We have to admit that it is a little disheartening to not see the names of reputable attorneys and law firms stepping forward and filing similar litigation but it goes to show how deep the issues lie. For one thing, the AOC continues to hire lawyers and law firms from all over the state to represent them and the trial courts so that anyone wishing to take them on is going to have a really hard time finding anyone competent that isn’t legally obliged to conflict out. And where those endeavors are unsuccessful, there is always the threat that “Team George’s” state bar will rip your bar card away for taking them on.
Even if you manage to find a competent, willing attorney to take on “Team George” it appears that the team george tentacles reach out to the local bench’s around the state with no judge willing to advance any of these complaints.
Are they all without merit?
Did many of these events not happen?
This is what Team George wants others to believe – that people got their fair hearing in court and that the cases against them are without merit – just pay no attention to that stack of evidence because they’re nipping it in the bud pre-trial as that evidence will never see the light of day. Unless of course it is the “Team Jacobs” matters where you intentionally submit a defective complaint and actively do everything possible to ensure that you can’t possibly win your case, for if you win, you’ve committed the crime of hiring an unlicensed contractor. If you lose, no crime has been committed. Talk about a prosecutorial conflict of interest….
Attached to this post is the Dydzak racketeering complaint against most of whom JCW knows as “Team George” and quite a few other players outside of the “Team George” circle.
Dydzak v. Schwarzenegger Complaint
Related Articles
Judicial Council Watcher 
wearyant
September 25, 2012
Hey, JCW! I was the 2nd vote on this post and I rated more than the “stars” show. Something may be amiss with “Rate This.”
wearyant
September 25, 2012
Maybe the “stars” represent a mean average via computer calculation. Sorry. You may erase these two silly posts of mine if you wish.
wearyant
September 25, 2012
Go, Dan, Go! WHY is that attorney still in Geneva? Good question. He has relatives there? He likes to ski!
Helllooooo! Anyone out there??
Wendy Darling
September 25, 2012
Ant: It may also have something to do with the generous banking and secrecy laws they have in Switzerland. You know, because of the demonstrated fondness of current judicial branch administration for transparency and fiscal restraint.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
September 25, 2012
WD: 😀
lobstahsmaht
September 25, 2012
He hasn’t been there in quite a while. Get your facts straight.
wearyant
September 25, 2012
Sorry, Lobstahsmaht, I heard he was still in Geneva. Can anyone prove he isn’t? I’d LOVE to get my facts straight, but the AOC aka the Death Star treats requests for info from even trial court judges, whom the Death Star should be serving, as public requests for information, i.e., from the commoners or the great roiling, toiling unwashed masses, in order to stall, delay, obfuscate and obliterate the truth. So much for transparency. Is Attorney Torr in Geneva or is he commuting from Brazil these days? Glad to hear from you, Lobstahsmaht.
courtflea
September 25, 2012
hey lobstahsmaht, fill us in on the facts please! I know all of us would appreciate some insight on the issue.
JusticeCalifornia
September 25, 2012
Agreed, flea. We do all appreciate knowing when there is a legitimate adjustment in attitude.
Because we are involved in a branch war where the “pride goeth before the fall” stakes of branch leadership are upped every single day.
lobstahsmaht
September 26, 2012
What insight do you need? He is back to work in SF and has been for quite a while. Pretty much end of story.
Peppermint Pattie
September 26, 2012
Well, that’s interesting, because every time you walk by Torr’s office, no one is in there, and if you call what is supposed to be his phone number, you get a recording every time. That’s a rather novel way of being “back at work” in San Francisco.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 25, 2012
Last month in light of the significant outcry, Mr. Torr was ordered back to San Francisco. (edited to add: no one here has bothered to verify his return)
As to Mr. Dydzak’s complaint – One of the reasons for us posting the pro-publica link regarding TARP funds was because one allegation that we figured we could easily verify we couldn’t.
One of our people had previously worked the tarp funds issue elsewhere so that was low hanging fruit for them. Number 200, cause of action number 5 on page 63 of his complaint could not be verified by the time we posted this morning which is why the pro-publica link, one of the most accurate trackers of tarp funds in existence was also posted.
One of our regular readers asked “Are you taking the allegations in his complaint seriously?” and the answer to that is …. not entirely. Some of the information contained therein was independently verifiable. Much of it we’re curious about but can’t seem to independently verify.
The tarp funds issue was but an example of something we believed we could easily verify but couldn’t. We have not asked Mr. Dydzak or others for proof or evidence but we have suggested in the comments that if he wants others to take his complaint seriously, he should provide some evidence to us to back some of the allegations up.
Janette M. Isaacs
September 26, 2012
Today, September 26, 2012, I E-Mailed a friend by the name of Paul Orfanedes, Director of Litigation for Judicial Watch. I truly hope that Judicial Watch will get involved for purposes of exposing the corruption detailed in Mr. Dydzak’s pleading. I attached the PDF file to my E-Mail for Paul. Thank you JCW for your commitment towards judicial reform. Keep up the great work! Here is how my E-Mail reads:
Dear Paul:
When we were in San Diego (oral arguments in re SBX 211), you asked me to send you any cases which I thought you might be interested in. I am a follower of Judicial Council Watcher (JCW). They are an organization comprised of attorneys, judges and whistle-blowers (like me) that are doing their best to achieve judicial reform and expose the judicial corruption prevalent in our California judiciary & government.
The attached new filing in re The DUNN case/ Dydzak v. Schwarzenegger, et al, is something that I think you and Tom Fitton will be interested in. It was in my E-Mail along with a blog that I receive daily from the JCW.
Perhaps you can help Daniel D. Dydzak in some way, including representing him or perhaps writing about it in your newsletter.
I hope that all is well with you! Please feel free to call me if you ever need anything!
Janette
lobstahsmaht
September 26, 2012
Peppermint Pattie: You are not telling the truth and you know it.He is back, he does have an office. But guess what, he also has meetings to go to, furloughs to take, etc.
Been There
September 26, 2012
Ah yes, furlough time ala 455 Golden Gate. That you lobstahsmaht for clarifying the situation.
JAD
September 26, 2012
A picture is worth a thousand words – maybe someone can get the illusive Mr. Torr to sit in his office long enough to hold up that days current SF newspaper – snap a shot – and then post it to JCW so we can see the truth with our own eyes.
