of the fiscal year and not carrying over into the next fiscal year. . If I were the legislature and the trial courts. I would ask for proof of obligation. Every purchase order, every contract that can’t be easily canceled because that 50 million in trial court funds stinks to high heaven with the way I know the AOC to operate.
Wendy Darling
June 20, 2012
Exactly, Michael Paul. Exactly.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 20, 2012
wearyant
June 20, 2012
Open Source Software. What a concept! Public data would be secure! Brilliant link, Unionman. Your girlfriend is right. You are an info-maniac. Knowledge is power, some wise person said, though. Aahhhh, all the millions of dollars … flushed.
wearyant
June 22, 2012
I’ve been thinking of handcuffs as I listen to the LoveFest at the JC meeting. Gold? No, the finest gold is brittle, as I understand it — I wouldn’t know! — 14 caret, 18 caret. How about leather? Thick enough so that it can’t be gnawed through. *Heh heh* Now I’m thinking of barbed wire, but even though the perps have angered me immensely, nah, not barbed wire. Yeah, leather. Probably metal though is best. Law enforcement must know which is best.
wearyant
June 20, 2012
“Near-finalized language in a so-called budget trailer bill will force the council to seek legislative approval before spending any trial court money on statewide projects … ”
It’s been a long, long time in coming. Will this catch the arrogant JC/AOC’s attention? So far nothing has impressed them enough to change their errant ways. To hell with their planned projects for 2012/2013; start right now with directing funds to the trial courts. As long as the obstreperous JC/AOC argues and lobbies for the full $8 million to shut down the ruinous CCMS, I’m hoping they end up with less than two bits. Afterall, two bytes is about all the taxpayers got out of the CCMS debacle.
Thanks for posting, Wendy Darling.
Recall Tani!
Pass and implement AB 1208!
Long live the ACJ!
Wendy Darling
June 20, 2012
Well, Ant. in line with the axiom that past conduct is good predictor of future behavior, it’s a good bet that those in charge at 455 Golden Gate Avenue are already figuring out ways and rationalizations to evade this restriction on their unfettered spending, and the ink isn’t even dry on the legislation yet.
Long live the ACJ.
George Washington
June 20, 2012
Your last post is really quite eloquent and elegant, Justice California.
unionman575
June 20, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18456.htm
Additional Layoffs at Administrative Office of the Courts
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Philip Carrizosa, 415-865-8044
June 19, 2012
Additional Layoffs at Administrative Office of the Courts
Downsizing continues; more layoffs likely
California’s Administrative Office of the Courts
SAN FRANCISCO – Interim Administrative Director of the Courts Jody Patel today announced the layoff of seven employees who had been working on the California Court Case Management System (CCMS). Including today’s layoffs, the AOC has reduced its total CCMS workforce by 33, which includes fulltime employees, contractors, and temporary workers.
The Judicial Council voted to terminate CCMS on March 27 and directed its CCMS Internal Committee to wind down the project and recommend ways to use the CCMS technology and the state’s investment in the software system. The committee will present an update on its activities at a Judicial Council meeting on June 22.
“This is another sad day for us,” said Patel. “The employees we let go today have been valuable and dedicated workers. And it’s not the end of our downsizing. The proposed state budget calls for more reductions to the AOC.”
Today’s layoffs are part of a second phase of reductions in the AOC’s workforce. The first phase occurred on June 7. With these actions–added to the ongoing layoffs of contractors and temporary employees, voluntary separations, as well as retirements—the AOC will have reduced its number of employees by about 235 (regular, temporary, and contractor) by the end of this fiscal year on June 30.
###
unionman575
June 20, 2012
wearyant
June 20, 2012
At the risk of catching OERS attention — don’t answer if their hot breath is still on your neck — what is your opinion of this strange 235 number? A wee bit high, isn’t it? Funny how the AOC management wouldn’t own up to all those people working for them, a horde of people really, and now they want to count them all. Interesting. Do the flies on the wall count too, I cynically wonder.
Wendy Darling
June 20, 2012
Chances are they’re including all the people who have been fired under the Fuentes/Sofa Man regime for having the audicity to file complaints or raise concerns about misconduct in the management and administrative ranks.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 20, 2012
The number is highly suspect. After year of lying to all of us about the true employment numbers, they wish us to believe that 235 is a real number. 36 (29+7) is the only real number we’ve seen.
