In the completely misguided belief that they’ve had their time for studies, that the audits have concluded, that over 500 judges had their say and most important – all that concerns you is merely water under the bridge, it is being alleged and there is some evidence of it that while layoffs continue in the trial courts, the hiring binge has resumed over at the AOC.
One way that the hiring binge has resumed is that they’re now trying to onboard over a hundred contractors and consultants that have been recently identified by us and others in addition to putting out job vacancy announcements utilizing linkedin for HR positions, ‘company confidential’ listings for IT personnel and various listing methods for attorneys.
With Jahr at the helm and a reorganization that is alleged to last eighteen months and “a sea of change” already alleged by Jody Patel, AOC employees themselves view the current reorg as rearranging the deck chairs in an effort to continue to protect those who are and have been less than ethical and promoting them instead of terminating them. Just as many of us are bewildered that the charade persists and no one has been held accountable for anything, AOC employees are equally as bewildered.
So what do you think? Should we be just dismissing all that has gone on as water under the bridge when poor planning by the central bureaucracy continues to shut down courthouses, hundreds of courtrooms and results in layoffs of thousands of employees? Is this serving justice to continue to play the water under the bridge charade? To continue to pretend that all we have is a series of responsible management decisions that critics and whistleblowers interfered with? To just stand by as our current chief justice attempts to use her charms to suggest that the judicial branch needs to be manipulating legislators? To have entirely new barriers erected to accessing public information courtesy of justice Hull?
If we were to measure transparency and accountability on a sliding scale of 1 to 100 with 100 representing a responsible government agency, a year ago they would have been sitting with a grade of about 35. Today that’s more like 20.
And yet we’re supposed to trust them, to back them up with the full faith and credit of the entire judiciary and to speak with one voice?
unionman575
October 21, 2012
More fine work JCW.
We need a total house cleaning up at the Death Star. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and doing business as usual won’t cut it
unionman575
October 21, 2012
Next big top circus meeting agenda:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121026-agenda.pdf
😉
courtflea
October 21, 2012
No way. I would recommend that during a hiring freeze any hiring that must be done at the AOC be put before the full JC with the appropriate justification and budget inpact for approval. This is a very easy thing to do and it will lend credibility to the JC that they are exercising control over the AOC. I mean like is Tani totally deluded or what? If she started doing even small stuff like that she might get some folks to come on board. Ah, if I were only king for a day 😉
Wendy Darling
October 21, 2012
Won’t. Be. Fooled. Again.
YoloanR
October 22, 2012
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE HOLLY FUJIE ACCUSED OF MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS, MONEY LAUNDERING
A former partner of Los Angeles-based Buchalter Nemer — who California Governor Jerry Brown appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court bench under questionable circumstances involving his cousin, former California Public Utility Commissioner Geoff Brown — is accused in federal court of committing myriad financial crimes and acts of fraud.
Documents filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reveal that Holly Fujie of Los Angeles allegedly engaged in predicate acts of racketeering through and by means of money laundering, mail and bank fraud, as well as conversion of funds.
The lawsuit, filed as a civil-racketeering action by Marina Del Rey-based community activist Daniel Dydzak, also names as a defendant Bet Tzedek Legal Services of Los Angeles and Eric George — the son of the controversial former chief justice of California, Ronald George.
Both Holly Fujie and Eric George were directors of Bet Tzedek, an entity which obtained millions of dollars from the various trusts funds maintained and operated by the State Bar of California, as well as funds from the California Bar Foundation, where Holly Fujie presently serves as the vice-president.
Both the State Bar of California and the California Bar Foundation are under the direct control of the California Supreme Court.
The various legal trust funds maintained by the State Bar of California are overseen by the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission where, coincidentally, Holly Fujie also served as director.
Heading the commission is David Lash of O’Melveny & Myers, another lawyer who is a director of Bet Tzedek, and Bonnie Rubin of 1st Century Bank — a bank owned by former president of the State Bar of California Alan Rothenberg. Coincidentally, Eric George is part owner of 1st Century Bank.