Wendy Darling
September 26, 2012
What an excellent idea, JAD. A picture really is worth a thousand words.
Long live the ACJ.
lobstahsmaht
September 26, 2012
I’m pretty sure Mr. Torr wouldn’t buy into such silliness to “prove” himself to miscreants who have tried to villify him with tons of misinformation and allegations that are just beyond belief. Swiss banks? What does that have to do with anything? You all watch too much Bourne movies.
JusticeCalifornia
September 26, 2012
Lobstahsmaht: You clearly have all the facts so please share. So why the heck DID the AOC have a lawyer living in Switzerland? What made him so valuable? What does this guy do, and what does he add to the AOC, and was/is this his only job?
wearyant
September 26, 2012
Ooooo, Torr qualifies for furloughs too, after telecommuting from Geneva? Ooooooooo, life is GOOD for the upper echelon, ain’t it? Delicious.
unionman575
September 26, 2012
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/sep/25/judges-keep-auto-allowances-amid-cuts/
unionman575
September 26, 2012
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-11003-judges-keep-car-perks.html
unionman575
September 26, 2012
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=1755326&title=Courtrooms%20may%20be%20shut%20by%20state%20cuts
JAD
September 26, 2012
Not cool lobstahsmaht – the members in this group are not the “miscreants = a vicious or depraved person; villain” we are only seeking answers to relevant questions regarding the astonishing waste by the Judicial Council & AOC. Such as set forth in the SEC Report – which many of those were called lies too – before the report was released. The consequences of that waste directly affects the trial courts that are laying off staff and depriving the public their access to justice. For example do you think it is truly okay that it now takes over two weeks just to file an unlawful detainer case in Sacramento? That is just one small example of the delay in justice our customers are now suffering, and that is the crux of our concerns and allegations – just seeking the ‘truth’ and anyone is welcome to step up and prove we are wrong – I would be willing to admit when I was wrong. But there is never any proof, just fly-by insults.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 26, 2012
We’ve brought the “drive-by” issue to lobstamaht’s attention and would request that lobstahmaht comport themselves in an exchange of information, rather than the hurling of fly by/drive by insults.
You’re spot on with your observation and comment JAD. Thank You.
lobstahsmaht
September 27, 2012
Seriously JC Watcher? You call people “LIzard” and think that is not an insult. I don’t have time to look up the other insults that you and others have said about people, but there have been many appalling one’s. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but the way some of you are going about it, is just wrong. Talk about comporting yourself, look in the mirror. This is why people won’t come to you with the real truth. It’s well known you will twist it to match your views, not the truth.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 27, 2012
Seriously. And not just any lizard “The Lizard”. And you might not like it when the FBI labels a perp by a bandit name but it carries the same implication when we do it. What we don’t do is come here and hurl insults at each other.
What we do is counteract the Ministry of Truth and their line of B.S. Curt, the new fearless leader of JaCkASs (um, it takes one to run one) probably owes his pet leash appointment to us. And so does that other miscreant that used to lobby for the AOC. Too big of a liability to get rid of ’em so you promote ’em.
Wendy Darling
September 27, 2012
Mary “The Lizard” Roberts: If the shoe fits, wear it.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
September 26, 2012
I took for granted the fun and innocent days of growing up; Andy and Aunt Bee in Mayberry, Timmy and Lassie, Perry Mason in L.A., Lucy in New York, then Hollyweird. And the California courts were all open and operating … too bad. So sad. I took the courts for granted. I really thought you could count on them to always be there.
JusticeCalifornia
September 26, 2012
Dan’s complaint throws in the kitchen sink. I hope he can do discovery on all of this.
My personal mantra has always been to make an official record, so no one can say they didn’t know.
Often,the most important person in the room becomes the court reporter, so it is interesting and egregious that the court reporters have been the first to go.
At this point, I do believe the next best thing is to memorialize everything, copied to the queen of everything, namely Tani, and her legal guru, Mary Roberts.
Does anyone have their e-mail addresses?
If so, please post.
Let’s tell Tani and Mary everything, so they cannot say they didn’t know.
LOL. Except really, I am not kidding at all.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 26, 2012
tani.cantil@jud.ca.gov and mary.roberts@jud.ca.gov
I’m sure they would both love to hear from us.
JusticeCalifornia
September 26, 2012
Thanks, JCW.
JusticeCalifornia
September 26, 2012
Oh, and besides these two (Sakauye and Roberts), of course copy your local legislators, and supervisors, and presiding judges, and the governor, and the attorney general, and state judiciary committee members, so they know too.
Then they all cannot say they didn’t know.
Then, when public lawsuits are brought, there will be track record.
It’s gonna happen. If the branch cannot clean itself up, the public will clean up the branch.
JusticeCalifornia
September 26, 2012
But if you only pick one person to copy on your problem, pick Tani. Then, as she plays her hand, she cannot say she did not know. And then, if you are retaliated against, you know where to look as to where it came from.
tani.cantil@jud.ca.gov
Sorry Tani, you want the absolute power, you take responsibility for it.
LOL.
Perhaps you will eventually become an advocate of democratizing the JC.
JusticeCalifornia
September 27, 2012
Further to last night’s discussion. . . .Actually, in thinking this through, Tani gets a free pass if a report of misconduct only goes to her. Much better to take the time and trouble of copying reports of branch misconduct to ALL of the key people in all three branches.
Chief Justice, Governor, Attorney General, State Auditor, State legislative judiciary committee members, local legislators, Presiding Judges, local legislators and other elected officials, the CJP where appropriate.. . . .
Any other suggestions?
Then they all cannot say they didn’t know.
But wild allegations are not going to cut it. The claim of misconduct must be documented and credible.
For example, we knew Judicial Councilmember/Marin CEO Kim Turner had ordered the destruction of child custody evidence in the middle of a state audit of the Marin Family Court because a lawyer cross examined a court mediator under oath and asked about the mediator’s missing file. The mediator testified under oath about Kim Turner’s directive to destroy mediation files, and a court reporter memorialized that testimony. That led to a legitimate documented complaint/request of Ron George (copied to legislators, local supervisors and others) for an inquiry, and that led to an AOC report admitting that the AOC’s OGC had given permission for the document destruction. That led to large protest in Marin County, covered by the press and attended by people from all over the state. . . .and memorialization of the fact that some of the people Cantil-Sakauye has selected as her closest advisors (Kim Turner) are quite unpopular in their own communities and have histories of thwarting state audits while destroying damning documents. . . .(and let’s not forget to mention the AOC’s scathing 2005 or 2006 report criticizing Turner for covering up so long for her former boss, John Montgomery, as he funneled $650,000 in court contracts to his live in girlfriend, and took improper trips on the public dime. . .) Heck! you couldn’t make this stuff up! No need for hyperbole!
