You’ll note an ongoing theme of AOC management. When someone releases a report that is highly critical of their operations, they close ranks, take down the dirty laundry curtains, go wash the dirty laundry curtains and put them back in the window and declare they built a new and much improved house with the same inept management. Huzzah! Change you can believe in!
Most of us know that OCCM can’t do any job that costs a hundred grand without spending three times that amount in getting it done. We know that the jobs are no-bid, cost plus contracts being steered to preferred vendors. We know that the director, Lee Willoughby is also the chair of western construction contracting consumers and was elevated to that position because he has the most money to spread around. Most other contractors look at WCCC.org as “pay to play” yet no one but us has cried foul. Enclosed is a letter to the Judicial Council as well as the SEC and E&P committees. In light of the unprecedented court closures and revelations that OCCM is trying to sell off public assets while spending billions building new ones, the Pegasus Holdings report is essential in deciding the direction of OCCM programs.
Everyone knows this and that is probably why the report has not seen the light of day.
___________________________________________________________
August 16, 2012
Dear Justice Miller:
I am writing on behalf of the Alliance of California Judges to request that the Judicial Council immediately make a public release of the Pegasus Global Holdings, Inc., report on the operations of the Office of Court Construction and Management. I make this request to you in your role as Chair of the Executive and Planning Committee based upon that committee’s authority under Rule 10.11(a) to act on behalf of the Judicial Council between meetings. It is our understanding that this report has issued internally. Even if the current version of the report is preliminary and not final, it is imperative that the preliminary findings of this consultant group be made public. Please do not treat this as a Rule 10.500 request. We are constitutional judicial officers, and we need this information in order to perform our duties for the reasons outlined below. Even draft versions of this report, once released to the AOC, need to be made available to the public and to judges. If the report is preliminary, it may be denominated as such.
The immediate release of this report is critical because the Court Facilities Working Group has invited public comment on the decision-making process and criteria to be used in re-evaluating 31 SB 1407 projects moving forward with limited funds. Comments are due on August 24, 2012 with public meetings scheduled on September 5- 7, 2012 with planned final recommendations by the end of September 2012. The committee expects to make its final recommendations to the Judicial Council by October 26, 2012.
The information in the Pegasus report is critical both to any public comment that would be made on the 1407 projects, and it is also fundamental to any decision to be made upon the recommendations of the Strategic Evaluation Committee. The SEC Report references the Pegasus study at Page 156, after noting substantial deficiencies in the performance of the OCCM.
Prioritizing the 1407 projects from an operational needs standpoint cannot be accomplished in a vacuum without full appreciation of the likely available cash flow from 1407 funds. There are a number of fundamental deficiencies in the OCCM’s performance relative to likely available capital outlay and cash flow. First, the OCCM has not adequately considered the lack of available funds to maintain new courthouses once constructed, in light of the fact that the size of new courthouses will result in substantially increased costs of maintenance, identified to be at least $32 million more annually, which may have to be taken from 1407 funds. This problem compounds the fact that available funds for existing maintenance are already inadequate. Secondly, the OCCM may not have adequately taken into account available cash flow for the projects under consideration, particularly since there is likely to be an ongoing need to divert some 1407 funds to operations for the foreseeable future.
These discrepancies in the performance of the OCCM need to be addressed before any further decision can be made on prioritizing court construction projects. We are concerned that the court construction program may be headed in the same direction as the CCMS fiasco–a complete failure after a wholesale waste of public funds. This would be disastrous to the branch on a number of levels. We think that the Pegasus report must be released to judges, the public, to the Executive, and to the Legislature, in order for there to be a determination whether a public audit of OCCM is warranted, just as it was with CCMS.
Rumors abound that the Pegasus report has been issued internally and that it excoriates the performance of the OCCM, and that the report is being withheld for that reason, or perhaps even being modified. All interested parties need to be assured that this is not the case by an immediate public release of the report. It is unhealthy for this report to be withheld in light of the judiciary’s newfound commitment to transparency and open decision-making.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this request.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
by David Lampe, President.
cc: Members of the Judicial Council, Hon. Brad Hill, Hon. Charles Wacob, Chair of the Strategic Evaluation Committee
Like this:
Like Loading...
unionman575
August 17, 2012
Thank you ACJ & JCW!