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
It’s the AOC’s version of the “new math”, JCW. Like many things at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, it’s not based on reality.
Long live the ACJ.
Official
June 20, 2012
I’m really disheartened today. I wonder what will be accomplished tomorrow and Friday at the JC meetings, but I’m not very hopeful for the trial courts and the public they serve. Tani will probably announce some new committee or task force to study something already obvious to the rest of us. Will anyone mention Mr. Nemo? Will anyone stand up for the verbatim court record that’s not being provided anymore? How about the statewide 100 + court reporters laid off, along with countless other dedicated courtroom workers? Tani and Jody sure took time out of their schedules to “buck up” laid off AOC employees, but she hasn’t been there to witness trial court employees being walked out. The foundation of the judicial system is crumbling… does Tani still see George as a “visionary”? It’s all sickening.
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
Perhaps, Official, the Judicial Council could discuss why the AOC needs to employ a banking regulatory attorney, especially one who “telecommutes” from Switzerland. From The Leslie Brodie Report:
“Lastly, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned the much discussed AOC’s employee who telecommute from Switzerland, is none other than banking regulatory attorney Todd Allen Torr.”
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 21, 2012
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/193885
Todd Allen Torr – #193885
Current Status: Active
This member is active and may practice law in California.
Profile Information
Bar Number: 193885
Address: Judicial Council of California
455 Golden Gate Ave
San Francisco, CA 94102
Map it
Phone Number: (415) 865-4200
Fax Number: Not Available
e-mail: Not Available
County: San Francisco Undergraduate School: Harvard Univ; Cambridge MA
District:
District 1
Sections:
None Law School: UCLA SOL; Los Angeles CA
JusticeCalifornia
June 21, 2012
I believe the court reporter issue must be tackled head on in all three branches.
Is the union or anyone else moving forward on this?
Commercial IT
June 21, 2012
Using modern technology, the court reporters would still be employed – as transcribers.
Disgusted
June 22, 2012
And using modern technology, the court would be paying double, one person to operate the “modern technology” and a court reporter to transcribe it, who, by the way, would charge the same rate as if he/she had reported it, and the court could not use anything other than a certified court reporter to transcribe the “modern technology” because the transcript transcribed by anyone else or any other method would not be a certified transcript and would be useless.
Curious
June 22, 2012
Yes, sickening it is. Yesterday was particularly horrible, like watching an auto accident unfold. From the moment Judge Wachob finished his outstanding presentation, it became a nightmare of giggling, parliamentary niggling, bobbing, weaving, and kicking the report as far down the road as Miriam Krinksy and Terry Friedman could get it. Just awful to see what passes for leadership.
Been There
June 21, 2012
Yes, Wendy, the employment of Mr. Torr should be discussed.
Can anyone connect the dots on this hire?
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
Some of us can cannot a few dots, and none of them have to do with any legitimate business of the Calfornia Judicial Branch.
Lolng live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
June 21, 2012
With apologies for the typo, the above reply should read: Some of us can connect a few dots, and none of them have to do with any legitimate business of the California Judicial Branch.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
June 21, 2012
Right on, Wendy! Two thoughts come to mind: A – The agency has a need for a European based banking regulating attorney, and given he is in Switzerland (where the Swiss Franc is strong and is not imperiled like the Euro), the words “money laundering” come to mind. B — Mr. Torr is somebody’s brother-in-law and has been given a “no show job” to pay back or earn a favor of some kind.
And herein lies the problem — the absolute chutzpah of the AOC in thinking that this was a good move, or at least one they could get away with in the internet age. Do they ever wonder why they have no credibility with the legislature?
On second thought I will allow one other possible reason for this hire: Mr. Torr was the only Harvard educated graduate of UCLA SOL available in the State of California for the OGA job. Nah! I don’t believe that one myself.
courtflea
June 21, 2012
Judge Rosenbergs “survey” is the beginning of the AOC scrapping the SEC report and its recommendations which is their typical MO with any report that sugests that they make substantive changes. We shall see….