Or, let’s talk about the issues regarding the Judicial Council’s abuse of the assigned judges program. . . .The CJ and AOC and legislators and many others are well aware of the many complaints that have been made about the chief justice assigning retired judges in perpetuity (for years and even decades), thereby usurping the public’s right under the California Constitution to have a judge that is elected, or appointed, subject to retention elections and oversight by the Commission on Judicial Performance. Objections have been made on the record, memorialized in official transcripts. There have been public protests about this as well. There is no way, when this issue really explodes, that Cantil-Sakauye, or the AOC, or the presiding judges of the courts involved, can plead ignorance.
Documenting and reporting go hand in hand. The complaints of misconduct must be credible and documented.
Ultimately, when there is an investigation– official, or done through public lawsuits and discovery– the documenting and reporting will provide the dots that can be connected.
What’s interesting is the misconduct we are talking about is often administrative. . . .
unionman575
September 27, 2012
I have the e-mail addresses but will not post. Hush mail: bbqchefs1963@hushmail.com
😉
unionman575
September 27, 2012
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/09/26/on-the-money-state-siphoning-millions-from-local-court-reporters/
On The Money: State Spending Mandatory “Court Reporter Fees” On Other Things
September 26, 2012 10:31 PM
Judicial Council Watcher
September 27, 2012
That’s news. Everyone is paying for a service they’re not getting or have to pay twice for.
Where is a lawyer when you need one?
And was that final statement correct about “The agency only takes 20% of those fees?” ie the AOC only takes 20% of the collected court reporter fees?
wearyant
September 27, 2012
This is really outrageous and goes to the heart of why people are so incensed with the JC/AOC/CJ. These bureaucrats just love the income streams and don’t care a whit about the original purpose. The employees get screwed and the taxpayers alike for the benefit of the JC/AOC/CJ where blissful life continues on unchanged. Disgusting!
wearyant
September 28, 2012
From the ministry of truthiness, a letter to the editor re the CBS13 news story:
===================================================
“Leanne Kozak • 15 hours ago
“Regrettably, KOVR news has provided incomplete information. As Mr. Theodorovic specifically told the producer—and I provided detailed information in a handout–every year California courts spend vastly more money on court reporter services than they take in from fees. Last fiscal year the shortage was $50million; the courts had to make up the difference. Thus, court reporter services are subsidized from other court funds.
“The primary issue is that the state is dealing with an ongoing fiscal crisis. The Judicial Branch has had $1.2 billion in cumulative ongoing reductions in the last four years. Courts are making the best decisions that they can, to keep the courts open for all Californians.”
“Leanne Kozak
“Administrative Office of the Courts
“Judicial Council of California”
=============================================================
The JC/AOC/CJ are making the best decisions they can to keep the courts open for all Californians? Are you #*& kidding? The trial courts situation looks as bad as the trenches in WWI. The JC/AOC/CJ have a terrible case of Marie Antoinette syndrome.
JusticeCalifornia
September 27, 2012
Great that the court reporting issue — and the Judicial Council’s arrogant, dismissive attitude– are being memorialized by legislators, the press, and the Commission on Judicial Performance. As previously stated, the court reporter is often the most important person in the room. . . .
lobstahsmaht
September 27, 2012
“Ooooo, Torr qualifies for furloughs too, after telecommuting from Geneva? Ooooooooo, life is GOOD for the upper echelon, ain’t it? Delicious.”
Wow. No one takes furloughs by choice. It’s the law. And for a lawyer that means they lose a day’s pay but still work it. No one likes furloughs. What an asinine comment.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
September 27, 2012
Lobstahsmaht,you have your opinions and we are entitled to ours. As an occasional poster here I have nothing but the highest respect for the others here — all of us have paid our dues in one way or another. We know of what we speak — no need to demean or diss the messengers!
lobstahsmaht
September 27, 2012
I, too, have respect for what this site is trying to accomplish, but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot bash people horribly and then not expect a little bashing back. Be kind and kindness will be returned.
wearyant
September 27, 2012
http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2009/12/courts-offset-furloughs-with-r.html
Your opinion on the veracity of the above, please, Lobstahsmaht. I find the truth is so much more interesting than “shades” or “versions” of the truth. You say this lawyer worked a day, but he lost a day’s pay. I heard the AOC compensates for this “furlough” at the end of the month. I’m still trying to find the quote. Let’s set the record straight. Fine by me. “What an asinine comment.” Hahaha. I’m living proof of someone who loved furloughs, but that’s just me. I worked very hard in the courts. There were timelines that had to be met statutorily, criminal defendants had to appear in court, thus no furloughs 99 percent of the time. 🙂
wearyant
September 27, 2012
Whatever happened to Amy Yarbrough?
lobstahsmaht
September 27, 2012
Well I’m glad for you that you could afford the deduction and “enjoy” the day off. For many people, it put them in dire straits. Particularly those who have had their salary maxed for years and no cost of living increase for years.
wearyant
September 27, 2012
lobstahsmaht: “Enjoy” the day? That’s the thing. I was forced to work and felt like a slave. But that’s not the point I meant. I read that the AOC people were recompensed for their so-called furloughs. It made the forced furloughs appear to be a lie.
unionman575
September 27, 2012
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/amy-yarbrough/17/187/7bb
wearyant
September 27, 2012
http://www.maysville-online.com/news/local/aoc-furlough-day-postpones-child-abuse-trial/article_c562a1a0-dac8-5fba-8f75-84bf70d726ef.html
The AOC says state budget cuts were responsible; in actuality the AOC’s mismanagement and mishandling of public funds is responsible.
wearyant
September 27, 2012
Click to access SP12-05_PinesB.pdf
Hon. Burt Pines opines about the misinformation the AOC put out on so-called voluntary furloughs.
wearyant
September 27, 2012
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202556752174&Viewpoint_AOC_Is_TopHeavy_and_Dysfunctional&slreturn=20120827164235
Lobstahsmaht: I believe the above link is where I read the AOC recompensed for the “furlough days.” Set me straight if I’m wrong in relying on this. I love the truth. The truth sets you free. No lies to have to remember. It’s great.