😉
Dan Dydzak
August 17, 2012
The intelligence and common sense of the above shows that the Judicial Council, and its various bodies, needs to be legislatively democracized so that its members can be voted in—not hand-picked hangers on with agendas and self-interest. Showing a basic report to the public at large just makes sense. Stalin and Mao died a long time ago. Star Chamber proceedings were supposed to end with the Magna Carta and, American equivalent, Bill of Rights. Procedural and substantive due process and the 1st Amendment demands disclosure in the public interest.
JusticeCalifornia
August 17, 2012
AOC raises never discussed by fake committees, and buried OCCM reports. Window dressing indeed.
You can’t make this stuff up.
The ACJ is dealing body blow after body blow.
Wendy Darling
August 17, 2012
There’s no shortage of common sense at the Alliance.
And Justice California, you are correct — you just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live Judge Lampe. And long live the ACJ.
Ron Branson
August 17, 2012
Ah, it looks like someone with with balls is stepping out on thin ice on the Judicial Council Watcher. This is refreshing to see. You have my praises. Back in 1995 I wrote the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, (J.A.I.L.) also known as .JAIL4Judges. I began to publish JAIL News Journals exposing the judiciary, particularly California.
Around that time the California Judicial Council conducted a survey with polled the People as to the job being performed by our California judiciary. The results returned a disappointing conclusion. It was that 52% of Californians viewed our judiciary as less than honorable. The comment was made that when 52% of Californian’s are less than pleased with our judiciary, we are in trouble. It was then determined that an education effort had to be performed to inform the People of the inter workings of our judiciary so they could better understand and appreciate our judiciary.
Hearing this, I said to myself, the more the People of California understand our judiciary, the more disillusioned they will become. We now have a judiciary which draws a salary with exceeds that of the nine Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Every one of them revel in the protection of Judicial Immunity, and view themselves as untouchable when it come to violations of the Constitution, and the laws in pursuance thereof.
What we have here in California is that spoken of by Lord Acton in his famous quote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I have come to know the judiciary like a squirrel in an acorn tree, having proceeded with lawsuits to the U.S. Supreme Court fifteen times starting with our local judiciary. I learned that the only way we are going to restore of judiciary is directly through the People with the Initiative Process. Justice Ronald George has even stated that I am out to destroy this wonderful judiciary we have here in California.
Jimmy
August 18, 2012
It is true that California’s Chief Justice and Associate Justices make about $5,000 more annually than their counterparts on the U.S. Supreme Court.
unionman575
August 18, 2012
CA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_California
Justices of the Supreme Court serve 12-year terms and receive a salary which is currently set at $228,856 per year for the Chief Justice and at $218,237 per year for each Associate Justice.
U.S.:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/governmentjobs/a/Annual-Salaries-Of-Top-Us-Government-Officials.htm
Chief Justice of the United States
2012: $223,500
2000: $181,400
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
2012: $213,900
2000: $173,600
US Courts of Appeals Judges
2012: $184,500
2000: $149,900
Federal District Judges
2012: $174,000
2000: $141,300
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 17, 2012
Remember, never let the facts get in the way of a good story…
Wendy Darling
August 17, 2012
Or a good lie, General Woodhull.
Long live the ACJ.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
August 17, 2012
“What is to give light, must endure burning.”
~ Dr. Viktor E. Frankl
Dearest ACJ, JCW and all that dare to be brave:
But a lay dad, I hold that your body presents hope. Hope to those of us (the law abiding tax-payers and protective parents) whom can someday perhaps find remedy to our collective hemorrhagic loss of confidence in what our AOC, JC, CJP and CJ (and Her string-handlers) have rendered upon you all – and also all the way down to our local courts to dysfunctionally perpetrate upon its good citizens.