Dydzak alleges in his lawsuits that part of the millions originated from the State Bar of California and its foundation headed to Bet Tzedek were embezzled by the various actors and were siphoned to off shore bank accounts.
Bet Tzedek is headed by CEO Sandor “Sandy” Samuels — former Chief Trial Counsel at embattled Countywide Financial Services — who according to Dydzak was appointed President and CEO of Bet Tzedek largely due to his working knowledge of how to operate an enterprise which engages in myriad financial crimes.
According to confidential sources familiar with the situation, Dydzak filed the suit in Washington DC, because he is extremely concerned that given the caliber of the defendants and the fact that they are in control of the justice system in California, they will seek to injure him in various ways, including in seeking to somehow derail the suit.
According to these sources, Tom Layton, investigator from the State Bar of California who is well connected with Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca, in the past paid a visit to Dydzak’s neighborhood, and sought to convince his neighbors to falsely accuse Dydzak of various acts of misconduct, including providing improper and unlawful legal counsel.
Denise
October 22, 2012
Why not go back to the days pre-AOC. It wasn’t really broke and I never saw why it needed fixing.
unionman575
October 23, 2012
That’s the ticket Denise!
😉
Delilah
October 23, 2012
Study: Hundreds More Judges Needed Statewide, but Some Bay Area Courts Overstaffed
By Cheryl Miller
The Recorder
October 22, 2012
SACRAMENTO — California needs 264 more bench officers than it has now to properly handle the state’s legal caseload, a study released Friday by the Judicial Council has concluded.
(Requires premium access)
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121026-item2.pdf
Insanity. I find the timing of this very curious.
JusticeCalifornia
October 23, 2012
Open courts and staff to serve the judges CA already has would ease the state’s legal caseload. If at least $500 million had not been wasted on a failed computer debacle, and untold millions/billions more wasted on outrageously expensive courthouses and courthouse maintenance, the money could have gone to implementing trial court efficiencies that would have eased the state’s legal caseload. Focusing on serving the public as opposed to amassing power and perks for the cj/jc/aoc and assorted other Team George cheerleaders would ease the state’s legal caseload. Focusing on getting it right instead of spending precious branch dollars defending and covering for those very many who got it wrong would ease the state’s legal caseload.
Delilah
October 23, 2012
JusticeCalifornia,
Have you or others actually taken a look at the agenda items for the upcoming JC meeting?
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121026-agenda.pdf
Page 19: INFO 3 Family Law: Court Employed Child Custody Mediators’ Working Files
At the request of the Judicial Council, the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee has prepared this informational report on policy considerations related to the retention and destruction of the working files of court-employed child custody mediators, sometimes referred to as family court services files. The committee makes no recommendation for council action on this issue at this time.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121026-info3.pdf
Alarm bells, anyone?
Michael Paul
October 24, 2012
Reading the report it appears to derail legislative intent for whatever reason. It’s not unreasonable to retain these records until the youngest child is eighteen. In the interests of transparency, accountability and most importantly, the best interests of the child(ren), they should be retained.
JusticeCalifornia
October 24, 2012
Delilah,
Darlin, believe me, I (and others) are on it.
Read the written comments that will be submitted related to this subject, and listen tomorrow to the public comments.
JusticeCalifornia
October 26, 2012
The report by the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee assigned to make recommendations to the Judicial Council about retention of child custody evidence contained in family court mediation working files suggested that the Judicial Council do absolutely NOTHING to safeguard that evidence, or to keep it available for use by mediators and parents to support or challenge a child custody mediation recommendation. In contrast to the Judicial Council’s normal “uniformity is our motto” stance, and notwithstanding the statutory mandate that the Judicial Council provide uniform rules for custody mediation procedures, this committee suggested that each county could implement whatever procedure it wanted to regarding retention or destruction of child custody evidence gathered and utilized by recommending mediators to prepare custody recommendations, and that virtually any person at all could make the decision about what to do with this child custody evidence.
The opposition to the report was addressed in written comments 7, 9 and 12:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121026-comments.pdf
and also in the public comment period of yesterday’s Judicial Council meeting.