Here’s the quote:
“It [the AOC] misled the pubic, court employees and the judicial branch about its oft trumpeted ‘one-day per month furlough program.’ The AOC furloughs, unlike those imposed by the courts, gave voluntary participants a credit of one day of leave time for each furlough day taken.”
lobstahsmaht
September 27, 2012
You are correct. That was done, but for a very short time. It has not been in effect for some time now. And you are right, it was wrong at the time. What I meant is that many people who are exempt have furlough time deducted from their check, but their workload keeps you from taking that time off.
Michael Paul
September 27, 2012
I don’t know what division you were in but I was in IS and while the workload was there, everyone took their furlough days because they made great three day weekends. (unlike the trial courts who were compelled to take the third Wednesday, AOC employees picked their furlough days) so between having a 9/80 schedule and the furlough days and the comp day off for taking a furlough day, I don’t recall working any mondays of that particular year.
While the workload was there, I honestly can’t recall anyone working through furlough days.
wearyant
September 27, 2012
Yes, lobstahsmaht, the workload keeps you from taking that time off. Very familiar with that. You stated it more artfully than I. But lawyers usually do not work by the hour. I believe the AOC has put that into practice, determining what everyone’s hourly value is — and I hate that. It’s wrong. It’s dehumanizing.
lobstahsmaht
September 27, 2012
Not sure what you mean that they don’t work hourly. Generally they work 10-12 hours a day, and are frequently in the office on weekends.
wearyant
September 27, 2012
Sorry lobstahsmaht, you’re right, of course. I better take a lunch break.
courtflea
September 27, 2012
Lobstahsmat post the attorneys work number here so we all can call and wish him a hearty welcome home!
lobstahsmaht
September 27, 2012
Courtflea; And that post is exactly what I mean about a lot of you being mean.
No problem Wearyant. I can see you are one of the good guys. We all just want to have pride in our work and our system.
courtflea
September 27, 2012
Now come on ypu are the one that implied peppermint pattie was fibbing. Besides mr. torr should be happy to let folks know he is back in the office and ready to serve for the benefit of all californians. In california!
wearyant
September 27, 2012
Lobstahsmaht, CourtFlea is a good “guy.” CourtFlea has walked the walk, not just talked the talk. Torr appears to have enjoyed a perk that no one else had, commuting from an exotic place and it was against AOC policy. That makes Torr appear to be “special.” I think it’s doubly important in the third branch, the judiciary, that rules are followed, laws aren’t bent for the special people and that even the appearance of impropriety be quashed immediately. It appears that Todd Torr is not in the office — in California, anyway, and the AOC has no credibility with us.
I’m sorry about the hourly thing with the attorneys. I must have been thinking of contingencies or noncontingency fee agreements. The brain needed food. Of course the attorneys have to keep records of their hourly tasks. I used to work for a per diem and when it was broken down into hours, I resented it. Oh, well, too bad and so sad, that’s over. On to better things, like more transparency from the JC/AOC/CJ! 😀
Michael Paul
September 27, 2012
Torr’s number is published in the AOC directory embedded here.
Click to access 014415_doc.pdf
415-865-7450
unionman575
September 27, 2012
Delilah
September 27, 2012
We’re so mean here? Oh, boo-hoo. Cry me a river 😦 Are you fucking kidding me?
JusticeCalifornia
September 28, 2012
LOL Delilah.
Countless lives have been ruined and the branch is on its knees thanks to Team George and company, and we are being “mean”?
I daresay some of us have been restrained, in deference to the ACJ and the readers of this blog.
A lot of us are streetfighters of sorts, in the trenches, on good behavior, waiting to see if the branch cleans itself up or continues to hang itself, and wow, if people think what has been said here is “mean”. . . .well. . . .LOL.
You want to see mean? You get together the members of the public who have lost everything thanks to branch misconduct and corruption, mobilize them, and you will see mean. . . .or perhaps determined, loud, fierce and fearless are better words.
And the public pays everybody in all three branches.
unionman575
September 27, 2012
Click to access 68106-sutter-20120924.pdf
unionman575
September 27, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19192.htm
September 27, 2012
Judicial Council Advisory Committees Trimmed
Further consolidation of committees and working groups expected
wearyant
September 27, 2012
Committees trimmed by 10 percent. Wow, big whup! The AOC’s JC and CJ are still way out of touch with the real world in the ivory tower. If only the trial courts were trimmed by only 10 percent as opposed the meat cleaver slice to the bone marrow they’ve experienced!
unionman575
September 27, 2012
Hence the video below.
😉
Wendy Darling
September 27, 2012
Small minded people doing things in a small minded way. The word “tokenism” and the phrase “window dressing” seem appropriate.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
September 27, 2012
Closing ranks?
Wendy Darling
September 27, 2012
Closing ranks? Again, if the shoe fits . . .
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
September 27, 2012
wearyant
September 27, 2012
“Extreme house cleaning”? Unionman575, you’re always good for a scream! Hahaha. Thanks. 😀 Will sanity EVER prevail in the third branch? In our lifetime??
The OBT
September 27, 2012
Hey DJ Unionman , ” Why am I soft in the middle now, why am I soft in the middle when the rest of my life is so hard, I need a photo opportunity I want a shot of redemption, don’t want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon grave yard ” Perfect lyrics for You can call me Hull from the original You can call me Al lol .
Wendy Darling
September 28, 2012
Here’s a suggestion for some lyrics to live by when it comes to 455 Golden Gate Avenue: Won’t Be Fooled Again.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
September 28, 2012
Great song OBT and for those in the tower like the arrogant J Miller and J Hull, I sure hope they end up “sweeping the streets they used to own” when democracy finally comes to the Judicial Council. Coldplay LaVida.
Lando
September 28, 2012
so true Wendy although I think the insiders in the tower will continually try and fool us over and over again.They can’t help themselves.
Wendy Darling
September 28, 2012
We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that’s all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!