We find hope in you, and a vision of a return – someday – to a democratic, trustworthy judiciary and its cross-systems.
Thank you for all, your continuing heroic and sometimes lonely sacrifices,
In our search for meaning through uncalled for adversity, my 10-yearold and I know what that’s like to “burn” under the abuses of our Jahrified/Halpinated courts, AOC, JC and CJP and CJ… and however humble I pledge ourselves and our fellows to this vital cause.
Sincerely,
Alan Ernesto Phillips
Shasta County
[Today is DAY 525…]
unionman575
August 17, 2012
http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/08/hiding-information-a-recurring-theme-for-state/
Dan Dydzak
August 17, 2012
Wanted to apprise Judicial Council Watchers out there that, not surprising, OC presiding Judge Borris–even though he is a party–illegally issued an Order after he was named a party unilaterally transferring my case to a San Diego Judge William Nevitt, Jr. By passed most of the Orange County Judges–including Alliance Ones. I have remedies. Will keep the folks apprised.
R. George and company think they can keep on fixing cases. Well, guess what, there will be a new lawsuit and other remedies. And that new lawsuit will not be filed in CA but out of state.
Keep up the crooked work, R. George, Beth Jay, Sarah Overton, Danielle A. Lee, Joseph Dunn and others. Thumb your noses up at me and the Alliance judges and others who believe in integrity in the judicial system. There is a RICO statute and there are remedies for “fixing” cases. And I intend to avail myself of same. I cannot at this point advise on all my strategy but my new lawsuit will likely get nation wide attention and then the dishonesty will really be exposed. Mel Belli would have told me to keep on fighting–I will. Corruption will not prevail. And by the way, I will at that point expect a check–a sizable one.
unionman575
August 17, 2012
Mr. Dirty Money Man’s Proposed 2012-13 Trial Court Budget is posted here for San Bernardino Superior:
http://www.sb-court.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=8AWZOXEI8Ps%3d&tabid=40&mid=395
Thanks Steve Nash!
😉
Wendy Darling
August 17, 2012
For anyone still wondering why there isn’t, and will not be, an investigation of Judicial Branch administration, published today, Friday, August 17, from The Sacramento Bee, by Dan Walters, and worth the read:
Dan Walters: Legislature hesitates on scandals
By Dan Walters
“When scandals surface in the remainder of state government, usually via journalistic revelations, the Legislature’s response seemingly depends on politics of the moment, rather than consistent principle.”
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/17/4733515/dan-walters-legislature-hesitates.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/17/4733515/dan-walters-legislature-hesitates.html
Where’s 60 minutes when you really need them?
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 17, 2012
Note to the Death Star…this won’t replace all the courthouses being closed and staff being laid off:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp.htm
unionman575
August 18, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Sundt-Kings-sub-outreach-Aug9.pdf
ADVERTISEMENT FOR SUBCONTRACTOR OUTREACH
Kings County Courthouse, Hanford CA., Superior Court of California
unionman575
August 18, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/2559.htm
CUSTOMER SUPPORT CENTER
For courts to report facility issues:
888-225-3583 or csc@jud.ca.gov
unionman575
August 18, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/2546.htm
Doing Business With OCCM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payoff
unionman575
August 18, 2012
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/comment/reply/10359
By Sheila Kuehl
Decimation of the Courts: the “Least Dangerous Branch”
In 1788, in Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.”
Indeed, although they have the ultimate power to declare a legislative or executive act to be unconstitutional, the courts are unable to declare war, enact a law or have any say over the totality of their own budget. Since 2007, California courts have been cut by over 653 million dollars, 606 million of that in cuts to entry-level courts, the trial courts. As you no doubt remember from the Fourth Grade, the three levels of courts in California are: 1) the trial courts, who hear everything in the first instance, except for CEQA claims related to one football stadium in Los Angeles, 2) the appellate courts, and 3) the CA Supreme Court.
