Free speech continues to be one of the pillars that holds our democracy together. During the George \ Huffman years, there was no such thing as free speech in council meetings. Your comments needed to be submitted and pre-approved in advance of the public meeting. It’s called prior restraint and it is wrong for any government agency to engage in. In fact, it should be unlawful.
During the beginning of the Cantil-Sakauye administration they touted transparency and accountability and the Chief Justice suspended the title ten rules (10.6d and 10.6e) that insisted upon prior restraint. In case any of you haven’t already figured this out, those who have lost control of the message are out to regain control of the message. First, it was Justice Harry Hull who was tasked with intercepting certain public information requests and creating additional barriers to those requests by insisting that they be hand written with your signature and snail-mailed personally to him. Second, it was with this proposed new rule of court that suggests that speaking with anything but one voice is an ethics violation. Now, prior restraint of speech has returned to the star chamber.
The suspension of title ten rules has been lifted, prior restraint has returned and is alive and well in the star chamber just as the latest boondoggle over the long beach courthouse surfaces. But then again, ’tis the season for budget politics and we can’t permit any audience that might be inclined to speak with anything other than one voice because someone important might be listening.
While we agree that the new Chief Justice has been pummeled since she took office, it wasn’t free speech that did her in. What did her in was her continuing the policies of the former George administration and her insistence of keeping the same players on the field despite the overwhelming evidence that this bunch of yahoos has caused more damage to the court system than just about anyone else in the history of the California judiciary.
Nothing has changed in that regards. These yahoos continue to tarnish the reputation of the judiciary with the blessing of the Chief Justice. Attempting to clamp down on dissent hasn’t quieted us and it is us that has led the charge for meaningful reforms. We won’t be silenced until a democratically elected council indicates to us in writing that our services are no longer needed.
No, they don’t have to put such a request above their signature, they just have to make the request as a democratically elected body. Yes, we will accept an email request.
There is now a concerted assault on dissent in the judicial branch and for some reason they believe that this will work. After all, didn’t it work swell under AOC Watchers reign while they were blowing holes in King George? The prior restraint bit lent credibility to AOC Watcher and we can plainly see our readership numbers rise again as they clamp down on dissent.
It didn’t work the first time. All it did was anger people. And we would expect that it will anger people again as the Judicial Council returns to feverishly working to control the message. Do you see the pattern? What are your thoughts?
Related articles
- Chief appoints familiar faces to trial court budget working group (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Alliance special treatment to continue ?… and a conflicting message from Jahr (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Facts remain hidden in AOC power grab (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Using judicial ethics to silence dissent? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Chief Justice unveils new legislative strategy (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Cantil-Sakauye: These Handcuffs Are Great! (legalpad.typepad.com)
- Buying time in the hope that you’ll give up or forget has consequences (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
December 8, 2012
Let the free speech continue to flow here on JCW.
You are dong the right thing.
😉
unionman575
December 8, 2012
Recall Tani Organizing Committee (RTOC)
http://recalltani.wordpress.com/
😉
unionman575
December 8, 2012
Mills Lane: …All right, let’s get it on and get it decided!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0178146/quotes
unionman575
December 8, 2012
Even though I wouldn’t wipe my ass with this, here it is anyway…
😉
Click to access fillable-intake-form.pdf
unionman575
December 8, 2012
Dear Death Star: Open up the ENTIRE Business me to US ALL….
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA MEETINGS
Open to the Public Unless Indicated as Closed (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.6(a))
unionman575
December 8, 2012
Dear Death Star:
How about getting your December business meeting done in ONE day instead of TWO???
Thursday, December 13, 2012 • 1:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m.
Friday, December 14, 2012 • 8:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m.
unionman575
December 8, 2012
We aren’t bankers, we are working folks that work for a living.
I don’t have the luxury of relaxing like you humps up at the Death Star.
(Pardon my French).
😉
wearyant
December 8, 2012
They could do it in trial court hours – Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 6:00 pm when I last worked — yeah, I know, it’s been a while. I used to call ’em 7/11 hours. Just come on in anytime! Now the Death Star humps have gotten the hours all screwed up by starving the trial courts.
unionman575
December 8, 2012
Hey I trademarked the term “humps” Ant.