I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There’s nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Won’t get fooled again.
courtflea
September 28, 2012
thank you wearyant for defending my honor 🙂 although Delilah took the words right outta my mouth!
I agree with Michael that cutting back on committies is to close ranks, what a great way to eject those that are not true believers or that live in far flung small courts. .I am so tired of these people pussy footing around when everyone else is suffering. Makes me want to puke more than those guy on unionman’s video. PS unionman that gal on the first video….sounds like she was gettin down and havin a dog sing along. Mine liked it!
Rock out Wendy.
Robert Turner
September 28, 2012
I saw this article in the Met News today and appreciated the coverage. It’s some very very small progress coming out of the SEC report to reduce the amount of admin at the top. The article does not mention how much money cutting the membership rolls from 377 to 350 will save. That’s sort of a big point missed by the anonymous staff writer. I bet it’s not much money and is basically a token gesture. Still it is a baby step in the right direction so it is some tangible progress. Happy Friday!
By a Met News Staff Writer
The Judicial Council will cut the size of its advisory committees by about 10 percent to reduce costs, and expects more consolidation to occur in the next few months, the chair of the council’s Executive and Planning Committee said yesterday.
Fourth District Court of Appeal Justice Douglas P. Miller noted the trimming in a statement released by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The announcement coincided with Chief Justice Tami G. Cantil-Sakauye’s appointments of new committee members, whose terms begin Nov. 1. Hundreds of nominations were submitted for vacancies on 15 of 17 Judicial Council advisory committees, the AOC said.
The nominations of justices, judges, and attorneys are vetted by advisory committee chairs and by the Executive and Planning Committee before being sent to the chief justice, who filled 75 of the vacancies. Membership rolls shrank from 377 to 350, the release said.
“Our recommendation to reduce the size of advisory committees was difficult because they perform a crucial function for the judicial branch,” Miller said. “They review policies or proposed changes to rules of court and their recommendations to the Judicial Council carry great weight. We prefer that members have a broad perspective about branch issues, as well as reflect the diversity of the state. At the same time, we are in a fiscal crisis and need to scale back on the size of all the committees. The committees are staffed by employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the agency has faced considerable downsizing this past year. We have to weigh all these considerations, as well as to make sure that we keep getting fresh perspectives on the committees.”
In addition to the advisory committees, there are task forces and working groups with approximately 300 members. “We’re in the process of looking at all committees, task forces, and working groups,” Miller said.
“We’re in the process of looking at all committees, task forces, and working groups,” the justice said. “Are they all necessary? Are they still active? Can any of them be consolidated? We also want to make sure that they answer to the Judicial Council because in some cases the past practice is for the council to delegate its authority over the working groups to the Administrative Director. As part of our ongoing examination of our governance, we want to make sure all groups under our auspices report directly to the Judicial Council.”
courtflea
September 28, 2012
I say get rid of the committee that keeps nominating AOC Directors for administrative awards and naming rooms after them. Oh wait! All of the Directors have received that award! Oh well what the heck, tell everyone you cut that committee too. Looks good for the the window dressing! and making sure the committees report to the council? how about some cafe curtians in red checks please?
Nathaniel Woodhull
September 28, 2012
I have been reading the Judicial Branch Fund Condition (Cash Flow) Statement Immediate and Critical Needs Account (Fund 3138) for the fiscal years 2008/09 through 2019/20.
It was extremely disturbing to see that during the 2012-2013 fiscal year, “Local Assistance” was provided to the Trial Courts in the amount of $240,000,000.00 from this fund. At the end of the fiscal year, the fund balance was $22,177,000.
Now that we are in even worse shape at the trial court level, with countless layoffs and closures of courthouses, the Judicial Council/AOC is preparing to provide a mere $50,000,000.00 in “Local Assistance” to Trial Courts from this fund and leave themselves with a fund balance at the end of the 2013-2014 fiscal year of $166,957,000.00!!!!!!!!!
EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALL OVER THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND AOC AND DEMAND THAT THEY ALLOCATE $200,000,000+ FROM THIS FUND TO LOCAL TRIAL COURTS DURING THE 2013-2014 FISCAL YEAR. THE MONEY IS SITTING THERE. ANY ARGUMENT THAT IT WILL BE USED IN THE FUTURE TO BUILD COURTHOUSES IS SPECIOUS. WHY BUILD ANY COURTHOUSES WHEN THERE IS NO ONE TO WORK THERE!!!!
Everyone should be outraged and tell the Judicial Council members and your local elected officials of this travesty.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 28, 2012
Question so I get this right in a post – Or maybe you can provide a document or link to it….
Aren’t we currently IN the 2012-2013 fiscal year right now? 240 mil went out to the trial courts already in “local assistance” which is probably different from emergency assistance? Would this line item be written this way because they assume they will be getting a general fund increase (are they high?) and can retain those monies for some rainy day?
Nathaniel Woodhull
September 28, 2012
I’ve spent a long time pouring over financials for Trial Courts throughout the State. On the present course, I predict that 58 out of 58 Trial Courts will be in the red by July 2013! The Judicial Council must step forward and protect the Trial Courts. We are the ones who actually serve the public and deliver services. Numbers don’t lie and they demonstrate that we will be facing massive lay-offs and shuttering of court facilities within 6-9 months.
With the stroke of a pen, the Judicial Council could stop the bleeding at the Trial Court level. The continued hemorrhaging could at the very least be controlled by diverting all the 1407 money to the Trial Courts for operations.
The Chief Justice and those in-charge on the Judicial Council assert that they now “get it” and are attempting to be responsive to the needs of the Trial Courts and overseeing AOC operations. It is time to put their money where their mouth is. Diverting $245,000,000.00 to the Trial Courts will at least allow us to operate on a status-quo basis. Understanding that the status-quo means living with the horrific cuts that we have already been forced to inflict upon ourselves.
Grab your pitchforks boys and girls. It’s off to the Crystal Palace to let them know how we feel!