The May Revise proposes 544 million in further General Fund reductions to the courts in 2012-13. 419 million of that total is in one-time cuts and 125 million in ongoing cuts. This is accomplished, in part, by offsetting much of the diminution with accumulated reserves. (And then there were none). Court construction is also delayed, with 240 million of construction funds redirected to support trial court operations. Civil courtrooms, and a few criminal courtrooms, continue to be shuttered throughout the state. In Los Angeles County, for instance, 56 courtrooms are now dark due to previous cuts.
unionman575
August 18, 2012
“He likened it to a human body slowly and systematically shutting down.”
http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_21261924/budget-issues-cripple-solano-county-courts
Budget issues cripple Solano County courts
By Ryan Chalk/ RChalk@TheReporter.com
Posted: 08/08/2012 01:07:25 AM PDT
Solano County Superior Court officials continue to grapple with recurring funding cuts while trying to maintain services and protect the jobs that go with them.
When the state Judicial Council recently announced how it would handle $544 million in cuts to the judicial branch this fiscal year, it included a $385 million reduction to trial courts. For Solano County Presiding Judge Paul L. Beeman and Court Executive Officer Brian Taylor, that means taking a hard look at where they can find savings in an already beleaguered budget.
Solano County’s court budget, which continues to be chipped away as the state budget crisis lingers on, is $22.1 million for fiscal year 2012-13. An extra $500,000 could come to Solano if the state Judicial Council agrees to shift funds from the Trial Court Trust Fund to local courts later this month.
While the current budget accounts for a $2.3 million reduction, Beeman makes it clear that protecting employees is a top priority, despite having to enact difficult cost-saving measures that affect them.
He likened it to a human body slowly and systematically shutting down.
“Eventually you get to the point where you’re no longer what you used to be,” Beeman said.
The court has been under a hiring freeze since 2009, and of the 266 authorized positions between its two branches, 51 have been eliminated because they have either been vacant for more than a year or there is no longer enough money, Taylor said.
To keep the number of vacancies from growing, the court implemented 12 furlough days which are scheduled around regular holiday breaks. The court expects to save about $800,000 though the furlough program.
There have only been two layoffs, according to Taylor, one of which was a court reporter. Court reporters in misdemeanor courtrooms have been replaced by electronic recording devices. Already in use in traffic court, the electronic devices will save the court roughly $200,000.
“It’s not convenient, or comfortable, or nice,” said Beeman, “But it works and there’s at least 25 other counties doing it.”
Other cost-saving measures have included a voluntary separation program, where employees were paid $1,000 for every year they worked, up to 25 years. Beeman said 18 people took advantage of the program, and while it cost roughly $400,000 to enact, it will end up saving the court about $700,000.
Even with all of the reductions, the court continues to run a structural deficit of about $700,000, not including an additional $800,000 needed to end the furloughs. The court will use its fund balance to cover the deficit this year. A balance of $1.5 million is anticipated to remain in the fund at the end of the fiscal year, which will assist with the ongoing structural deficit and a projected $1.3 million reduction in 2013-14.
“I’m going to do anything and everything to avoid layoffs,” Beeman said. “We are our employees and our employees are us.”
Despite cuts to the statewide court construction program, one project that continues to move forward is the planned rehabilitation of Solano’s “Old County Courthouse” on Texas Street in Fairfield.
Designed by E.C. Hemmings in 1911, the building served as a functioning courthouse until the 1970s. It became vacant in 2005, when the county employees moved to the Solano County Government Center.
At a cost of roughly $25.5 million, renovation will return it to use as a fully functioning courthouse, providing three courtrooms under new judgeships for civil cases. Work is expected to begin in the spring.
Follow Staff Writer Ryan Chalk at Twitter.com/RyanChalk1883.
unionman575
August 18, 2012
http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26200:courts-face-more-cuts-new-calendar-changes-to-move-forward&catid=1:latest&Itemid=197
Courts face more cuts; new calendar changes to move forward
MONDAY, 30 JULY 2012 01:05 ELIZABETH LARSON
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The Lake County Superior Court is planning additional changes to its operations in the face of its latest budget cuts.