😉
wearyant
December 8, 2012
Imitation is a sincere form of flattery! 🙂
unionman575
December 8, 2012
So stipulated Ant.
unionman575
December 8, 2012
Another Friday night blue light express from the Death Star. Yall love doing this every Friday night…
My, my, my…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/20113.htm
Judicial Council to Consider Legislative Priorities
Print
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Teresa Ruano, 415-865-7738
December 7, 2012
Judicial Council to Consider Legislative Priorities for the Judicial Branch in 2013
Priorities include sufficient funding; proposals for court efficiencies, cost savings, and new revenue; and more judgeships
SAN FRANCISCO—At its public meeting on December 14, the Judicial Council will consider recommended legislative priorities for the judicial branch in 2013, which include opposing further budget cuts and advocating for 17 proposals for court efficiencies, costs savings, and new revenue.
Originally approved for sponsorship by the council in April, the 17 proposals were developed with input from presiding judges, court executive officers, and representatives of the California Judges Association and the Open Courts Coalition.
The legislative priorities—recommended by the council’s Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee—also include the continuing priority of securing new judgeships and ratifying the authority of the council to convert vacant subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships in eligible courts.
The council’s public meeting on December 14 is scheduled from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in the Judicial Council Conference Center, Hiram Johnson State Office Building, Third Floor, Ronald M. George State Office Complex, 455 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco. A live audiocast of the meeting will be on the California Courts website and the agenda and reports are posted online.
Other items on the council meeting agenda include:
Budget Update: The council will receive an update on the state budget and judicial branch funding.
Policy on Responding to Requests for Information and Records: The council will consider establishing a formal policy to guide staff from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in responding to public requests for information that is not contained in judicial administrative records, as such requests do not fall within the current AOC procedures for handling requests made under rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court.
Results of Traffic Ticket Amnesty Program: Legislation mandated that all 58 counties implement a one-time amnesty period—from January-June 2012— that allowed a lump sum payment of 50% of the outstanding balance on certain traffic violations to fully satisfy that court-ordered obligation. The council will receive a report on the program, which disposed of 42,245 cases and collected nearly $15 million.
Report on New Courthouses Completed: The statutorily mandated report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee discusses the 6 court construction projects that the AOC completed for the judicial branch during the reporting period of January 1, 2008, to January 1, 2013, delivering each under budget and saving the state nearly $29 million.
Update on Judicial Council-Approved Restructuring of AOC: The council will receive a progress report on its directive to restructure the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC); the directives for the AOC restructuring were developed by the council’s Executive and Planning Committee (E&P) and are based on the report by the Strategic Evaluation Committee (SEC).
Court Closures and Reduced Clerk’s Office Hours: Per its normal meeting procedures, the council will receive an updated report on which trial courts have been forced to close courtrooms or clerks’ offices or reduce clerks’ office hours on days that are not judicial holidays because of budget reductions. Since the last council report, the Superior Courts of Fresno, Mendocino, Plumas, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, and Yolo Counties have given notice of closures or reductions. A complete list of notices and other information on budget cuts to the courts are available online.
Distinguished Service Awards Presentation: As part of its public meeting next week, the council on December 13, will honor the recipients of its annual Distinguished Service Awards for significant and positive contributions to court administration in California. The council approved the winners at its October 25 meeting.
###
😉
wearyant
December 8, 2012
A barf pail is sorely needed whilst perusing this thoughtful missive from the Death Star!
Judicial Council Watcher
December 8, 2012
Gee a whopping 15 million out of 7 billion collected. That is what obscure amnesty created. Basically the only way you could find out if you were eligible is to show up and take a chance on having your ticket punched. Either those uncollected fines can continue to accumulate at a rate of 1-1.5 billion a year or someone should contemplate a far broader amnesty program.