Wendy Darling
September 30, 2012
“On the present course, I predict that 58 out of 58 Trial Courts will be in the red by July 2013! The Judicial Council must step forward and protect the Trial Courts. ”
Hmmm, Has it occurred to anyone that the Office of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council might fein an aversion to 58 out of the 58 Trial Courts being in the red by July 2013, but in reality find this a not unpleasant result of the current financial fix that 455 Golden Gate Avenue has gotten the branch into? After all, according to their interpretation of how things work under current branch governance, once a trial court operationally goes into the red, the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council can put that trial court into receivership, and control all of that court’s administrative functions and accounts, including the selection and appointment of the court’s CEO. Thereby achieving by the back door what they couldn’t get by going in by the front door.
And, as we all know by now, these are not people who shy away from going in by the back door.
So I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath for the Judicial Council to “step forward and protect the Trial Courts,” General Woodhull. Chances are, pigs will fly first and hell will freeze over — at that the same time.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
September 30, 2012
J. Clark Kelso is smilin’ tonight.
Nathaniel Woodhull
September 28, 2012
Hey JCW, would you please start a new thread on this issue that I have raised re: 1407 money and the fund balance? This is really, really, important.
unionman575
September 29, 2012
Welcome back General!
😉
carol
September 28, 2012
Dydzak’s RICO lawsuit filed in DC was transferred back to the Central District Court in Los Angeles on September 26, 2012.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 28, 2012
It seemed there would be an issue of venue there……. and yes NW we can start a new thread. We’ve been a bit behind keeping up on things over here.
unionman575
September 29, 2012
You always get it done JCW!
😉
Delilah
September 28, 2012
Saying that you’re “a bit behind” is being too hard on yourselves, JCW. You are a driving force. For all of us. Rock on! You are the life-line that ties us all together!
Lando
September 28, 2012
For all of us concerned about the trial courts the story is all too familiar. Entire branch courthouses being closed, trial departments being shut down, radically reduced hours of service to the public, layoffs of court reporters and commissioners along with staff at all levels. These drastic actions are being implemented in part due to fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the Judicial Council and AOC “insiders” who decided that we should spend millions on CCMS. Now the insiders are wasting hundreds of millions on new courthouse construction. Woodhull is right. In 2012-2013 240 million of courthouse construction money was sent to the trial courts with over 67 million allocated for capital courthouse construction costs. In 2013-2014 this ratio changes significantly with only 50 million being allocated to the trial courts and an incredible 160 million allocated to capital construction costs. So while the trial courts are being systematically dismantled the insiders at 455 Golden Gate want to build monuments to their insular rule. Does any of this make any sense? Why in the world are we building courthouses when we are closing down the ones we have, laying off our hardworking employees and reducing public access to the courts.? Sometimes I think when I see such major public policy blunders that I have woken up after a long sleep only to find myself in the in the backwards world. The waste of money on buildings that may have little staff left to work in them needs to stop and the 160 million in question should be reallocated to the trial courts so we can salvage our branch again.
unionman575
September 28, 2012
Click to access 10-10-12_10-day.pdf
BOND ITEM—1
2012 SERIES G
VARIOUS CAPITAL PROJECTS
Judicial Council (0250)
Project: New North Butte County Courthouse
Location: Butte County
Authority: Chapters 21 and 29, Statutes of 2012, Item 0250-301-0668 (1)
Project: New Woodland Courthouse
Location: Yolo County
Authority: Chapters 21 and 29, Statutes of 2012, Item 0250-301-0668 (4)
Project: Renovation to Old Solano Courthouse
Location: Solano County
Authority: Chapter 712, Statutes of 2010, Item 0250-301-0660 (7), as reappropriated by the
Budget Act of 2011
😉
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/money+pit
disgusted
September 28, 2012
Oh, and this makes so much sense too.
NEWS
On The Money: California Spending Mandatory “Court Reporter Fees” On Other Things
September 26, 2012 10:31 PM
Share this
View Comments
MORE ACTIVITY
Reporting Sam Shane
Filed Under
California News, News, On The Money, Seen On, Syndicated Local
Struggling courts across California are laying off court reporters, unable to afford them, a CBS13 investigation has found.
One reason may be that the state Judicial Branch is spending millions that was intended to fund those reporters.
Those filing for civil court in California are required to pay a “court reporter fee” — part of the larger Uniform Civil Filing Fee collected across the state — but $6.5 million dollars last year went to other expenses, including basic costs like janitors.
“If it weren’t for the janitor then the court might not have stayed open in the first place,” said Zlatko Theodorovic, who oversees finances for the Judicial Council of California — the agency that runs and appropriates funding in courts across the state.
It’s perfectly legal according to government code, he said. The Judicial Council is allowed to take from the court reporter fund to make up for other budget shortages.
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) called the reappropriating of these funds unacceptable.
“If you are paying for something, you expect to get a service,” she said.
Placer County court reporter Pam Katros knows the problems all too well, she said.
She learned this month her job may be eliminated, as the county plans to privatize its court reporters for civil cases.
“It’s crazy, what’s happening,” she said.
CBS13 has learned layoffs are happening across the state from courts in San Francisco and San Diego to San Joaquin, Alameda, Ventura and Los Angeles counties — which have all laid off court reporters in the last year.
But litigants are still required to pay the court reporter fee in those courts — and if they want a record of what happens, they’ll have to hire their own reporter at their own expense.
Katros believes it could result in a two-tied system — those who can afford access to transcripts and those who cannot, she said.
“It’s not fair, and people are going to be hurt by this,” she said.
The Judicial Branch blames Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget — which cut Judicial Branch funding 15 percent this year.
“We wouldn’t have these problems if we didn’t have the money crunch,” Theodorovic said, adding that the agency only took about 20 percent of the total money generated by court reporter fees.
Because court reporter fees are mandatory, however, Ma believes court reporters should be the last thing to go — ensuring access to justice, she said.
“People should care whether their proceeding is going to be recorded or not recorded,” Ma said.
“It’s embarrassing to me,” Katros said. “To think that we’ve gotten to where we are.”