Sakauye started the meeting by reminding everyone that if someone brings a problem about the branch to the Judicial Council, it has an obligation to fix it.
Most Judicial Councilmembers seemed genuinely engaged while listening to the somber public comments on this subject. The speakers urged that the working files be kept until a child turns 18.
Let’s see if Tani Cantil Sakauye and the Judicial Council walk their talk, and take prompt steps to uniformly safeguard information crucial to protecting children, affording parents their due process rights, and enabling mediators to properly do their jobs.
Wendy Darling
October 26, 2012
“Let’s see if Tani Cantil Sakauye and the Judicial Council walk their talk, and take prompt steps to uniformly safeguard information crucial to protecting children, affording parents their due process rights, and enabling mediators to properly do their jobs.”
[Crickets chirping at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.]
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
October 24, 2012
Isn’t it ironic that we need 264 new bench officers but we don’t need the full court set that includes support employees that would enable these new bench officers to function? It’s also ironic to hear that while a couple hundred judges are sidelined without courtrooms or staff that they would add a couple hundred more sidelined bench officers to the mix.
buddy
October 24, 2012
At the superiors meeting a week ago they specifically said no more layoffs. They don’t plan on following the SEC after all. OCCM people have nothing to do and the 8th floor of the AOC cannot be leased now because of overstaffing. OGC was also slated for big cuts, but I guess we need more lawyers doing nothing, as well. Did anyone actually believe an old man from Shasta was going to make any real changes other than being the Chief’s lapdog? Especially with giving Jody and Curt promotions? The divisions make no sense, but what’s new. When does the AOC ever make any sense, regardless of who is in charge?
Michael Paul
October 24, 2012
From the announcement of the new SEC members coming on board as JC members, I knew that the SEC report was doomed and that reform in any form would not be visiting the AOC.
Loose lips sink ships and that’s why you won’t be seeing anybody with the title of manager or above getting the axe and those same loose lips at non-managerial levels could do a whole lot of damage just leaking misdeeds.
From talking to other AOC employees, the only thing that’s changed is the structure at the very top and everything else remains the same as when I worked there. The general consensus is that this is all a charade to placate outsiders and that no misappropriation of tens of millions of dollars siphoned off through improper and conflict-of-interest contracting with public funds ever occurred.
Some just collect a big paycheck and others collect more……
unionman575
October 24, 2012
Loose lips sink ships…
Been There
October 24, 2012
Buddy, do you have a guesstimate as to how many AOC employees (excluding temps) were actually laid off or took an early retirement buy out?
Anonymous.
October 25, 2012
Where do you get your facts that the attorneys do nothing or that OGC did not have cuts? Please advise.
Justice Barbra
October 25, 2012
Simply from a distance … the Chief seems to be acting as if she is Chair of Toastmasters International. Ron George was best buddies with Schwarzenegger, and allowed the Deloitte fiasco with Ming Chin, but at least in public he tried to come across as a reasoned and scholarly justice. There is a large and looming sense internally, statewide, even nationally, that there is no mechanism to restore the California judiciary. The analysis by Michael Paul appears to be correct – the SEC Report is being shelved and the fat cadre of managers, lawyers, directors and assistant directors are all maintaining their excessive salaries.
fifthamendment
October 26, 2012
If those laid off were truly laid off due to the “budget crisis” why aren’t they offerred their positions back before new hiring takes place?. Aren’t they on State surplus??
Been There
October 26, 2012
I don’t think so, fifthamendment. Judicial branch employees are not civil service and are “at will” employees. That is why job (in)security is a huge factor at the AOC — they can terminate you without cause at any time.
Wendy Darling
October 26, 2012
“They can terminate you without cause at any time” . . . and do so to line staff with abandon, especially if an employee dares to file a complaint, even about workplace violence. Embezzle public funds at the AOC? For that you don’t fired, or even prosecuted. Instead, you get a payoff in exchange for your signature on a confidentiality agreement. Get hit at work at the AOC and file a complaint about it? Now, for that the AOC runs behind their “at will” status and terminates the employee who complains.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.