What the legislature doesn’t quite understand is that the AOC has REMOVED JUDICIAL DISCRETION from the courtroom via the internal audits department and Mr. Judnick who audits courts for full boat conviction compliance thereby removing judicial discretion and creating a whopping large funding stream that might as well be monopoly money.
unionman575
December 8, 2012
wearyant
December 8, 2012
“… removing judicial discretion …” Yeah, it’s more apparent every day that the AOC’s JC prefers unquestioningly obedient marionettes to the pesky, thinking trial court judges. Kiosks would be preferred to human beings. So much easier to manage by the layers upon layers of AOC bloat.
unionman575
December 8, 2012
The AOC reorg reminds me of this…
unionman575
December 8, 2012
I LOVE THE REFERENCE TO LONG BEACH P3 BELOW: ”
The payments were to be appropriated from the state’s General Fund”
http://www.courts.ca.gov/20104.htm
More Cuts Possible to Court Construction Program
Print
FOR RELEASE
Teresa Ruano, 415-865-7738
PDF Version
December 6, 2012
More Cuts Possible to Court Construction Program
Dec 13 meeting to select additional projects that may have to be delayed
455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco (map)
SAN FRANCISCO—Faced with the potential for an additional $600 million shortfall to the courthouse construction budget, the Court Facilities Working Group will meet Thursday, Dec 13, to draft recommendations designating which of 23 courthouse projects should be indefinitely delayed.
Additional projects may need to be delayed because of an unexpected added burden on the judicial branch construction funds: the first payment for the Long Beach courthouse, scheduled to open in fall 2013. The judicial branch undertook the much-needed Long Beach project through legislation passed in 2007, authorizing a unique “performance-based infrastructure” project, with annual payments to start when the building is occupied by the court. The payments were to be appropriated from the state’s General Fund. However, with the state still facing a deficit, the burden of funding the construction, operation, and maintenance of this facility may shift to the account that funds SB 1407 projects. This change means that the judicial branch cannot proceed with upwards of $600 million in planned projects until the appropriation for Long Beach is resolved.
The draft recommendations will be posted for public comment following the meeting, and later presented to the Judicial Council for final action.
The meeting will be held from 9:00 A.M. to 12 P.M. in the Judicial Council Boardroom, located at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3688. The meeting is open to the public, however, there will be no time allocated for public comment. An agenda will be posted to the Court Facilities Working Group’s page on the California Courts website.
unionman575
December 8, 2012
The resolution is the JC has to PAY FOR LONG BEACH, NOT the General Fund.
Figure it out you humps.
Michael Paul
December 8, 2012
Call me blonde and ancient, I can live with that. Isn’t this group responsible for interpreting law? So like….. what law stated that the states’ general fund would make these payments because everyone I know looked far and wide and saw no such law.
Nathaniel Woodhull
December 8, 2012
The Rules of Court make clear that every Presiding Judge in each of the 58 Counties is PERSONALLY responsible for the finances of the Court under their control; (e.g. if a PJ authorized payments that exceeded the budget by $10,000, that PJ can be PERSONALLY liable for repayment of that money.) Why not add a similar rule making the Chief and members of the Judicial Council personally liable for their financial sc-ew-ups???
unionman575
December 8, 2012
I like that General.
unionman575
December 8, 2012
Click to access P3_110712.pdf
PAGE 12 TOP LEFT
New Risks From Complex Procurement Process. As discussed earlier, the procurement process for P3s is more complex than the procurement processes traditionally used for state infrastructure projects (such as design–bid–build and design–build). In addition to a project’s design, construction price, and schedule, under P3 approach, the government entity must also evaluate proposals based on financing, operations, and maintenance. In addition, P3 procurements can also involve complex negotiations between the government and the private developers who bid on the project. As a result, P3s can require the government to perform new activities and take on certain risks that it may not be experienced at handling. For example, if the state does a poor job of drafting agreements or fails to address relevant issues in these agreements, it could experience unexpected costs or receive lower levels of service than planned.
Page 15 TOP RIGHT
Revenue Source to Repay Financing. As discussed above, P3s require a revenue source to repay the financing provided by the private partner. Ideally, a project would have a dedicated revenue source (such as a toll or user fee) to repay the money borrowed from the partner. The government entity, however, could commit to make payments to the partner from government funding sources, such as tax revenues.