Like courts across the state, Lake County’s court is facing major budget shortfalls in light of hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to the judicial branch statewide.
With the 2012-13 state budget now approved, the court is anticipating a cut in the new fiscal year of about $515,000, or 12 percent.
Court Executive Officer Mary Smith said the court doesn’t yet have the final cut number; the $515,000 figure is an estimate at this point.
Since the 2010-11 fiscal year, the Lake County Superior Court’s budget has been reduced by 26 percent, according to a court report.
It’s a substantial amount for the small court, which had a total budget last year of about $3.6 million.
Smith said the court isn’t yet certain if the coming fiscal year could bring more cuts.
“It’s hard to say,” she said. “The word seems to be that this will be it. But I think anything goes at this point.”
In June, the court announced that – effective Aug. 6 – it was moving Judge Stephen Hedstrom and his Department 4 court from the Clearlake courthouse at 7000 A South Center Drive to the Lakeport on N. Forbes Street, as Lake County News has reported.
Smith said that move is going forward, with Judge Hedstrom’s Department 4 to take over what has been Department A on the fourth floor of the Lakeport courthouse.
During a public comment period on the changes, Smith estimated the court received about four or five comments.
There also are additional changes to court service on the horizon, including court closures and staff furloughs.
Smith said court officials are hopeful that they’ll avoid cutting positions in the new fiscal year.
As part of its plans to spare its 29 employees from layoffs, the court plans to close the court clerk’s office and all courtrooms for a total of 16 days during this new fiscal year, the court reported. All of the closure days will be unpaid furlough days for staff.
Beginning Oct. 1, all court clerk public counters and telephones will close at 1 p.m. daily. That’s a further reduction from the current daily closures at 2:30 p.m., which has been in effect since September 2009.
Proposed court closure days for the remainder of 2012 are Oct. 5; Nov. 2, 19, 20 and 21 (Nov. 22 and 23 are judicial holidays); Dec. 7, 24, 26, 27 and 28 (Dec. 25 is a judicial holiday). In 2013, closure days are Jan. 4, Feb. 1, March 1, April 5, May 3 and June 7.
There will be no staff available and no drop box service in Clearlake on the closure days; any emergency matters or filings must be handled in Lakeport. There will be minimal staff available at the Lakeport Courthouse to handle emergency matters only.
The court said a drop box will remain available for routine filings from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Lakeport.
Email Elizabeth Larson at elarson@lakeconews.com .
unionman575
August 18, 2012
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2012/08/01/placer-county-to-cut-courthouse-hours.html
Placer County plans to cut courthouse hours to bridge budget gap
Sacramento Business Journal by Kathy Robertson, Senior Staff Writer
Date: Wednesday, August 1, 2012, 12:42pm PDT
Starting this fall, Placer County Superior Court will close public filing windows two hours earlier on Fridays and kick off eight more limited service days in response to ongoing cuts in state trial court funding.
The court adopted 12 limited service days last September to help fill budget gaps. That effort, which ended June 15, was expected to save between $500,000 and $550,000.
The two new initiatives are expected to save between $700,000 and $750,000 in the current fiscal year as trial courts face an even bigger budget whack in 2012-13.
Effective Oct. 5, public filing windows will close at 1 p.m. at the Santucci Justice Center in Roseville, the Tahoe City courthouse and the juvenile courthouse in Auburn. Hours will remain unchanged Monday through Thursday.
Only limited court services will be available on Nov. 20 and 21; Dec. 24, 26, 27, 28 and 31, and April 26, 2013.
Department 13, the courthouse located at the Placer County Jail in Auburn, will remain open. It will handle criminal arraignments, time-sensitive juvenile proceedings and last-day criminal matters. All other courtrooms and clerks’ offices will be closed. A drop box will be provided to permit same-day filings at all court locations that otherwise accept filings.
The service cuts are necessary because lawmakers and the Governor cut state funding for the judicial branch by $350 million in fiscal year 2011-12 and an additional $544 million in fiscal 2012-13.
