Yesterdays official statement from the Obama administration on the Death Star titled “This Isn’t the Petition Response You’re Looking For,” was written by Paul Shawcross, chief of the science and space branch at the White House Office of Management and Budget. It comes in response to a “We the People” petition that called on the federal government to start building a “Star Wars”-style Death Star battle station by 2016.
Incoming message from the White House as translated by JCW
This Isn’t the Petition Response You’re Looking For
The Obama Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a U.S. taxpayer funded Death Star isn’t on the horizon. Here are a few reasons:
- The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. Since we’re looking to reduce the federal deficit and not expand it, this project is being undertaken by the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts as a public private partnership with Oracle, AGS, Deloitte, Jacobs Engineering Group, ABM, Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and most of the Carlyle Group as the latest in anti-social infrastructure / pay as you destroy project.
- The Obama Administration does not support blowing up planets. This is another reason that the AOC took on the project because the Cantil-Sakauye administration doesn’t care what they destroy or what it costs – and neither does anyone else in state government.
- Why would we spend countless federal taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship when we have that bunch of can never be wrong people on the judicial council that won’t bat an eye at looking past the flaws and making this a California taxpayer expense?
- A new court fee assessment has been identified by the legislature to pay for this expenditure. This promising new fee seeks to provide the AOC with a million dollars for every twenty five dollars of penalty levied.
- Total taxpayer expense will be calculated when the project is 50% completed.
- The Judicial Council project sponsors for construction and technology development are Justices Bruniers and Hill. The project communications, transparency, accountability and efficiency sponsors are Justices Huffman and Hull.
- May god help us
Judicial Council Watcher 
Judicial Council Watcher
January 12, 2013
Whoops. It appears that this article is being spread worldwide as empirical proof of the great satan’s plans. Ladies and gentlemen of the world, this article is tongue in cheek. It is satire. It is not genuine.
unionman575
January 12, 2013
I got that JCW. Nice work!
😉
unionman575
January 12, 2013
Here we go..news from the land of “Hot Rod”…
Click to access 1-4-13%2C%20NOTICE%20TO%20ATTORNEYS%2C%20GEN%20ORD%20OF%20PRESIDING%2C%20PROCEDURES%20RE%20ELECTRONIC%20FILING.PDF
unionman575
January 12, 2013
Click to access cv307_NoticeToFilingPartyInfo-DV_CH.pdf
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
NOTICE RE UNAVAILABILITY OF REPORTING SERVICES
California Rules of Court 2.956(b) and (c)
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2013
Consistent with California Rule of Court 2.956(b), Govt. Code 70044, Local Rules 24 and the Court’s Notice of Availability of Court Reporting Services, this is to advise parties with DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CIVIL HARASSMENT matters, that court reporter services are not normally available for these hearings. 1 :
Parties may hire their own Certified Shorthand Reporter, at their own cost, to create an official record of their court proceedings. The Court does not make referrals; you may contact an outside deposition or reporting firm to arrange for this service.
For contested trials, parties intending to provide their own court reporter must notify the department and all parties at least 3 business days in advance of their hearing date.
In accordance with California Rule of Court 2.950 and Local Rule 24, parties arranging for the services of an outside reporter shall direct the court reporter to contact the court reporter manager in advance at courtreportercontact@contracosta.courts.ca.gov to provide required contact information.
Parties procuring outside court reporters should obtain and read the court’s written instructions packet on the protocols that must be followed, (available on our website, which may be downloaded free of charge). The instruction packet is also available at our forms window ($5.00 form packet fee applies), or from the assigned department when not in session.
unionman575
January 12, 2013
Click to access JBCM-RFP2012-03MediationServices-Civil.pdf
LAKE SUPERIOR COURT
REGARDING: Civil Mediation Services –ADR
Coordinator/Mediator
RFP #2012-03
PROPOSALS DUE:
01/22/2013 NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M. PACIFIC TIME
In the past the court received grant funding to establish and expand the Civil Mediation Program. The Court stopped receiving grant funds in 2012. Currently the Court is not receiving any grant funds or mediation funds from parties to help support the mediation program. The Court is concerned that with current and proposed future budget cuts the Court may not be able to support the program in the future. The Court is interested in the long term value of the Civil Mediation Program.
unionman575
January 12, 2013
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=_2fn_2fIGKaXInBZmPiMh9yOOA_3d_3d
Hmm…Let Marin CEO Kim Turner know how your “service” was if you vistied Marin Superior..
unionman575
January 12, 2013
http://www.stanct.org/
Welcome to the Stanislaus Superior Court
** NEW ** Public Notice re: Reduction in office hours: Effective February 4, 2013, Clerk’s Office counter/phone hours will be: 8:00 AM – 3:00 PM Mon. – Thurs. and 8:00 AM – 12:00 PM on Fridays. This change will not affect courtroom calendars or scheduling for hearing dates. Public comments regarding the announced change will be accepted until February 4, 2013, and should be directed to Jeanine Tucker, Operations Manager, at jeanine.tucker@stanct.org
Stuart Michael
January 12, 2013
JCW
Good satire
Too bad April Fool’s Day doesn’t come for a couple of months yet
Although on Civic Square it happens every day
And in D.C. also
courtflea
January 12, 2013
Well done JCW. But i can see why some would think it was real, knowing the players as we do!
courtflea
January 12, 2013
Yup the LA Times fell for it 😀
Alan Ernesto Phillips
January 12, 2013
.
Well done JCW…
William Shakespeare was responsible for the line
“Jesters do oft prove prophets…” in King Lear.
(As you all may recall, that was said by Regan in Act V scene iii.)
It’s good to see that our little, local streetwise, Blind Bulldog blog
foreshadowed your ‘Death Star Dreams’ lead – and, great creative! http://www.blindbulldog.com
A lot of truth CAN be found in jest…
I sure needed a laugh after the Tani-bedded Jack Halpin percolations…
Thanks again for the therapeutic boost, JCW
(You should be charging me by the hour! 😉
[Today is Day 673…]
.
unionman575
January 12, 2013
☺
Dr. Judicial Council Watcher
January 12, 2013
We’ve been contemplating a paypal donation link……
The boss says we give. We do not receive and turned us down.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 12, 2013
We were also told to lose the Dr. moniker… something about practicing therapy without medical malpractice insurance…
Reviewing the up and coming 2 hour judicial council meeting (brilliant! Governance in two hours, my how efficient they’ve become) it appears that the prior restraint bit to speak at judicial council meetings has been temporarily lifted again. How considerate… How about something novel like, say, permanently changing the rule of court that requires prior restraint in the first place and show a little good faith?
unionman575
January 13, 2013
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-0113-sunday-courts-budget-20130113,0,5073766.story
Letters: Denying justice to California
January 13, 2013
Re “Brown’s budget maps out major changes,” Jan. 10
Judicial Council Watcher
January 13, 2013
Simply put, the pendulum of being co-equal swings in both directions. Any media consultant will tell you that whomever dreamed up this co-equal defense of branch funding is getting what they’ve advocated. It’s time to move away from that argument and find a steady, reliable source of court funding. *edited: This was not directed at anyone in particular making this argument. It is directed at everyone making this argument. Be careful of what you ask for because you just might get it.