PAGE 18 BOTTOM LEFT
Long Beach Courthouse Selection Was Problematic. According to AOC staff, the Long Beach courthouse project was selected as a P3 candidate based primarily on two criteria: (1) it was one of the largest court construction projects considered at that time and (2) the Long Beach area has a competitive market for the type of property management staff needed to operate a P3. Similar to the selection of the Presidio Parkway project, the selection process for the Long Beach courthouse project did not include much of the recommended best practice criteria. For example, the selection process did not evaluate whether the project is technically complex. While the ideal level of complexity for a P3 is difficult to define in specific terms, the Long Beach courthouse project lacks unique or complex features that would likely benefit from innovative design and construction techniques. Accordingly, our analysis indicates that if AOC utilized best practice criteria in its selection process, the Long Beach courthouse project would have been found to be inappropriate for P3 procurement.
PAGE 19 BOTTOM RIGHT
Assumptions in Long Beach Courthouse Analysis Favored P3. Some of the key assumptions in the VFM analysis of the Long Beach courthouse that tended to favor P3 procurement include:
Unjustified Tax Adjustment. Similar to the Presidio Parkway project, the VFM analysis for the Long Beach courthouse project included a $232 million adjustment to account for increased tax revenues that would be paid for by the private developer under the P3 approach. A major component of this adjustment reflects revenues from federal taxes. Since additional federal tax revenues would not directly benefit the state, there appears to be little to no justification for increasing the cost of using a traditional procurement approach to reflect the federal taxes that would be paid by a private developer.
Overstated Cost Overruns. The VFM analysis assumed that using AOC’s more traditional procurement approach of construction manager at risk—rather than a P3 procurement approach—would result in construction cost overruns for the Long Beach courthouse project totaling $128 million (about 30 percent of the project’s estimated cost). However, given that AOC has procedures in place to prevent such cost overages and has not experienced them with recent court construction projects, this assumption has the effect of overstating the cost of the project under a construction management at risk approach.
Leasing of Additional Space. The AOC’s VFM analysis assumes that under the P3 approach, the courthouse project would include space that would initially be leased by the private developers to other entities, but could eventually be used by the court. The VFM analysis also assumes this additional space would be needed by the court in Long Beach in the future, and builds the cost of leasing this additional space into its estimates. This factor adds $260 million in costs to a traditional procurement of the Long Beach courthouse project, but only $69 million to the cost of the P3. The higher cost under a traditional approach assumes that a separate building would be leased and that the leased building would need substantial modifications. The analysis for the traditional procurement also assumes increased costs for security officers to monitor the leased building. While there is some basis for estimating a higher cost for the potential need to lease additional space under a traditional procurement approach, the AOC has not conclusively demonstrated that all of this additional space would be needed by the court in Long Beach. Moreover, AOC’s other courthouse construction projects ordinarily do not include this kind of extra space.
Project Completion. The AOC–s VFM analysis assumes that it would take 14 months longer to complete the Long Beach courthouse under construction manager at risk procurement than as a P3 project. Accordingly, the analysis uses different timelines to discount the costs of the project under each type of procurement. The way the VFM analysis adjusts for these assumed differences in timing effectively increases the cost of a traditional procurement in net present value terms. However, it is not evident that such a procurement would necessarily take 14 months longer—especially in view of the considerable flexibility state law gives AOC with respect to its construction contracting methodology.
……
PAGE 21 TOP LEFT
Our analysis indicates that utilizing a different set of assumptions than those discussed above (such as excluding the assumed federal tax adjustment and leasing costs) would result in the cost of the Long Beach courthouse project being less—by as much as $160 million in net present value terms—in the long run under a traditional procurement approach than the chosen P3 approach.
wearyant
December 8, 2012
Thanks for posting, Unionman575. It sets out so painfully and clearly for even the simplest mind that the AOC’s JC has no business attempting to develop software and/or any type of building construction. The AOC shouldn’t dare to undertake the construction of an outhouse in the wilderness.
unionman575
December 8, 2012
IAnt – just stumbled across the next AOC construction project..