In an effort to absorb the reductions, Placer County Superior Court has cut its workforce by more than 30 percent over the last four years. The court also instituted employee furloughs, closed two courtrooms and discontinued key programs.
“The court is extraordinarily sensitive to the fact that reducing the court’s operating hours impacts the public’s access to justice,” presiding judge Alan Pineschi said in a news release. “These actions, which represent the third time in four years we have been forced to implement closures or limited services, will impact those exercising their rights in criminal cases, those seeking resolution to business disputes and families looking to resolve their divorce or child custody situations.”
Kathy Robertson covers health care, law, lobbying and labor and workplace issues for the Sacramento Business Journal.
disgusted
August 18, 2012
unionman575
August 18, 2012
http://sd02.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd02.senate.ca.gov/files/County%20SUPERIOR%20COURT%20SERVICE%20REDUCTIONS%20TO%20DATE%20CHART.pdf
Wendy Darling
August 18, 2012
What a compelling document, Unionman. Current Judicial Branch Administration sure has an interesting definition of “access to justice.”
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 18, 2012
Thanks Wendy. You know my infomaniac tendencies.
😉
unionman575
August 18, 2012
I’m also quite the amateur phortographer too. Details to follow.
😉
unionman575
August 18, 2012
http://www.lodinews.com/news/article_f71e0fe2-df3f-11e1-b770-001a4bcf887a.html
Posted: Sunday, August 5, 2012 1:55 pm | Updated: 2:10 pm, Sun Aug 5, 2012.
Want small-claims case processed? Better do it this month
By Ross Farrow/News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Due to continuing state budget cuts, San Joaquin County will not process small-claims cases filed after Aug. 31.
San Joaquin County Superior Court issued 13 layoff notices in June, and the last day of employment for these employees was Aug. 1, according to a news release from the court.
For small-claims cases filed on or before Aug. 31, cases and appeals will continue to be scheduled for hearings. Court dates already scheduled will remain on the calendar. E-filings are no longer accepted, as of Aug. 1.
All cases filed after Sept. 1 will be accepted by the court clerk’s office, but court dates will not be set until the court has sufficient staff, according to the news release.
Cases may be filed at the clerk’s office, 222 E. Weber Ave., Room 303, third floor, Stockton. Court officials suggest that those wanting to file a small-claims case consider contacting the Mediation Center of San Joaquin, 209-474-8794.
Contact reporter Ross Farrow at rossf@lodinews.com.
JusticeCalifornia
August 19, 2012
Team George screwed up. It wasted billions in taxpayer funds, and as far as I can tell, the branch has NEVER been worse off than it is right now. Team George has made it clear it has no intention of changing its ways, and that it will do whatever is necessary, at whatever cost, to keep Team George in place.
We all know that saying– you don’t thrown good money after bad, right? It would be irresponsible for the executive and legislative branch to continue funneling money to irresponsible members of the judicial branch. Can you think of anything more ludicrous right now, than Team George hitting up anyone for more money? Sakauye and Jahr putting on their serious faces, and promising that Team George has been and will continue to be good stewards of public funds so can they please have their full allowance back? They can explain their latest, greatest idea– selling courthouses purchased for a buck back to counties at “fair market value”. Or they can haul out Ron George’s pitch that all these expensive courthouses are necessary because they are creating so many jobs! Maybe next they will suggest casino night fundraisers, with Tani as the guest blackjack dealer!
It didn’t have to be this way.
If the branch wants to regain credibility, the branch needs to do what any business that hopes to survive would do after being trashed by in-house mismanagement, self-dealing, and corruption. The branch needs to clean house.
The branch needs to band together, and effect a change of leadership.
It should be very obvious that at this point, nothing else will do. And until that happens, it’s only going to get worse, because it is irresponsible to throw good money after bad.
JusticeCalifornia
August 19, 2012
But. . . ..a change of leadership is not enough. Along with the change of leadership, there must be an investigation that follows the money. Team George has a lot of explaining to do. Who got rich off of CCMS? How did $500 mil get spent with nothing tangible to show for it? Who got rich, so far, off the over-the-top courthouse maintenance and construction projects– in whatever phase they are in?