The Judicial Council told CBS13 it plans to continue taking some of that court reporter money to cover other budget cuts and will continue to charge those court reporter fees.
unionman575
September 28, 2012
And this one goes out to all the trial courts statewide…The Death Star just doesn’t get it…
The OBT
September 28, 2012
Welcome back Woodhull and thanks for raising this issue. The AOC budget projections for their court construction program are staggering. Almost 200 million in 2014-2015 ! That after spending over 160 million the previous fiscal year. The figures for debt service on these buildings is equally astounding with projections of up to over 221 million being paid a year for that. I really don’t understand how any of this works. Court employees in all 58 courts are losing their jobs. The economic ruin to each individually is staggering. The trial courts are shrinking in every way , cutting back on every aspect of service to the public. Those in the “tower” like the Chief and Justice Hull apparently are in denial about all this as they plow ahead with wasting hundreds of millions on a bunch of buildings. As Lando points out one has to wonder who exactly will be left to work in any of these overpriced monuments. One thing is for sure, no one at the crystal palace will ever act to reform this mess. We need the legislature to intervene and pass legislation now to redirect these courthouse construction funds to the trial courts. 160 million back to the trial courts will go along way to repairing the damage the Judicial Council and AOC has inflicted up to this point..
unionman575
September 29, 2012
“one has to wonder who exactly will be left to work in any of these overpriced monuments. ”
No one will be left after more mass layoofs to work in these new Taj Majal’s
disgusted
September 28, 2012
So, “Last fiscal year the shortage was $50million; the courts had to make up the difference. Thus, court reporter services are subsidized from other court funds. ” AND “Those filing for civil court in California are required to pay a “court reporter fee” — part of the larger Uniform Civil Filing Fee collected across the state — but $6.5 million dollars last year went to other expenses, including basic costs like janitors.
Are we to understand that court reporting fees go to the janitors and the janitor fees subsidize court reporter fees? I’m so confused. It’s like talking out of both ends of……………………..
disgusted
September 28, 2012
meant janitor “fund” not “fees” —
disgusted
September 28, 2012
DAN DYDZAK
September 29, 2012
Ms. Carol, don’t assume things so fast.
unionman575
September 29, 2012
Agreed Dan!
😉
unionman575
September 29, 2012
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/09/silence-on-the-line-.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+legalpad_feed+%28Legal+Pad%29
September 28, 2012
Silence on the line
[Cynthia Foster]
San Mateo Superior Court has $9 million in the bank, but court officials are announcing their intent to lay off court commissioners and shutter courtrooms all the same. If state funding to county courts doesn’t increase by July 2013, they say, they’ll have no choice but to make dramatic cuts that echo those already made by neighboring counties like San Francisco.
The proposed cuts, detailed in a press release circulated Thursday, include plans to shut six courtrooms and lay off all but one of the court’s seven commissioners.
According to new state law, courts are required to spend down any reserve funds by 2014, a point that is particularly sore with San Mateo Presiding Judge Beth Freeman.
“We saved that money; it’s not like an inheritance,” Freeman said in an interview Friday. “Those reserves allowed us to be an innovative court.”
According to Court Executive Officer John Fitton, San Mateo Superior “would’ve had a balanced budget if the cuts had not continued and deepened” during the last legislative session. Since the 2010-2011 fiscal year, Fitton said, the court’s revenue has dropped nearly $10 million.
Fitton said the court announced its budget cut proposal so far ahead of time in part to make the public aware of the court’s future financial straits before Californians vote on Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax plan in the November general election.
Freeman said although she believes the Administrative Office of the Court and Judicial Council have taken steps toward being better, more responsible advocates for trial court funding, “we haven’t gotten the results we wanted.” Like many other judges throughout the state, Freeman points to“mistakes” made by previous AOC administrations in spending decisions. When asked if she was referring to the court’s controversial efforts to centralize electronic court records through the computerized California Case Management System,
Freeman said unequivocally that she was.
“I have great respect for the direction the chief justice is going,” she said, “but I say that in full recognition that the AOC has made very serious misjudgments in the past.”
Both Fitton and Freeman said the cuts will have serious impact on citizens of the county. Fitton said that budget gaps are already noticeable around the court. In the traffic division, for instance, it formerly was“standard” for staff to pick up the phone by the third ring. Now, he says, the public waits up to 45 minutes to speak to someone, because court staff has shrunk 30 percent in four years.
“We used to take great pride” in picking up the phone, he said.
Now, court officials caution, there may be even longer silence on the line.
😉
courtflea
September 29, 2012
Ah, let them build the courthouses! I say take the money out of the AOC’s operating budget to fund the trial courts. Who needs em?
unionman575
September 29, 2012
Yeah who needs em?
😉
unionman575
September 29, 2012
http://www.nctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/budget-cuts-eliminate-many-court-stenographers/article_ddacd5c3-4dc8-5133-9d7f-bf51a04de821.html
Budget cuts eliminate many court stenographers
4 hours ago • Associated Press
The flying fingers of court-employed stenographers who type as fast as anyone can talk are being stilled in many California civil courtrooms as budget cuts force layoffs that could cost litigants extra money to hire private services.
The absence of the familiar figures typing rapidly on little machines is being felt in courthouses throughout the state. It doesn’t affect criminal cases, which require a written record, but could have a big impact on civil lawsuits.
Plaintiffs in business lawsuits or personal injury complaints may have to fork over thousands of dollars to hire private court reporters or risk having no written transcript, making an appeal impossible.
Early Langley, president of the California Court Reporters Association, said she believes drastic layoffs in courts across California will create a two-tiered justice system in which plaintiffs who can afford to hire their own court reporters gain an advantage over those who can’t.
“The integrity of the judicial process is at stake here,” Langley said, “with the average person no longer having access to equal justice.”
Court reporters are among the victims of cuts throughout the state justice system. Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature cut $350 million from the courts’ budget this fiscal year. Next year, additional cuts are threatened if voters don’t approve the governor’s November ballot initiative calling for tax increases to help plug an estimated $16 billion budget shortfall.
Courts have laid off clerks, closed courtrooms and even shuttered entire courthouses.
Litigants with smaller cases could be the biggest losers, having to pay for court reporters in cases with little potential for major damage awards.
Jeffrey A. Rudman a Los Angeles personal injury lawyer, said access to a court reporter may decide whether one of his clients goes forward with a relatively small case. He said some might resist paying $500 for a court reporter in a case that might net only a $1,500 court award.
“The whole thing is horrible,” he said. “It affects everyone going into a courtroom.”
Court reporter fees currently run $735 a day in San Francisco and $765 in Los Angeles. In complex litigation where lengthy transcripts are required for appeal, attorneys have already been dealing with large transcription fees. For the small trial, it is prohibitive.