wearyant
December 8, 2012
The redneck outhouse is too complicated for the AOC, Unionman575, in spite of your helpful video. When we went way, waaaayyyyy down south in Baja in the 60s, the privy was handled perhaps simply enough for these construction lightweights. Find the spot. Dig a deep, round hole in the ground. One of the campers should have brought the cardboard box from their latest delivery of their largest appliance, preferably a refrigerator. Using an x-acto knife or something similar, cut a flap for a doorway. Set this box over the hole. Voila! The community outhouse! Happily, these directions are not trademarked or copyrighted so the AOC is welcome to block, copy and paste for their next construction project! You’re welcome, AOC. Don’t say I never gave you anything, luvs.
unionman575
December 9, 2012
Ant, the AOC still would need to do an RFP for a shovel and a box.
The outhouse project might come in at 2 million and that doesn’t count site acquisition or architectural cost’s
😉
courtflea
December 8, 2012
Ya think the AOC would get it in writing that the funds for Long Beach would come from the general fund.. but noooooo. What kinda lawyers do they have in the OGC? How many times are these idiots going to get stuck holding the bag?! Oh excuse me, the trial courts!
unionman575
December 8, 2012
as WE stnad here holding the BAG…
Perhaps the AOC could benefit from a little de-cluttering by tossing the top 30 in the agency…that would only be the start…
😉
unionman575
December 8, 2012
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=newssearch&cd=7&ved=0CDkQqQIoADAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kpbs.org%2Fnews%2F2012%2Fdec%2F03%2Fhow-cuts-san-diego-county-courts-are-affecting-fam%2F&ei=6MzDUL-aLoXaigKJ3YCADg&usg=AFQjCNHAAqteHsBS5H0CvbHASCv0PkJOXA
Cuts To San Diego County Courts Are Affecting Families
Monday, December 3, 2012
By Maureen Cavanaugh, Patty Lane, Peggy Pico
unionman575
December 8, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/california-democratic-supermajority_n_2237991.html
“Also, there is going to be pressure to restore some of the cuts we have made to the courts and medical and social services,” Lowenthal said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_Lowenthal
http://asmdc.org/members/a70/
unionman575
December 8, 2012
BONNIE PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Now is the time to step up for Justice!
unionman575
December 8, 2012
And now a word from Judge Rosenberg land and it’s NOT looking too good Dave
Yolo court system struggles with less money, more cases
By STEVE BASHA
Created: 12/05/2012 12:32:51 AM PST
Since becoming responsible for daily oversight of Yolo Superior Court operations earlier this year, I have come to three conclusions. First, we have an extraordinary court administration and staff. Despite crushing budget setbacks from the State, they continue to provide excellent assistance to the public as well to as to the judicial officers.
Our staff works hard to serve our community even though the State has cut our budget 35 percent over the last few years. This has meant a 30 percent reduction in overall staff and a 50 percent reduction in civil process staff.
During this same period, our workload has not decreased. New case filings average 40,000 each year and staff handles on average 75,000 telephone inquiries each year. Added to these duties are the numerous responsibilities that staff carries out for courtroom proceedings each day. All judicial officers join me in extending our heartfelt thanks to our court administration and staff for their continued excellent work.
Funding reductions are not unique to the Yolo Superior Court. All 58 superior courts in California have experienced significant funding cuts by the State over the last several years severely impacting each court’s operations. Even with these cuts, we can go forward with the construction of our new courthouse because the monies to pay for that construction come from additional court “user fees” which by law that cannot be used for a court’s operations.
Second, ongoing cuts means we cannot sustain the same level of services that we provided when we were fully staffed and funded. On occasion, members of the public have been directly impacted by the reductions with longer lines at filing windows, longer telephone holds, and other delays in accessing Court services. We know that this is frustrating for the public — and for us. We are now installing a civil filing drop box and a date/time stamp to enable same-day filing of civil documents for those who cannot wait in line.
We sincerely regret any inconvenience to the public and we are constantly looking for better ways to do our work with fewer resources. As we continue to do just that, we ask for your patience and understanding.