How is it that public money can be shuffled and hidden from the legislature, and even those in the branch, like a street hustler’s shell game?
As the branch is in ruins, we want to know–where did the money go?
Wendy Darling
August 19, 2012
Haven’t you heard, Justice California? It’s OK to embezzle money at the AOC, and no one will do anything about it. Whether it’s a $100,000, such as the embezzlement in the AOC’s HR Division, or $2.000 lightbulbs, or a half billion on CCMS, you can steal public money at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, and you get a free pass.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
August 19, 2012
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/19/4738279/california-parks-officials-were.html
“The state Department of Parks and Recreation routinely searched for ways to spend extra money each June despite facing the threat of park closures and forgoing upkeep at its 278 properties, based on newly released transcripts from an internal investigation.”
Absolutely disgusting. But we ALL know that what the judicial branch has done makes this look like a walk in the park.
New leadership. And a full investigation that follows the money.
Michael Paul
August 19, 2012
The AOC does the same thing Justice California. The year-end spending spree happens in June and by the end of April, you have to have your “wish list” in to management. I’m told that more recently, these year end spending spree costs are being concealed by backdating purchase orders.
Wendy Darling
August 19, 2012
“The AOC does the same thing.” Very true, Michael Paul, and also true about back-dating purchase orders. But like everything else, the AOC and Judicial Branch administration gets a free pass on this too. It might be wrong to hide money from the State Legislature at the Department of Parks and Recreation, it might be sufficient for an investigation at the Department of Parks and Recreation, it might be a breach of the public trust at the Department of Parks and Recreation, and it might cause people to be removed from their public positions at the Department of Parks and Recreation, but at 455 Golden Gate Avenue it’s just business as usual, and it’s perfectly acceptable.
If it weren’t, those folks in positions of authority and responsibility at the State Legislature, and the State Attorney General’s Office and Department of Justice would actually do something about it. Like an investigation. Pigs will fly first and hell will freeze over – at the same time.
They should just hang a sign outside of 455 Golden Gate Avenue that says “Above The Law and No Accountablity for It.”
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 19, 2012
“Above The Law and No Accountablity for It.”
Wendy let’s hang that shingle out front now at the Death Star HQ.
😉
Wendy Darling
August 19, 2012
Right below “The Ronald M. George State Office Complex” sign, Unionman. 🙂
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
August 19, 2012
LOL Wendy and Unionman, great placement for that “above the law” sign. Let’s just call it like it is.
unionman575
August 19, 2012
Justice that video reminds me of Steve Nash’s tenure as the former AOC Money Man.
I don’t know why
unionman575
August 19, 2012
For mahy years the trial courts have had the year end spending spree too.
THAT year end spending spree is kind of hard to reconcile when so many courthouses have been closed, clerk’s office service hours reduced, employees laid off and/or furloughed.
There has been plenty of BAD MANAGEMENT STATEWIDE.
😉
JusticeCalifornia
August 19, 2012
Agreed. Bad management, at all levels, protected and facilitated at the very highest levels. And woe to those who tried to do the right thing.
JusticeCalifornia
August 19, 2012
Hey Tani, show us the Pegasus report. No fancy tricks, please. Just the real deal.
JusticeCalifornia
August 19, 2012
Let’s all (all three branches) follow the money. LOL. The CA judicial branch should be the CA benchmark for ethical and prudent and non-self-dealing stewardship of public funds, right?
I daresay following Team George’s yellow brick road hasn’t been and isn’t going to be pretty, or ethical, or prudent, or non-self-dealing at all.
unionman575
August 19, 2012
Dan Dydzak
August 20, 2012
There are really three major solutions to resolve the problems created by AOC fraud and Judicial Council mismangement:
(1) Grand Jury proceedings and criminal indictments against those responsible.
(2) Independent audit, accounting, receivership and return of converted funds.