In many of the new cases being filed, the plaintiffs will be responsible for hiring their own court reporters if they want a record of the trial. In complex long term cases, parties might agree to split the costs in order to ensure a record for appeal.
Some companies that provide stenography services already are reporting an uptick in work, but the layoffs could have bigger implications for a profession if technology replaces people, which is already being tried in some states.
New Jersey has already replaced reporters with digital recording devices in 400 courtrooms and other courts are experimenting with TV cameras to preserve trial records.
San Francisco courts have been without reporters for the past year and there has been an attempt to use digital audio recording in traffic and misdemeanor courts, spokeswoman Ann Donlan said. But state law does not allow recordings to replace court reporter-produced transcripts in most courts and appellate courts require a written transcript.
Langley said electronics can’t replace court reporters. She said some experts found that digital voice identification is imprecise and the human ear is needed to record who says what. Even a video camera can focus only on one person at a time.
“No one but the reporter is allowed to interrupt a witness and ask for a repeat if something is difficult to understand,” she said.
The issue could even affect judging the judges. The Commission on Judicial Performance warned that judicial misconduct accusations will be difficult to resolve without a written record. Cases in which judges were removed for misconduct were substantiated by written transcripts.
In Los Angeles, some 60 court reporters were laid off and another 60 were reduced to part-time positions, said Mary Hearn, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Free stenographers are available in law and motions courts for two half-day sessions each week in Los Angeles. It can take months to get a slot on that calendar. The often daunting process of filing civil litigation may become even more foreboding to the average person because of long delays waiting for a stenographer.
Karen Dalton, spokeswoman for the San Diego Superior Court, said they will cut 41 court reporters from a staff of 122 for an annual savings of $6 million.
Fresno has 36 stenographers remaining after laying off six and allowing another half dozen to share jobs.
“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Tamara Beard, court executive officer in Fresno, pointing out that that Fresno already has closed 11 courthouses and lost many of the employees who worked in them.
Some of those laid off in Los Angeles formed a private consortium to sell their services to attorneys.
Jeff Koller, general counsel and client services administrator for Hutchings Court Reporters in Los Angeles, said business has been up for his firm since the cutbacks started. Normally, he said, private services provide reporters for depositions, arbitrations and other out of court proceedings.
“We’ve already been getting calls for trials,” he said. “It’s a pretty steady flow.”
Wendy Darling
September 30, 2012
455 Golden Gate Avenue couldn’t care less about the loss of court reporters in the trial courts. Thinning the ranks weakens their union strength, and the less “records” there are of things, the better. It also gives current judicial branch administration the added bonus of a convenient spinning opportunity to blame the loss of court reporters on “unprecedented budget cuts.” And who controls the State budget? Why, that would be the State Legislature. So it’s really their fault. With nary an afterthought to the over half billion wasted on CCMS, the hundreds of millions more being misappropriated via OCCM, the BSA Audit Report, the SEC report, the procedural audit of OCCM, the mismanagement, the lack of oversight, the refusal to accept any responsibility, the lying, the game-playing with simple requests for routinely maintained information, the “culture of control,” or the rants against the legislature. Nope, none of that didn’t have anything to do with the “unprecedented” budget cuts to the judicial branch.
It’s all just so plainly simple, that you must see it: It’s really just all the State Legislature’s fault.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
September 29, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/jcmeetings.htm
Next Big Top Circus:
Thursday October 25, and
Friday October 26
courtflea
September 29, 2012
I am familiar with several smaller/medium size courts that use contract court reporters and in civil cases the court does not collect a reporting fee but requires the litigants to procure their own reporter. Outside of the layoffs which are horrible of course, this is not a new concept for some courts and it has worked quite well for reporters and the court alike.It gives the reporters a great deal of flexibility. And lets face it and it sucks but the judicial system in any type of case has been two tier e.g. OJ to joe blow trying to sue a big company with deep pockets. It is a very unfortunate reality. Many courts have never been able to provide court reporters for free because the limited number of cases they hear, the fees for court reporters would never pay for the cost of court reporters. So this is not a problem (that is fees for court reporters going to other areas (everywhere). Humm.
The OBT
September 30, 2012
This courthouse construction program is the next CCMS or Titanic for the insiders at 455 Golden Gate. How many court reporters , clerical staff and commissioners would 160 million pay for ? Ronald George’s vision of the branch has collapsed with the exception of the waste of billions on buildings. If this Judicial Council is so reform oriented, open and transparent everyone in the branch should ask them to reallocate the 160 million away from buildings and back to keeping the trial courts viable and our fellow employees employed .
unionman575
September 30, 2012
160 mil = at least 2000 trial court workers statewide are going out the door unemployed .
But who needs to be serviced on a daily basis in our trial courts? Our citizens!.
But getting the job done of dispensing justice on the front lines isn’t on the Death Star agenda. It’s all back slapping and political blow jobs.
😉
carol
September 30, 2012
Sorry Mr. Dydzak but a signed Order by a federal judge to transfer a case to a venue that it deems proper is not an assumption, it is a fact! Just like the Order deeming you to be a vexatious litigant that was filed the day before the DC judge sent your lawsuit back to the Central District for approval that if granted would require $5,000 per defendant per the vexatious litigant Order! Yikes!
Michael Paul
October 1, 2012
I saw that coming, though would the vexie deposits be imposed if the complaint was filed before the vexatious litigant order? I’m no lawyer but in lots of legal complaints you see a declaration as to why venue is proper and I didn’t see that as being a part of the complaint which would seem rather important under the circumstances with most respondents residing in California.
Also: Has he actually lost or failed to pursue his current Orange County case that was transferred to San Diego county and is it true that the case, when transferred, remains off-record outside of the computerized case management system? Has he met the threshhold for non-meritorious cases? I recall he was close.
courtflea
September 30, 2012
oy vay!
DAN DYDZAK
October 1, 2012
Carol, I am contesting various matters, including the transfer order. The Judge, it turns out, is personal friends with Eric Holder with her husband and has other conflicts of interest. You obviously are a plant for the AOC.
DAN DYDZAK
October 1, 2012
Michael, the Orange County case is active and was illegally transferred to sd. Second, I am contesting various matters. There were improper ex parte communications, and I don’t file vexatious lawsuits. It is all a set up at the OK corral. Matters are again being contested appropriately. Thank you.