Third, the Yolo Court is committed to meeting its legal requirement to provide fair and equal access to all who use our services. This means that the Court cannot favor one group of users over another. We must provide the same level of access to all.
The judicial officers of the Yolo Superior Court understand our responsibilities to the public. We are dedicated to meeting these responsibilities as best we can with the continued extraordinary work of Court administration and staff in collaboration with our justice partners. We thank you, the public, for understanding the situation.
— Steven M. Basha is presiding judge for the Yolo Superior Court.
unionman575
December 8, 2012
http://www.citywatchla.com/8br-hidden/4132-save-the-court-the-contract-to-provide-local-justice-still-stands
Save the Court: The Contract to Provide Local Justice Still Stands
James Preston Allen
30Nov2012
😉
unionman575
December 8, 2012
http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/kings-superior-court-plans-closures-this-holiday-season/article_9780aa84-3068-11e2-8890-0019bb2963f4.html
Court officials have already implemented furloughs, layoffs, salary freezes and court closures to help deal with the state budget crisis.
In a press release, staff called this “the most severe fiscal crisis that the Court has experienced…
unionman575
December 8, 2012
LET’S REVIEW THIS FUCKED UP SET-UP…WHAT’S WRONG????
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2012 AGENDA
All times are estimates
Public comment, on general issues of judicial administration or on specific agenda items, is accepted for Judicial Council business meetings. To present your views to the council, please refer to the business meeting agenda for specific instructions.
Meeting materials will be hyperlinked to agenda titles as soon as possible after approval by the Executive and Planning Committee. Time is estimated. Actual start and end times may vary
NON-BUSINESS MEETING – CLOSED (RULE 10.6(A) AND 10.6(B) – EDUCATIONAL MEETING AND PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSIONS)
Session 1:00-3:15 p.m.
Break 3:15-4:30 p.m.
OPEN MEETING
OPEN MEETING (RULE 10.6(A)) EDUCATIONAL MEETING (ITEM 1)
Item 1 4:30-6:00 p.m.
Judicial Council Distinguished Service Awards and Benjamin Aranda Award for 2012 (No Action Required. There are no materials for this item.)
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2012 BUSINESS MEETING
8:30-8:35 Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the October 25 – 26, 2012, meetings.
8:35-8:45 a.m. Chief Justice’s Report
8:45-8:55 a.m. Administrative Director’s Report
8:55-9:15 a.m. Judicial Council Committee Presentations
9:15-9:45 a.m. Public Comment
[See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 10.6(d) and 10.6(e).]
• Written Comments Received
wearyant
December 8, 2012
Item K Judicial Branch Report to the Legislature: Court Facilities Construction Procurement Practices (Action Required)
The AOC recommends that the Judicial Council direct the AOC to submit a report on Judicial Branch Construction Procurement Practices to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) by January 15, 2013, to meet Government Code section 70403(d) statutory reporting requirements. The report to the JLBC discusses the six projects that the AOC completed for the judicial branch during the reporting period of January 1, 2008, to January 1, 2013, delivering each under budget and saving the state nearly $29 million.
Mr. Curtis L. Child, Chief Operating Officer, Judicial and Court Operations Services Division
Mr. Robert Emerson, Judicial Branch Capital Program Office
Ms. Kelly Quinn, Judicial Branch Capital Program Office
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The AOC is alleging that their six projects were delivered under budget and saved California nearly $29 million ?? !! I’m looking forward to hearing this fairytale.
And Willoughby will be appearing later? More excitement. He always looks so jovial, had a huge smile, grinning ear to ear at the last joint legislative subcommittee hearing I watched on CalChannel. He looks like nothing is going to ruin his day …
Michael Paul
December 8, 2012
Mr. Emerson, Willoughby & Co were going to spend 25 million dollars on a one room courthouse. If they actually spent half that amount of money according to their account they will have saved the judicial branch 12.5 million dollars but would have still spent a few million more than it should have cost.
Carry on with the gut wrenching awards ceremony….