(3) Very importantly, passage of legislation democracizing the Judicial Council whereby judges and others vote on whom is in charge, i.e., no discretionary positions for hangers on where influence is bought and matters rigged but a true honest voting process. An elective body such as the House of Representatives. The state government has to put through LEGISLATION abolishing the AOC and Judicial Council and replacing same with an elective structure composed of voted in, fair judges and others. The Alliance Judges and other like-minded individuals need to push for that legislation through Calderon and others. This will get rid of the present Stalin-like DICTATORSHIP in the administrative functions of the judiciary.
R. George recently, rudely hung up the phone on me again when I indicated that I would file another major lawsuit against him and others out of state. Atty General Kamala Harris, Esq. (who is part of the problem rather than the solution) will also be a party in this new lawsuit. Although served with process in my pending lawsuit, it is not surprising that George filed a bogus motion to quash service.
If the AOC and CA Supreme Court were forced to open their accounting books, and show their actual bank records and wire transfers within the last ten years, this would really tell the story. Also provide credit card receipts and money-laundering expenditures, R. George, CJ Tani, Vickrey, Overholt and others similarly situated. Illicit transfers to Vatican Bank and elsewhere.
Michael Paul
August 20, 2012
I think it goes deeper than this Mr. Dydzak. With the “team jacobs” scandal it was the unauditable that got the lion’s share of the money and the work – subcontractors of subcontractors of the main contractor. Under public contract code he who bids does the work. In this little scheme, he who bid the work was getting a quote from a subcontractor, who was getting a quote from another subcontractor below them, who was getting a quote from another subcontractor below them.
it was the subcontractor at the bottom of the food chain 4 layers down that was the inside guy charging exorbitant prices with everyone else adding exorbitant management fees.
It was also those subcontractors 4 layer down that were unlicensed contractors charging those prices.
I’ve searched far and wide for a cohesive explanation and this is all I can surmise. I would assume that I’m not alone in this train of thought;
If you toss in a “what if” statement, like “what if” certain members of the judiciary in that closed little judicial council inner sanctum or AOC management were getting kickbacks, super cheap or even free remodeling jobs in exchange for retrofitting every light fixture in any given courthouse for $2,000.00 apiece?
“What if” my allegations stopped the gravy train or caused bundling to happen so that no one could draw a straight line from my allegations to someones’ new $60,000.00 kitchen?
“What if” the people involved in this didn’t want to get caught? What would their next steps be?
I think that anyone applying the what if questions to current circumstances, in light of all that has been revealed would find a startling, if not disturbing parallel.
Then there are my own former attorneys and some of the nearly 500 attorneys I interviewed with that basically said i have a smoking gun, yes this stinks to high heaven like public corruption but that even if it was, they were going to get away with it and any attorney taking it on wasn’t going to get paid – or worse – might be disbarred.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
August 20, 2012
Michael, Is it possible or even prudent to identify just who on the JC or at the AOC received kickbacks or free remodeled kitchens, or perhaps even some landscaping? 🙂 I think the inferences are pretty clear, but I really think there is a need to call these people out, put faces on the greed and let the people see who these leaders are and how they have betrayed their trust.
As long as they can hide behind the green curtain they can continue. Some bright sunlight is needed on these folks.
Michael Paul
August 20, 2012
I don’t think it would be prudent at this time. Let’s just go with inferences and “beyond coincidence” for now.
unionman575
August 20, 2012
Question: When a Party in a lawsuit is represented by Counsel, do you contact the Party or his Counsel?
I am curious. Kindly enlighten my very simple mind.
😉
JAD
August 20, 2012
Here you go unionman. http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/Rules/RulesofProfessionalConduct/CurrentRules/Rule2100.aspx
unionman575
August 20, 2012
I knew tha answer. I asked for Dan D. He wasn’t too clear on the rules.
😉
JAD
August 20, 2012
Well okay couldn’t tell that from the way the question was posed, sorry unionman. I liked the clarification parties can contact parties; attorneys can’t contact parties.
unionman575
August 20, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/oers.pdf