.
unionman575
December 8, 2012
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=70001-71000&file=70402-
70403. (d) On or before January 1, 2007, and on or before each January 1,
thereafter, the Judicial Council shall submit a report to the budget
and fiscal committees of the Legislature based on the information
received from counties pursuant to this section, including any
amounts required to be repaid by counties.
courtflea
December 8, 2012
I thought these clowns were leaving the AOC????
wearyant
December 9, 2012
Oh, Flea, you know how they can’t bring themselves to leave, they darken the hallways for weeks and even months, they’re the (??!!) gift that just keeps on giving!
Judicial Council Watcher
December 9, 2012
The notification of their alleged departure came in an anonymous message window and was disclosed as unverified.
Peppermint Pattie
December 8, 2012
Twas Just Days Before Christmas
Twas just days before Christmas, when all through the AOC’s house
Every creature was stirring, and slumming about.
The stockings that hung round the Council dais were bare,
With none of the General Fund money the Council had counted on to be there.
The AOC goose-steppers all marched with a feeling of dread,
While fears of indictments danced in their heads.
With the Chief Justice in denial, and Jahr taking a nap,
Everyone waited for their Kool-Aid night cap.
When from Sacramento there arose such a clatter,
Even Jahr woke from his nap to see what was the matter.
The message from the Governor came like a flash,
The worst news of all – there would be no more cash.
The Chief Justice would twitter to Steinberg this was a low blow,
After all, the Legislature had promised this dough.
When, what to her wondering eyes should occur,
But the Governor and the Legislature not keeping their word!
Sure, the Chief Justice had pouted, and cursed, and shaken a stick,
At the other two branches of government, and had been quite quick
To lay at their doorsteps all of the blame,
And, in a tantrum, called them out by their name.
So branch leadership is incompetent, mismanages the branch,
Fails to plan, and generally are jerks,
But the Governor and the Legislature should know,
This is just the way politics works.
So what if we build overpriced palaces for which there’s no money,
While courthouses shutter, and courtrooms sit empty.
So what if we’ve sold the trial courts down the river,
That they’re closing their doors shouldn’t cause such a dither.
Patel, Soderlund, and Child are wonderful folks,
Top notch administrators that thought up this joke.
All they need is more money to turn things around,
With no questions asked, and no accountability to be found.
The Chief Justice is impatient, and keeps stamping her foot,
This is her branch to ruin, and everyone just needs to get used to it.
Democratizing the Council won’t happen under her rule,
And anyone who disagrees with her is naught but a fool.
So what if we’ve lied, if we’ve embezzled, if our ethics are gone,
It’s none of the Governor’s or the Legislature’s, business if we’ve done anything wrong.
Don’t do as we do, just do what we say,
And all of the problems in the judicial branch will just go away.
Now all the chickens are coming home to roost
But the ghosts of George, Vickrey, and Overholt still stink up the coop.
The untended sewage fills the air with such a stench,
That the smell wafts out the building and around every bench.
At 455 Golden Gate Avenue, they couldn’t care less,
That all their dishonor has left the branch in a mess.
After all, what’s to be done?
They can do what they want, and answer to no one.
Now they’ll spring to their parachutes, and to PERS give a whistle,
And away they’ll all disappear like the down of a thistle.
But you’ll hear them all whine, as they all dive for cover,
“We only need enough money to just tide us over!”
unionman575
December 8, 2012
Very nice work Peppermint Pattie. Very nice indeed.
😉
wearyant
December 9, 2012
Great job, Peppermint Pattie! Let’s set both your renditions to a holiday melody and all JCWatchers could go caroling, say, around Sacto or perhaps the Death Star itself? Bwwaahhhhaaaahahaha!
wearyant
December 9, 2012
From the ADOC report for the upcoming festivities next week:
“AOC Office Space Reduction: The AOC has exercised its right to terminate the lease of the fourth floor space at its Sacramento office location. The reduction in space has resulted in a savings of $120,300.00 for fiscal year 2012–2013.”
=========================================================
What about the SEC recommendation that the AOC move to Sacramento from the high-priced San Francisco digs? Is the AOC saying by this, “Hell, no, we won’t go” ??
unionman575
December 9, 2012
Yes that is the message from Death Star HQ.
They are NOT going to relocate frm SF to SAC and close SF.
😉